Sens. Warren and Sanders voted against funding Obama's War.

[morningfog]

Thank you to both Senators, as well as the other 20 who saw the foolishness of this war.

The big fight will come in December when Obama seeks an AUMF in Syria. It is bad enough we are back in Iraq and funneling billions of dollars to Syrian rebels, but blocking direct military action in Syria is critical.

[99Forever]

1. K&R

[newfie11]

2. K&R!!!!!!!!!!

[meegbear]

3. Let's thank ALL 22 of them ...

well, most of them anyways.

Baldwin (D-WI)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Begich (D-AK)
Brown (D-OH)
Coburn (R-OK)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Enzi (R-WY)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Heller (R-NV)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lee (R-UT)
Manchin (D-WV)
Markey (D-MA)
Moran (R-KS)
Murphy (D-CT)
Paul (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sanders (I-VT)
Sessions (R-AL)
Warren (D-MA)

[morningfog]

5. All 2016 presidential candidates from the senate can be found

on that list.

Support for the Syrian war will not be a viable position in 2016. We will be three years into an unwinnable, costly quagmire by then with no exit strategy.

[tridim]

7. Are you psychic?

[Enthusiast]

94. One does not have to be a psychic to see that this action will become

an unwinnable, costly quagmire with no exit strategy.

We knew it when Bush did it.

[daleanime]

100. Hardy....

anyone can see that coming, especially presidential hopefuls.

[rhett o rick]

152. Why don't you tell us whether you support Pres Obama's wars? Or is it easier to

post silly questions like, "Are you psychic?"

[NealK]

158. OFFS.

[kag]

14. Of course neither of my TWO DEMOCRATIC SENATORS...

are on that list. Sigh.

On the bright side, it looks like Obama finally got that bipartisanship he's always wanted.

[meegbear]

15. Warren and Markey

[stevenleser]

21. See my #20 below. They are not against the war. They are against arming Syrian rebels. nt

[meegbear]

26. Thank you for the info ...

does put a different light on the topic.

[stevenleser]

47. You're welcome! Here is a link to the full text of the bill...

http://www.rpc.senate.gov/legislative-notices/h-j-res-124_continuing-appropriations-resolution-2015

[FrodosPet]

133. Warren wants action against ISIS, and monitoring of Americans travelling overseas

She just does not want to be reckless about it.

-----------------------------------------------------

http://thehill.com/policy/international/216559-warren-destroying-isis-should-be-our-no-1-priority

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) on Wednesday said that the Obama administration should make defeating the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) its top priority.

"ISIS is growing in strength. It has money, it has organization, it has the capacity to inflict real damage. So when we think about a response we have to think about how to destroy that," Warren told Yahoo's Katie Couric.

~ snip ~

Asked about the dozens of Americans who have reportedly joined ISIS, Warren noted that the U.S. should be "stepping up our efforts to track where people go when they leave the United States."

"The terrorists have moved, and we have to move in response," she said, adding part of that "means we're going to have to change in fundamental ways how we monitor our citizens when they go abroad."

~ snip ~

[sir pball]

221. Sigh. So we need to repeal Carter's EO 12036.

The EO also expanded the U.S. ban on assassination by closing "loop-holes" and stating "No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination." This ban on assassination would be restated in Executive Order 12333.

If we wish to eliminate these problematic groups without widespread military action...we need to find, target and ASSASSINATE their leaders and likely members.

Sometimes it's not a bad thing. Then again, I can see grey.

[davidpdx]

18. That lists prooves

Politics makes strange bedfellows

[stevenleser]

46. Considering the vote was to only arm Syrian rebels, there are plenty of reasons to be wary of it

no matter your ideology. This is all confusing because the text in the OP is completely misleading. Pretty much every Democratic politician is behind the President on using airstrikes against ISIS, including Sanders, Warren, etc.

Even Jimmy Carter came out in favor of attacking ISIS yesterday.

[davidpdx]

104. Jimmy Carter did?

Wow, that is pretty shocking.

[morningfog]

128. He said he thinks we should attack ISIS and

That our coalition should include someone putting in ground troops.

[n2doc]

80. List of the brave. Bravo n/t

[BrotherIvan]

98. This list shows why, as a Californian, I do not support Boxer for re-election

California needs its own Elizabeth Warren and we can get it. Not one flaming corporate evildoer and a lukewarm placeholder. We can do far far better.

[Cartoonist]

130. A fellow Cal

Unfortunately, that's not how things work in CA's Democratic party. The establishment will not tolerate any primary challenges against an incumbent. You can try, but your name will become mud and you will never get any support from the party. We just have to wait for them to retire or lose.

[RoccoR5955]

4. K & R

[uwep]

6. This is why there is no unity among Democrats, liberals, and progressives

Warren and Sanders have a right to vote they way they want, but a look at President Obama's record should prove that he is no war hawk. He has limited engagement in Egypt, Syria, Libya, and most of the middle east. He has always been cautious and thoughtful to the chagrin of the neo-cons like Chaney and McCain. President Obama and Vice President Biden have worked hard to put together a real coalition of nations to combat the threat that ISIL has presented to the world. President Obama has stated several times that he will not involve this country in a ground war in the middle east again, but he will support those countries as needed so they can defeat this threat. I know that President Obama has not been able to make everyone happy, but lets put the blame where it belongs, the repugs. Everyone of these creations have voted against almost every policy that the President has put forward. This country would be in much better shape if his policies had been supported. Now democrats, liberals, and progressives are turning against him and the repugs will take over the senate. Is this the mess you want?

[raindaddy]

11. Let's remain loyal....

To endless war, Wall Street, petrochemical industry, military contractors, drug industry, NSA's right to spy on Americans, etc because Obama's such a nice man, the Republicans are evil.. if you want to be a happy Democrat simply forget about your values and unite, onward Democratic Party soldiers...

[djean111]

27. My thoughts EXACTLY.

[FiveGoodMen]

89. That's about the size of it!

[DeadEyeDyck]

28. There will be boots on the ground, soon enough...

we may call them advisors, trainers, mentors but they will be armed and there will be lots of them. The media will keep quiet at first, but then we will learn that we are in a full blown war, again.

[Heather MC]

31. you can support someone without agreeing with them 100% of the time

It is not unusual for Democrats to go against the party line or sometimes for Republicans to do that as well throughout our history. I for one hope that they fight tooth and nail against another war. As a military spouse I am fucking sick I'm going to military funerals because of stupid wars.

[zipplewrath]

86. A violence Hawk?

Not sure what hair your splitting here but he stuck with Bush's SOFA. He tripled the forces in Afghanistan. He's been killing, almost continuously, people in Pakistan, Yemen and several other African countries, including US citizens. The assertion has been made that he's dropped more bombs than any other Peace Prize winner. How many bombs does he have to drop before he's a "hawk" of some sort? Is your ruler really that if you are somehow not as much of a hawk as Cheney, then you're a peacenik?

[whereisjustice]

103. um, you forgot about Obama's surge in Afghanistan - more lives lost, more money wasted

in Afghanistan during the first half of Obama's term, than Bush's entire term.

http://www.wired.com/2012/09/surge-report-card/

http://antiwar.com/blog/2012/01/23/rate-of-deaths-in-afghanistan-skyrockets-under-obama/

[Boreal]

119. I'm afraid it's a lose/lose situation

Because both parties advance the same foreign policy.

You compare Obama to batshit crazy (McCain) so, sure, he looks compared to that but he has had an aggressive and destruction foreign policy. What's he's better at is "leading from behind" or hiding behind coalitions and "humanitarian" concerns. Libya is TOTALLY destroyed, however it was carried out. A terrible proxy war against Russia is being waged in Ukraine with an oligarch neoNazi regime backed by the US. Egypt was almost destroyed. Syria is another proxy war, using Islamic terrorists (FSA is not "moderate&quot to take out Assad, a goal set forth by PNAC, years ago. There's been nothing but death destruction everywhere the US has interfered. It only differs from Bush/Cheney in that's been far more covert, rather direct invasion. Oh, and let's not forget about the "moderate rebels" using chemical gas and the US trying to blame Syrian forces as a pretext for last year's attempt to bomb the shit out Syria. In the end, we're still getting Insane McCain's arming of terrorists and providing them air support.

[BlueCaliDem]

179. Not to worry. Although some here complain (and rightfully so) those who actually do

support Democrats will vote Democratic Party in the coming elections. Of course, not even this site can weed out all the RWers disguised as Liberals or Progressives, so I'd take what they say with a pound of salt.

[MannyGoldstein]

8. Indeed. They showed their *true* stripes.

Elizabeth Warren: Paper Tiger!

[CentralMass]

45. Our track record on arming the loyal opposition isn't that good.

We pumped arms and weapons into Afghanistan during the Soviet Afghan war during Reagan Administration and left a war torn heavily armed country with a power vacuum. Helping to forge AlQuida and the rise of BinLadin and the Taliban
We also looked the other way while our "ally" in that effort became a nuclear power.

The we enabled Saddam Hussein to thwart Iran. Reagan appoint Donald Rumsfeld as special envoy to Iraq to go become buds with Hussein and then lifted congressional bans do that companies like DuPont chemical could do business with them while they expressed shock over him using chemical weapons.

The we had Iran Contra where Ollie and company sold banned weapons and parts to Iran to fund a war in Central America that might have included laundering money through the drug cartel while stirring up shit on both side of the Iraq/Iran war.

Iraq was and is a disaster thanks to the neocons who mangled every aspect of that war.

Even this limited action in Libya had destabilized that country and the region. We helped create another power vacuum.
Reports indicated that weapons stores in Libya are being sold to bad actors on the region. Attack by internal and external militant groups on the country are up and numerous foreign diplomats have been kidnapped and held for ransom.

I think Warrens vote should be applauded .
She voted to not arm another questionable group that might end up being another enemy down the road.

[CJCRANE]

9. Congress voted to arm and train Islamist rebels

to fight other Islamist rebels and overthrow a secular government.

Am I the only one who thinks this is absurd?

How can we justify sanctions against Russia when we are openly doing the same thing we accuse them of?

[ozone_man]

126. It is absurd.

If we wanted to get rid of ISIS, we should be coordinating with Assad. The so called Syrian "rebels" seem to have no viability, interest, or capability of dealing with ISIS. So, it just seems to be another one of those bomb Iraq because they caused 911 situations, that gets sorted out a decade later, when it's too late. It's Obama's war this time, not Bush's.

Furthermore, ISIS apparently got their start with the funding from some of our Sunni allies in the middle east. We won't broach that subject though.

[hardcover]

153. No, you're not alone. I agree with you on every word.

[stevenleser]

170. And that is a good thing to debate. I'm not comfortable with it either. I'm pretty close to Warren

on this. Like her I am in favor of the air war but not comfortable with supplying arms to anyone in Syria. I was not in favor of attacking Syria when President Obama wanted to do so a few months ago.

[cali]

10. So did more than a few others.

55 dems in the house voted nay. In the Senate, 22 dems voted against it.

My entire delegation, Leahy, Sanders and Welch voted nay.

[stevenleser]

12. "Warren: Destroying ISIS should be 'No. 1 priority'" - This vote will hurt her

http://thehill.com/policy/international/216559-warren-destroying-isis-should-be-our-no-1-priority

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) on Wednesday said that the Obama administration should make defeating the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) its top priority.

"ISIS is growing in strength. It has money, it has organization, it has the capacity to inflict real damage. So when we think about a response we have to think about how to destroy that," Warren told Yahoo's Katie Couric.
Warren agreed that "time is of the essence."

"We need to be working now, full-speed ahead, with other countries, to destroy ISIS. That should be our No. 1 priority," she said in a wide-ranging interview promoting her latest book, A Fighting Chance.

You can't say that and then a few days later vote against funding. It is going to be very difficult for her to reconcile those two things when asked about them.

Sanders is probably OK since while he acknowledges ISIS is a threat, has been much more cautious in his statements about them.

[berni_mccoy]

17. She voted for the war before voting against it...

Where have I heard that before?

[stevenleser]

19. I see what's going on here. She is in favor of the airwar, just not in favor of arming Syrian rebels

or of potential boots on ground. OP should edit his OP

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/09/us_sens_elizabeth_warren_edwar.html

U.S. Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Edward Markey on Thursday broke with the president and opposed the request to train and arm the rebels for a war against Islamic state militants.

The Senate approved the request late Thursday on a 78-22 vote.

Warren said she wasn't convinced the proposal to train and equip Syrian rebels advances U.S. interests or that it would be effective in pushing back Islamic State fighters.

"I remain concerned that our weapons, our funding, and our support may end up in the hands of people who threaten the United States," Warren said in a statement. "I do not want America to be dragged into another ground war in the Middle East."

[berni_mccoy]

23. The optics are still bad

and could be used against her. Kerry made similar nuances in his decisions on Iraq and was lambasted for it.

[stevenleser]

25. Agreed. It was a bad decision. This would finish her chances in a general election. nt

[djean111]

29. I would still vote for her and not for Hillary. I understand nuance and shit.

[stevenleser]

33. Doesn't matter. Enough people don't understand nuance and shit. nt

[FlatStanley]

156. Nuance: kill without being killed. Nice, clean, sanitized war in perpetuity.

[stevenleser]

166. No. In this case Nuance = in favor of airstrikes, not in favor of arming Syrian rebels. nt

[FlatStanley]

182. In favor of death and destruction, very nuanced indeed.

[stevenleser]

184. Nuance has nothing to do with particular topic only that two statements are close but subtly

different. So yes, war, peace, color differences, taste differences can all be nuanced.

[FlatStanley]

189. They are only subtly different in that one supports death only (armed rebels)

And the other supports death AND destruction (air strikes).

So, yeah, I guess there is nuance there. I stand corrected.

[berni_mccoy]

34. Nearly everyone here does.

I worked for Kerry's campaign and I was in disbelief that this would be an issue for him. Unfortunately, the majority of voters are not well informed and do not understand nuance. I still believe Kerry won the election as there were incredible shenanigans in Ohio (OH was to Kerry like FL was to Gore, but outside of here it wasn't talked about). Still that, plus the swift boating and complacency (or direct participation against Kerry) by the media, made the election close enough that Bush was able to win a second term.

[djean111]

38. I just believe going along to get along leads to nothing good.

[stevenleser]

43. That's not what this vote was. nt

[Thinkingabout]

61. My point exactly, she said defeating ISIS was a NO 1 priority and voted against this bill.

The Senate was briefed on ISIS, she had more information on ISIS than the general public, I understand there has to be troops on the ground and by arming and training a rebel force in Syria would be much better than sending in US troops. I know there are severe doves here but when action is needed and you pass up the chance it puts doubts in ability to act with terror in your face. I don't dislike Elizabeth Warren but this was a very bad move on her part.

[Cartoonist]

95. This is BS

There's a HUUUUGE difference between saying it should be a #1 priority, and then disagreeing with a flawed plan to execute it. I too think it should be a high priority, but I would vote against a nuclear strike. Does that make me a paper tiger? No, it makes an idiot of anyone saying it does.

[Thinkingabout]

99. Do you think I am an idiot? Think again, she voted with Ted Cruz.

[Cartoonist]

111. Did you call her a paper tiger?

I'm ok with you disagreeing with her and me, but let's keep the criticism real.

[Thinkingabout]

102. When Elizabeth Warren introduces a bill and is never able to get it passed because

Others will use the same useless excuse it was a flawed bill, gridlock all over so everything she is for will go down in defeat. Flawed bill, a poor excuse.

[Cartoonist]

112. A flawed bil is a flawed bill

and is an excellent excuse.

[Thinkingabout]

115. Yep, dont count on EW to ever get the things she is interested in because she

Will have "flawed bills", weak excuse but it was used anyhow. Guess she can do away with defeating ISIS being important, Ted Cruz and his friends.

[Cartoonist]

117. I will politely ask a couple of questions

Because I'm not sure where you're coming from.

Do you think defeating ISIS should be a priority, or at least something we should get around to?
If so, would you vote for a nuclear strike?

[Thinkingabout]

139. The nuclear question has been ask and a treaty signed by many questions.

Personally ISIS is a threat not only to the US but other countries and we have had two Amercians beheaded by them, I would call that a threat. What I would not do is say defeating ISIS a NO 1 priority and when presented a bill to accomplish this vote no on it as EW and Bernie Sanders along with Ted Cruz.

[Cartoonist]

144. Objection!

when presented a bill to accomplish this
-
Assuming facts not in evidence. At least I think that's the legal term. There is absolutely no guarantee that this bill would accomplish that. In fact, this bill could backfire in a big way. Elizabeth has shown wisdom others lack.

[Thinkingabout]

149. Would have, should have, could have.

[taught_me_patience]

155. She's not a serious contender anyway.

She doesn't have the charm to win a GE. She comes off as whiny... I know it turns a lot of people off.

[Heather MC]

36. That was during the time IRAQ war had more support

People are sick of it now. It may not hurt her

[stevenleser]

44. Has nothing to do with support. Has to do with a seemingly contradictory position. nt

[wyldwolf]

35. within weeks Warren's position will be mis-characterized on the left

Just as Howard Dean wasn't REALLY against the Iraq - he was opposed to how it was executed - Warren's position will be 'opposition to this war' even though she isn't really.

[stevenleser]

40. Within weeks? Heck, the OP mis-characterized it today! LOL. But I agree. nt

[wyldwolf]

41. It will become dogma.Vicious arguments will ensue. Facts will be ignored. Insults will be hurled.

[stevenleser]

49. Sad to say you are probably right. So far OP has refused to acknowledge the facts here.

Warren, Markey and Sanders are all in favor of the air war. The vote that was just conducted had nothing to do with the air war.

I don't think the OP is interested in the facts at all. Fred Sanders, who I don't normally agree with, noted downthread that Sanders and Warren were both in favor of Israel's recent war against the Palestinians.

[merrily]

151. Well, Kerry never voted against a war.

He voted for war, aka to put Americans in harm's way, then he voted against funding them while they were there.

To me, that was the worst possible combination of yes and no votes.

I guess he agreed because he never voted against funding again.

And you heard it from the creepy guy who can't shoot straight, literally.

[ReRe]

157. Seems like I remember that meme too...

... me thinks it was none other than Madam Secretary. No? Or John Kerry?

[morningfog]

52. I agree that was an incredibly stupid thing for her to say. Glad she voted against the funding,

though.

I don't think I have seen her support military action in Syria, which would be illegal.

[stevenleser]

54. She didnt vote against the funding. She is in favor of the air war. Vote was about Syrian rebels

Here is a link to the full text of the bill...

http://www.rpc.senate.gov/legislative-notices/h-j-res-124_continuing-appropriations-resolution-2015

[morningfog]

57. Please provide a link to where other votes to fund the war have been made.

This was a bill to fund the war, she voted against it.

[stevenleser]

65. You're the one making the assertion. Its not up to me to prove a negative.

Back up your assertion that shows they voted for a bill against the war. They didnt

[morningfog]

67. LOL. They voted against a bill to fund the war. You've provided that link.

It isn't in dispute, except in your mind.

[stevenleser]

78. That's not what I have been saying and its not what the bill says. nt

[Maven]

141. READ what she said. She is talking about intelligence and diplomacy NOT BOMBS

"Destroy" does not equal "bomb the shit out of". The fact that you read it that way says more about you than anything else.

So sick of Sen Warren's position on this being misconstrued.

[stevenleser]

165. Only if you make stuff up. "Warren says she supports Obama's decision to authorize airstrikes"

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/08/sen_elizabeth_warren_warns_abo.html

Sen. Elizabeth Warren says she supports President Obama's decision to authorize airstrikes in Iraq



BOSTON — Warning against a new U.S. war in Iraq, U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Friday stood by President Barack Obama’s decision to authorize targeted airstrikes to help defend Americans in Erbil, Iraq, and provide aid to a religious minority taking refuge in the Sinjar mountains.

“It’s a complicated situation right now in Iraq and the president has taken very targeted actions to provide humanitarian relief that the Iraqi government requested, and to protect American citizens,” Warren told reporters. “But like the president I believe that any solution in Iraq is going to be a negotiated solution, not a military solution. We do not want to be pulled into another war in Iraq.”

“It’s a very complicated situation in Iraq. The president has now taken two very targeted actions, and those two actions will change the mix of what’s happening in Iraq, and we’ll have to just monitor it,” Warren said.

Asked if she had a broader plan for dealing with the crisis in Iraq, Warren said, “Certainly these airstrikes are going to change the mix of what’s going on, so we’ll just have to monitor it literally day by day, hour by hour.”

[morningfog]

209. "In Iraq." That may be where she draws the line.

It will be interesting to see who supports the illegal strikes in Syria.

[Ineeda]

13. Has anyone suggested an viable alternative action?

I'm not a scaredy cat, and not the hair-on-fire type that the hawks want us all to be. But it seems likely that this barbaric group will continue to do more and more barbaric things, and on a much wider scale. Obviously they should be stopped.
How?
Or should we just stand by and watch in horror?
And BTW, to head off the snark: this is a sincere question. I am absolutely not a hawk, and not a BOGger either.

[CJCRANE]

16. Assad's army and militias are fighting them.

Why send more arms to rebels who let them slip through their fingers to be picked up by extremists?

[Ineeda]

22. Thanks. n/t

[stevenleser]

24. Interesting argument, since Sanders and Warren voted against helping the militias. nt

[CJCRANE]

37. To clarify: Assad's army and Pro-Assad militias

I.e. militias that support the secular government.

[Maedhros]

88. I like Bernie's take:

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said today he will vote against the United States training and arming Syrian rebels. Sanders said the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria “is a brutal and dangerous extremist organization which must be defeated, but this war cannot be won by the United States alone. There needs to be a real international coalition led by the countries most threatened – Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey and Iran.

“The worst thing that we can do now is allow ISIS to portray this struggle as East vs. West, as Muslim vs. Christian, as the Middle East vs. America. That is exactly what they want and that is exactly what we should not be giving them,” Sanders added.

from here: http://vtdigger.org/2014/09/18/%EF%BB%BFsanders-vote-u-s-military-role-syria/

DU thread here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=102742

[grahamhgreen]

91. Sanders Says:

“There needs to be a real international coalition led by the countries most threatened – Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey and Iran,” the senator said. “The worst thing that we can do now is allow ISIS to portray this struggle as East vs. West, as Muslim vs. Christian, as the Middle East vs. America. That is exactly what they want and that is exactly what we should not be giving them.”

Make sense?

[stevenleser]

20. They only voted against arming Syrian rebels. You should edit your OP.

Last edited Fri Sep 19, 2014, 10:11 AM - Edit history (1)

You should edit your OP.

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/09/us_sens_elizabeth_warren_edwar.html

Markey — who won Secretary of State John Kerry's old Senate seat in a special election last year — said he supported Obama's and Kerry's "near-term efforts to build an international coalition and use air strikes" against Islamic State fighters to help defend Americans and our allies and "degrade the group's capacity to continue the rampant killing of innocent civilians."

Warren said she wasn't convinced the proposal to train and equip Syrian rebels advances U.S. interests or that it would be effective in pushing back Islamic State fighters.

"I remain concerned that our weapons, our funding, and our support may end up in the hands of people who threaten the United States," Warren said in a statement. "I do not want America to be dragged into another ground war in the Middle East."

[Fred Sanders]

32. Were there separate recorded votes on these separate strategies?

[stevenleser]

42. So far, only the arming of the Syrian Rebels has come up for a vote. HJ 124

The syrian rebels provision was added to a general budget appropriations bill.

http://www.rpc.senate.gov/legislative-notices/h-j-res-124_continuing-appropriations-resolution-2015

[morningfog]

50. Absolutely not.

[stevenleser]

51. Your call. That decision suggests you have little regard for facts and the truth.

Here is a link to the full text of the bill...

http://www.rpc.senate.gov/legislative-notices/h-j-res-124_continuing-appropriations-resolution-2015

[morningfog]

53. Steve. They voted against funding this war. How is that inaccurate?

[stevenleser]

58. No, they didn't. They voted against arming Syrian rebels. They are in favor of air war

Read the bill

[morningfog]

59. Where did she vote to fund the war?

Was this a vote to fund the war?

Did she vote in favor of this bill?

[stevenleser]

62. Its not going to work. Everyone can see the truth from the link to the full bill text. nt

[morningfog]

66. The full bill is the first and only funding bill for this war so far.

Sanders and Warren voted against it.

If you have other information, provide it. Or, kindly, quit buzzing around here like an annoying little gnat with nothing to add.

[stevenleser]

68. No, it only was to fund Syrian rebels. The other problem you have is Warrens comments both before

and after voting. She is in favor of the war. Sanders is in favor of the war. They just are wary of funding the rebels.

[morningfog]

69. The bill, and this OP is about FUNDING. FUNDING. FUNDING.

They voted against FUNDING what has been the ONLY FUNDING bill for this war so far.

[stevenleser]

72. No. It's a general budget appropriations for everything the govt normally does + funding the rebels

Its all in the bill.

[morningfog]

74. Thank you, steve, for FINALLY conceding that the bill included funding the rebels.

Which is the only funding action taken by Congress in the war thus far. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

[stevenleser]

77. I've been saying that all along. Nice try at moving the goalposts. nt

[Fred Sanders]

30. They also voted for funding Bibi's war/slaughter, not to forget that.

[stevenleser]

48. I'm not sure the OP really cares about the real facts. They are pushing this narrative that

Sanders and Warren are anti-war doves and refusing to acknowledge any evidence otherwise.

[morningfog]

55. The only narrative I am pushing is that they voted against funding the war.

Why is that so very hard for you to understand?

[tridim]

63. You're also pushing psychic predictions of doom...

"Support for the Syrian war will not be a viable position in 2016. We will be three years into an unwinnable, costly quagmire by then with no exit strategy."

I still want to know how you know all these details three years in advance.

[morningfog]

71. There is no dispute that we will still be in this war in 3 years.

In fact, the general's and the admin suggest that the Syrian strikes won't really get ramped up for another 2-3 years. This will be an issue.

The rest is my opinion. I don't offer it as fact. This is a discussion board, right tridim? Shouldn't we discuss our opinions and concerns. The same concerns that were raised prior to the 2003 Iraq invasion apply here, should we have all stayed silent then?

Like then, it isn't going to matter what we say anyway.

[tridim]

76. It's FUD...

You don't have a clue what's going to happen tomorrow, let alone three years from now.

What if it works? Have you even considered that possibility?

Obama is NOT Bush, and he never will be. I protested Bush's war because it was bullshit from day one, and everyone knew it.

[djean111]

56. Pushing the narrative, eventually, that we should Vote For Hillary. IMO, etc.

[Dawgs]

60. Give it up Leser. Everyone knows your agenda here. n/t

[stevenleser]

64. What I believe is irrelevant. I posted the full text of the bill. nt

[morningfog]

70. And he's so bad at it.

[stevenleser]

73. Except, I'm 100% supported by the actual bill. You keep running into that problem. nt

[morningfog]

75. I don't understand you. I really don't. I have never seen anyone

read and quote something and then suggest it says the opposite with such vigor.

[stevenleser]

79. My only confusion is whether you really don't get it or are deliberately trolling.

If its the former, I feel sorry for you.

[morningfog]

81. Thanks for all the kicks.

You are hopeless.

[stevenleser]

84. You should look at the jury results to see what a wider group of DUers think.

Then you should edit or delete your OP.

[morningfog]

85. There is no reason to delete or edit the OP. Thanks for the kick.

[stevenleser]

87. Kicking again. nt

[sufrommich]

82. Jury results:

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

The poster has been rude throughout the thread. And is now calling the OP a troll. This is a personal attack and is inappropriate. Vote hide.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Sep 19, 2014, 10:43 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Actually, the OP along with another poster are tag-teaming with the personal attacks directed at Steven Lesser. I find this alert exceedingly ironic. Besides...SL is spot on here.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Earlier in the thread the poster was accused of having an agenda- good for goose, good for gander
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is alert trolling.Ironic.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: OP was a complete dogs breakfast with a heavy side of ODS

[Bobbie Jo]

178. Good jury. nt

[JI7]

154. maybe they think Hamas has done more Damage to Israel than ISIS has to Syria and Iraq

[blkmusclmachine]

39. Reasonable.

[TheNutcracker]

90. Thanks President Sanders and VP Warren!

[bigwillq]

92. Thanks to all who voted against funding Obama's War

K and R

[Enthusiast]

93. Kicked and recommended!

This action will become another Pandora's box.

[Jack Rabbit]

96. Good for them

If Mrs. Clinton has a problem with her hawkish image, she can claim that she she didn't vote for it this time.

[sabrina 1]

97. Good for them. About time to cut off the funding for all these wars which only make us LESS SECURE.

[FrodosPet]

136. Senators Warren and Sanders still support attacking ISIS

They are being cautious, and not wanting to make things worse by arming people who turn against us.

But don't believe for a minute that they are pure pacifists. Sen Warren even supports increased security monitoring of Americans travelling overseas.

-------------------------------------------------------

http://thehill.com/policy/international/216559-warren-destroying-isis-should-be-our-no-1-priority

~ snip ~

Asked about the dozens of Americans who have reportedly joined ISIS, Warren noted that the U.S. should be "stepping up our efforts to track where people go when they leave the United States."

"The terrorists have moved, and we have to move in response," she said, adding part of that "means we're going to have to change in fundamental ways how we monitor our citizens when they go abroad."

~ snip ~

-------------------------------------------------------

I would say it is a pretty big sign when even the most educated and caring progressives are saying bomb the assholes and follow their followers.

[VanillaRhapsody]

101. and his Generals feel he is not going far enough!

And France HAS joined the effort this time.....

How about lets see how this shakes out Coalition wise before we jump on the Blame Obama for Everything train!

[underthematrix]

105. sois Warren running for President too

[merrily]

106. For Warren, Sanders and Markey, that vote was not a risk.

A yes vote might have been a bigger risk for them. Someone like Begich was taking a big risk, though.

Paul probably voted his Libertarian values, while some of the other Republicans might just be saying no to Obama for the sake of saying no to Obama.

Meanwhile, Chris Hayes seems a lot more interested in the NFL than in this. Seems to be devoting his whole show to it this evening.

[aikoaiko]

107. So you're saying there were ineffective at leading the senate to no vote.

I want to believe to Warren and/or Sanders, but leading is more than rhetoric and minority votes.

I want to see them lead followers.

[morningfog]

116. All I'm saying is they voted against it.

I wish they had done more to block it, I hope the Syrian AUMF doesn't pass.

This is the first opportunity for congressional representatives to support or oppose the war effort. They opposed it.

[DesertFlower]

108. K&R

[Cha]

109. Bullshit. Bernie and Elizabeth stand with the President against ISIS

Last edited Fri Sep 19, 2014, 09:45 PM - Edit history (1)

Bernie stands with the President on this "Enormously complicated issue".. as he calls it. He disagrees with staying out of ISIS like some around are clamoring on about.

As he stated it's an "International effort" and guess what.. "they have to put money in it too."

Hartman and he talked about one republiCon saying.. they'll "blast him if it doesn't work and ask why he didn't do it sooner if it does." Sounds like a familiar whine.

Senators Warren and Sanders are on board with the President..

FrodosPet http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5527989

EDIT to get a proper source.. neverforget

Sen. Elizabeth Warren says she supports President Obama's decision to authorize airstrikes in Iraq

BOSTON — Warning against a new U.S. war in Iraq, U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Friday stood by President Barack Obama’s decision to authorize targeted airstrikes to help defend Americans in Erbil, Iraq, and provide aid to a religious minority taking refuge in the Sinjar mountains.

“It’s a complicated situation right now in Iraq and the president has taken very targeted actions to provide humanitarian relief that the Iraqi government requested, and to protect American citizens,” Warren told reporters. “But like the president I believe that any solution in Iraq is going to be a negotiated solution, not a military solution. We do not want to be pulled into another war in Iraq.”


Senator Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said she supports president Barack Obama's decision to authorize new airstrikes in Iraq but cautioned against U.S. involvement in a new war in the Middle East.

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/08/sen_elizabeth_warren_warns_abo.html

Get your facts straight.. this is a bogus headline to reel in the suckers.

[neverforget]

110. Townhall? Really?

Can you find another link instead of directing traffic to that right wing cesspool? Michelle Malkin? Eric Erickson?

[Cha]

113. .. Bernie is talking to Thom Hartman.. got anything to say about that? and Elizabeth supports

President Obama's airstrikes.. They voted against arming the Syrian rebels on the ground..

Sen. Elizabeth Warren says she supports President Obama's decision to authorize airstrikes in Iraq

BOSTON — Warning against a new U.S. war in Iraq, U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Friday stood by President Barack Obama’s decision to authorize targeted airstrikes to help defend Americans in Erbil, Iraq, and provide aid to a religious minority taking refuge in the Sinjar mountains.

“It’s a complicated situation right now in Iraq and the president has taken very targeted actions to provide humanitarian relief that the Iraqi government requested, and to protect American citizens,” Warren told reporters. “But like the president I believe that any solution in Iraq is going to be a negotiated solution, not a military solution. We do not want to be pulled into another war in Iraq.”


Senator Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said she supports president Barack Obama's decision to authorize new airstrikes in Iraq but cautioned against U.S. involvement in a new war in the Middle East.

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/08/sen_elizabeth_warren_warns_abo.html

[neverforget]

118. You used Townhall as link in your previous post. I was hoping you would change that but

I guess it's cool with you using a right wing source. It's not hard to edit that.

[ucrdem]

122. She seems to have gotten the attention of conservative press.

Search Warren+ Isis and the first two pages are wall-to-wall RW sources. Here's WaPo's summary:

In an interview with Yahoo News last week, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) – considered one of the most liberal members of the Senate – said that “destroying” the Islamic State should be the nation’s “number one priority.” Those comments featured language similar, and in some cases identical, to that used by some of the nation's most hawkish Republicans. "When Elizabeth Warren begins to sound like Dick Cheney you know that there is pretty broad bipartisan support here for dealing with this group of terrorists,” McConnell said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/09/09/mcconnell-obama-should-seek-congressional-authorization-for-action-to-stop-islamic-state/

There isn't any doubt that she gave the interview or made the remarks, and if she broadened her base so to speak, who are we to say that wasn't the intended affect? Personally I don't think it was, but to my knowledge she hasn't corrected or walked back that statement.

[Cha]

129. Thanks ucrdem.. I found a source from

Masslive, too. Whew, I had no idea I was using a rw source.. note to self.. check Every source!

[ucrdem]

131. I've seen worse sources used.

I hadn't seen Townhall before, and from a casual inspection I'd be hard pressed to identify it as any more conservative than most MSM sources, at least without a tipoff. But they do self-identify as conservative on their about us page so better to replace it I guess.

[Cha]

124. I will edit it.. busy getting you another source.. You're welcome.

[neverforget]

125. Thank you, Cha!

[Cha]

127. Thank you, neverforget!

Sorry, I obviously didn't know it was rw.. thanks again.

[morningfog]

121. We'll see how they each vote on the Syrian AUMF in a couple months.

They will get another chance to speak with their vote, which matter more than there comments.

[Number23]

134. Thank you CHA and STEVEN LESER for putting out the facts

[Cha]

138. You're Welcome, 23!

[morningfog]

143. The facts are simple: arming and training rebels is a KEY part of the war plan and

these fine senators voted against it.

[stevenleser]

168. Your spin will not work. nt

[morningfog]

174. There us no spin, except in your mind.

You have yet to point to any error in what I wrote.

[stevenleser]

183. Many DUers are thanking me here for correcting the misinformation you gave them in your OP

You can see it all the way up and down threads in this OP.

Besides that there are lots of other folks saying I got it right and you got it wrong. Very few agree with you. The text of the bill doesnt agree with you. Warren and Sanders do not agree with you and it is their opinion you are attempting to illustrate and doing very bad job of it.

[morningfog]

185. This disconnect is incredible. Let's work through this.

This is my good faith effort to bridge this misunderstanding:

You agree that this was a bill to fund the arming and training of the rebels in Syria, correct?

You agree that arming and rebels is a key to the war plan, correct?

You agree that this is the one and only bill related to the war effort that has been voted on thus far, correct?

You agree that Sanders, Warren and other 2016 presidential hopefuls voted against it, correct?

Please, if you have any decency and are here in good faith, try to explain how you can possibly disagree with any of the above. I just don't get it. I am being totally honest here. I do not understand your position.

[morningfog]

190. Any response to my post #185?

I'm seriously reaching out here.

[stevenleser]

169. You're welcome. Few buy this bizarre attempt at spin by the OP. And it doesnt change the facts.

Warren and Sanders are in favor of the air war.

[morningfog]

114. The facts are straight. They voted against the first and only

funding measure of the war plan put forwar so far. This is simple.

[Cha]

120. No, Bernie and Elizabeth stand with the President against ISIS and Voted against arming the

Syrian Rebels on the ground which you conveniently left out of your OP.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren says she supports President Obama's decision to authorize airstrikes in Iraq

BOSTON — Warning against a new U.S. war in Iraq, U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Friday stood by President Barack Obama’s decision to authorize targeted airstrikes to help defend Americans in Erbil, Iraq, and provide aid to a religious minority taking refuge in the Sinjar mountains.

“It’s a complicated situation right now in Iraq and the president has taken very targeted actions to provide humanitarian relief that the Iraqi government requested, and to protect American citizens,” Warren told reporters. “But like the president I believe that any solution in Iraq is going to be a negotiated solution, not a military solution. We do not want to be pulled into another war in Iraq.”


Senator Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said she supports president Barack Obama's decision to authorize new airstrikes in Iraq but cautioned against U.S. involvement in a new war in the Middle East.

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/08/sen_elizabeth_warren_warns_abo.html

Bernie stands with the President on this "Enormously complicated issue".. as he calls it. He disagrees with staying out of ISIS like some around are clamoring on about.

As he stated it's an "International effort" and guess what.. "they have to put money in it too."

Hartman and he talked about one republiCon saying.. they'll "blast him if it doesn't work and ask why he didn't do it sooner if it does." Sounds like a familiar whine.

[morningfog]

123. They stand with him bit opposed a key part of the

war plan and war funding.

I'm not playing hide the ball here. This is the only vote so far the funds any portion of the war. They voted against it.

[Cartoonist]

135. You are seriously confused

Your confusion has been explained to you by many people here, but you still don't get it. Let me have a try.

A. Funding the USA
B. Funding the rebels

There's a difference between the two. Warren and Saunders have no objection to funding the war as long as the plan is a good one. They support airstrikes, and if there comes a vote on it, they will more than likely vote yes.

Warren does not like the idea of funding the rebels, and who can blame her? That didn't work out too well when we supported Bin Laden.

You keep repeating your interpretation that they voted against funding the WAR. That was not the bill. The bill was action specific. By voting against it, they want to see another funding bill that they can vote yes to.

[morningfog]

140. I am not confused. Arming and training the rebels is part of the war plan.

They voted against a KEY part of the war plan. In fact, the ONLY funding measure of the war plan brought thus far.

We'll see if they vote to support the Syrian AUMF when that vote comes.

[Cartoonist]

145. The war plan

The KEY part of the war plan is a disaster in the making. You seem to make a big deal that this is the ONLY funding measure of the war plan brought thus far. SO? Just because it's the only one brought thus far does not make it good policy. Why should Elizabeth give Obama a blank check? Doesn't she have an obligation to do what she thinks is right? If she voted against every strategy Obama put forward, then I would question her resolve, but why does she have to vote for the first dumb plan that comes along?

[morningfog]

146. Oh, I think it is a stupid stupid plan. I think Sanders and Warren voted the correct way.

I wish the funding had not passed. I hope the AUMF does not pass. I oppose all US military action in Syria.

[Cartoonist]

147. You didn't include a sarcasm logo

I oppose all US military action in Syria.
-
So what's your problem with Elizabeth? She's obviously more of a hawk than you are as she supports air strikes. She wants ISIS defeated. She even thinks it should be a priority. But Never has she said we should arm the rebels or do the first dumb thing someone comes up with. I see absolutely no contradiction in what she has said and how she has voted.

[morningfog]

148. I think she, as most, vastly overstate the IS threat.

I am glad she opposed this funding. I hope she opposes strikes in Syria.

[Cartoonist]

150. I have no solution to the troubles of the World

The ISIS threat is overstated when idiots like Sen. Graham say, "We're all going to die!"
I do see them as a serious problem though. I don't approve of be-headings. I also don't approve of white cops shooting unarmed kids. Solving the former shouldn't be our responsibility. Solving the latter SHOULD be a priority.

[ucrdem]

132. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

Just like I was happy to give Kerry the same when he voted for the infamous IWR. But, now as then, it looks a shade like positioning with an eye toward 2016, as their votes contrast sharply with their recent remarks, which invite a less charitable perception of flip-flopping and playing politics on serious issues.

[morningfog]

142. Exactly. When it was time support with the vote for money, they voted no..

We'll see how much they protect their position in future votes. I do wish they would oppose it with statements too.

[stevenleser]

171. There is no doubt to have. All Democratic senators are in favor of the air war.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025558082#post165

[ucrdem]

173. Unfortunately this vote was a pretty decisive rejection of their earlier positions.

A highly conspicuous U-turn you might say and in Warren's case one that raises the question of which is the real Senator Warren, the one who gave the Yahoo interview or the one who refused to support a rather basic non-combat operation that she must know is already happening and will continue to happen whether Congress funds it or not? If she changed her mind, fine, but if she didn't, then she wasn't telling the truth in the Yahoo interview. That's how it looks from Calif anyway.

[stevenleser]

180. As I noted upthread, its not a change or rejection. They want the airwar, they dont want to arm

the Syrian militants. Which makes them pretty close to my position on the issue.

Unfortunately, this does open them to demagoguing from Republicans. We all know what happened with John Kerry. Republicans are masters at exploiting those in the public who don't handle nuance well.

[ucrdem]

181. Yes, I understand, but that's a reversal of what Warren said on Sept. 3.

Here's the Yahoo interview:

http://news.yahoo.com/video/yahoo-news-interview-senator-elizabeth-170000514.html

The points she makes on ISIS are that a) it's is an urgent international threat and needs to be destroyed, and b) the US can't and shouldn't do it alone and needs to work with other nations. And that's a far cry from saying US airstrikes alone are sufficient, and we shouldn't be training Syrians. It's a big change. Whether for better or worse is another question, but there's no denying she changed her position.

[morningfog]

188. Exactly. This is not complicated stuff.

[ucrdem]

201. Time will tell I suppose.

The politics are kind of hard to divine at the moment, which is why I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt, though I lean toward agreeing with your subject line. I think they drew a line in the sand and rejected Obama's ramp-up, possibly for politically convenient reasons. In Warren's case it's kind of a big deal since she rejected a spending bill and it's her own party's government. But doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is still the right thing. In any case, I'm hoping this represents a newly born commitment to peace and she maintains it consistently. It won't be easy.

[Blue_In_AK]

137. So did Mark Begich.

This time he made me proud that he's my senator.

[NealK]

159. K&R

[snot]

160. That's all I need to know. nt

[NanceGreggs]

161. Reading DU these days ...

... is equivalent to watching FOX-News - and OPs like this attract the same caliber of audience.

[CJCRANE]

162. Fox News wants Shock & Awe II.

DU and Fox News are opposite ends of the spectrum.

[NanceGreggs]

163. I was talking about ...

... posting completely misleading 'headlines', and then watching the gullible swallow the misinformation whole as they proudly wallow in their own ignorance.

Warren and Sanders did not vote "against funding Obama's War" - but, hey, let's not let facts get in the way. FOX-News doesn't - and DU doesn't either.

[morningfog]

175. That's silly. Did they vote to fund this part of the war plan?

Simple question.

[NanceGreggs]

191. Too late to be coy, my friend.

Your OP was completely misleading; Warren and Sanders did NOT "vote against Obama's war".

You were told over and over in this thread that your OP was inaccurate and misleading - and yet you persisted in ignoring the facts.

So now it's "this PART of the war plan"? That's not what your OP says, is it?

Like I stated, reading DU is becoming akin to watching FOX-News ...

[morningfog]

194. Lol! Nothing coy.

Answer my questions or go on with your pathetic insults.

My op was clear: they have voted against funding Obama's war plan.

The ONLY funding vote so far. My OP is accurate, my position hasn't changed.

There is only a small group of insulting simpletons who read something that isnt there and crow as f they have made some point. So feeble, transparent and fucking pathetic.

[NanceGreggs]

195. I thought you just said ...

... they voted not to fund "this part" of the war plan. Now you're back to "voted against funding Obama's war plan" - which denotes Obama's plan in its entirety, which Warren and Sanders certainly did not vote against.

The OP clearly states: "Sens. Warren and Sanders voted against funding Obama's War."
So where's the part I read that isn't there?

So now you're insisting that because "it's The ONLY funding vote so far, your OP is accurate, and therefore not misleading at all.

This is a classic case of ...

[rug]

196. Whose war is it?

[NanceGreggs]

198. Apparently ...

... it's the "war" that Sanders and Warren voted against funding - until they voted not to fund part a certain aspect of it, and then turned around and voted not to fund the entire "war'" yet again.

If you have a problem with that lack of logic, direct your questions to the OP - he's the one who keeps changing his position about what Warren and Sanders voted for - or against - or kinda sorta against, or partially for, or - you get the picture.

[rug]

200. No, it's directed to you.

You have taken umbrage that a war, (note the absence of deflective quotation marks), directed by the Commander-in-Chief bears his name.

Regardless of who votes to support it, whose name should it bear?

[NanceGreggs]

202. Exactly where ...

... did I say anything about Obama's name being raised?

My comments in this thread have been confined to the OP's assertion that Warren and Sanders voted not to fund this "war" - which is clearly inaccurate and misleading. Both Senators voted against arming Syrian rebels, NOT against Obama's plans for dealing with ISIL as a whole.

Please post the link to my "taking umbrage" at Obama's name being used - oh, that's right. You can't, because I didn't.

[rug]

204. "Sens. Warren and Sanders voted against funding Obama's War."

You did add those quotation marks, didn't you? Around the entire sentence?

So, you don't object to it being called Obama's War. Is that correct?

[morningfog]

215. The problem seems to be that since this wasn't a vote to fund

the entire 3-5 year war, this funding vote doesn't count.

Such a strange thing to get hung up on. It is, thus far, the only funding vote.

[rug]

216. When you want to hide war aims, you submit a funding bill or propose a procedural rule.

[NanceGreggs]

217. The quotes around the entire sentence ...

... were used because that's the title of the OP.

[rug]

219. Are you now able to answer the question in the second half of the post?

[NanceGreggs]

224. About it being called "Obama's war"?

What is your point?

This is DU. I recognized years ago that anything the man does is to be framed in the most negative terms possible. People here delight in attaching words like war, famine, pestilence and death to his every move.

So have it - call it a "war", insist that it's already a clusterfuck, that Obama's policies are exactly the same as Dubya's, that this is the slippery slope that will lead to hundreds of thousands of boots on the ground in a matter of months, et cetera, et cetera, blah, blah, blah.

Why should I give a flying fuck what anyone on DU says? You want to call it "Obama's War" - g'head. Knock yourself out.

[rug]

226. I'll take that as a yes.

After scraping off the apoplexy.

[NanceGreggs]

227. You can take it anyway you desire ...

... it is of no consequence to me, one way or the other.

[rug]

228. Thanks for replying that you don't care.

[morningfog]

229. She'll have you know she really really really really really doesn't care.

[rug]

230. I'm touched she took the time.

[NanceGreggs]

231. I thought my not caring ...

... about your opinion of anything was clear from the start.

[rug]

232. What is abundantly clear is that you care for no one's opinion but your own.

Still, it is fascinating to see you return again and again to make sure everyone knows that your opinion is that you don't care.

[NanceGreggs]

233. "You care for no one's opinion but your own."

Coming from you, that is downright material.

[rug]

234. So is your accusing Manny of aeeking attention.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5564190

[morningfog]

214. Please post a link to where they voted to fund any part of the war.

??????

If I am so very wrong, a quick link would educate me of my error. I will edit my post if you show me where they have voted to fund this war.

I look forward to when they take the Syrian AUMF vote later this year. I would be willing to bet that Sanders and Warren oppose that too.

To be clear, they have voiced support for going after IS. What I have not seen is whether they support any action in Syria. It could be that they take the same position as the Europeans: support in Iraq because we were asked and that makes it legal; oppose in Syria because,currently, there is no legal justification.

[NanceGreggs]

218. Where did I say ...

... that they had?

Jesus Hussein Christ - do people here even bother to read posts before they reply to them?



On second thought, don't bother to answer that - because the answer is obvious.

[morningfog]

220. You wrote this:

My comments in this thread have been confined to the OP's assertion that Warren and Sanders voted not to fund this "war" - which is clearly inaccurate and misleading. Both Senators voted against arming Syrian rebels, NOT against Obama's plans for dealing with ISIL as a whole.

Which is exactly what my post says. They voted against FUNDING the war plan. I said nothing about them voting against the plan as a whole. I said nothing as to their support.

They voted against FUNDING the ONLY FUNDING for this war that has been proposed. This is the one and only action of meaning related to this war from Congress so far. It is significant.

If and when a subsequent vote is taken for additional funding for the war, we will see where the votes are. When there is a vote to declare war or an AUMF in Syria, we will see where the votes are.There is no hide the ball, moving goalposts, spin or agenda here. This is simple stuff.

There has been one vote to fund the war so far. These senators voted against it. This is the ONLY FUNDING so far. They have voted against funding the war. Period.

[morningfog]

210. Such bullshit. Show me where there has been any other

Vote to fund any other part of this war.

The OP is clear, this is about FUNDING. Why is this so hard for you?

Link to the other funding votes?

[morningfog]

197. Denial and double thought is so boring.

[NanceGreggs]

199. For once we agree.

I find it painfully boring to see someone post an OP, refuse to edit it when it is pointed out - over and over - that they're wrong, and then deny they ever said exactly what they did say.

[Union Scribe]

177. I notice it attracted you. nt

[NanceGreggs]

192. The obvious misrepresentation of facts ...

... attracted my attention, yes.

Watching posters so willing to mislead, along with those who are so anxious to BE misled, is getting pretty impossible to ignore these days, given its frequency.

[morningfog]

222. It is clear that you just don't understand the words in the post.

Here is the sentence that has you all in fits:

Warren and Sanders voted against funding Obama's War.

A vote to fund a critical piece of the war was held. Fact. It is the first and only vote so far to fund the war. Fact. It is the initial funding of the war. Fact. It is the first and only legislation to be voted on relating to the war (i.e. funding, authorization to use force, declaration of war). Fact. Sanders and Warren voted against it. Fact.

They voted against funding (as in the present tense, as in the initial and only request for funds so far) the war. That is it. I did not say they oppose the war, because they had earlier indicated support. I did not say they were not going to vote to fund the war in the future, I don't know what requests and votes will be made. What matters here is that they (and all the 2016 presidential hopefuls in the senate) are drawing a line. WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THE LINES WILL BE.

SO far, legislatively, the 22 "No" votes are in opposition to the war. If no other vote is taken, this one will matter. If further votes are taken, it will help define the positions. For example, the "no" voters could support only actions in Iraq and be consistent with the vote. Or, the could support only air wars, including Iraq and Syria. Or they could oppose it all (although nearly everyone has fallen in line to say IS needs to be destroyed).

The yes votes could end up support US ground troops.

That is why I say, show me where any other funding vote has taken place. We are living in real time. As of now, Sanders and Warren have voted against funding the war. When the next piece is offered, we'll see where they are. I hope that we can use this vote to push them to maintain opposition to funding any of it.

But most critically, I hope that when an AUMF in Syria is proffered it gets rejected flat out.

[NanceGreggs]

223. You've moved those goalpost so many times ...

... the football field is now as full of holes as your story.

Your OP stated quite clearly that Warren and Sanders "voted against funding Obama's war".

You did not say they voted against funding arms for Syrian rebels - which is what the vote was about.

You did not say, "Warren and Sanders voted against funding the initial and only request for funds so far". That's NOT what your OP says, is it? You're only bringing that up now because you've been told repeatedly that your OP was inaccurate and misleading - and it WAS both.

So instead of admitting that you stated something that was blatantly false and intended to mislead, you're now pathetically attempting to move the ol' goalposts yet again.

"Show me where any other funding vote has taken place." I never said any other funding vote has taken place. I don't think anyone else here has either. I can only assume you erected that strawman in hopes that he'll help you move those goalposts one more time.

[morningfog]

225. What stupid tortured bullshit. I give up.

I can't engage with someone who refuses to read words as they are used. WTF.

[deafskeptic]

164. Kudo for both Warren and Sanders

All these wars have to end because this is going to bankrupt our country.

Also, that war money could be better spent on roads and maintenance, making sure every american won't go hungry, single payer healthcare and numerous other stuff.

Finally, all these wars could boomerang on us. and we don't need more enemies at a time when we seem to be declining.

Lastly, I'm a pacifist. I consider violence to be only done if one's own/collective survival is at stake. In other words, it's a 'if all else fails' option.

[stevenleser]

167. Sanders and Warren are in favor of the airwar. This vote was just about arming the Syrian rebels. nt

[deafskeptic]

172. thanks for the correction. n/t

[Union Scribe]

176. You're pretty wound up about this. nt

[morningfog]

186. He's so wound up, he's holding contradictory positions.

[Union Scribe]

212. When they start that, just cite Sanders' office

The subject line of the email I got today from the Senator's office backs your OP: "Sanders Votes No on War Funds"

[morningfog]

213. That should be its own OP.

I don't understand why they feel so threatened by this thread. There is no spin, nothin controversial or inaccurate. I was just posting the facts that every senator who has been mentioned as a potential 2016 pres candidate voted against funding the first and only war vote.

That they got so blinded with rage they can't understand ther own thoughts is simply beyond me. I truly do not get it.

[morningfog]

187. Sanders and Warren are in favor of going after IS. I have never suggested otherwise.

They are clearly, and on the record against arming the rebels.

Now, will they support an AUMF in Syria? That remains to be seen.

Will they support the next funding bill related to the war? We will see.

It is, as of now, unclear exactly what they support. They are staking their position as the war effort develops. Will they support only the Iraq portion? Or will they support air strikes in Syria?

[TwilightGardener]

193. Er, no they didn't. The Syrian rebel deal is only a part of the war, not the war itself.

And it's already being done, has been for a year or more, by the CIA. And this amendment didn't offer funding, just lets the Pentagon move money around for it.

[Man from Pickens]

203. honorable mention Barbara Lee

the only member of the House who voted against AUMF

[Rex]

205. They must be running for POTUS.

[morningfog]

207. Seems that way. Gillibrand, Cruz and Paul voted no, too.

[yeoman6987]

206. At least Hillary won't have this to contend with

I am glad she is not in position right now. That was one thing that President Obama had going for him during the campaign. He didn't have to worry about Iraq War votes as he was not in position at the time. Hillary is now able to say, I would have voted one way or the other depending on how this turns out. A very good position to be in.

[morningfog]

208. Or it will work against her. When her public statements

Are full support, she's stuck there.

My worry is that we end up with a pro-war dem in Hillary and an anti-war repub.

[yeoman6987]

211. That could happen

But then we wi just have to focus on other issues. We have an anti-war President now who is taking us back to war. So nothing is guaranteed in life. And I bet the President wishes he didn't have to deal with this. I know I wouldn't want too.