ISIS came into being because of the Iraq War -- a war Hillary firmly supported

[brentspeak]

Therefore, Hillary's foreign policy and security credentials are pretty much mud; we are less safe today because of her actions.

Had Bernie Sanders' stance actually been followed -- i.e., do not commence the Iraq War -- ISIS would not exist today (nor would the pointless horror of the Iraq War had ever taken place).

[hollowdweller]

1. Actually the CIA birthed the large, multi national, nationless Islamic army in Afghanistan

To fight the USSR.

It's been around in one form or another since then.

[TM99]

6. No.

We used various jihadi movements to fight against our enemy, Mother Russia, but the actual jihadi movements began at the end of World War II and the carving up of the Middle East into the current countries and the creation of the State of Israel.

[Armstead]

17. If your really want to go back....The aftermath of WW 1 was a turning point

That's when we carved up the Middle East into artificial nations to allow the western powers to divide the spoils.

[TM99]

23. Hell, I think we could go back to

the crusades and see the same shit just a different century. Europe & Christendom fighting in the Middle East against Isam over land, resources, and imaginary sky beings.

Sad really.

[Moonwalk]

109. Well, but the crusades ended with Islam reconquering everything and being in power...

...in that region, unopposed, for almost 600 years. And no, the crusades really didn't amp Islam up into a kind of Isis, in spite of some pretty nasty events here and there. The crusader states actually became accepted and accepting of their Islamic neighbors and interacted just fine with them. What really got Islam militant were the Mongols who destroyed Baghdad. That was not only their 9/11, but it also removed the power from there and gave it, in the end, to Baibars and the Egyptian Mamluks (arguably the Isis of their day). They, of course, went on to crush the crusaders states--which were pretty weak and pathetic by then and easily taken down.

If we go on from there, historically, what remains (outside of Constantinople becoming Istanbul) is the eternal battle between Sunni and Shiite. We can go back to tribal infighting prior to the start of Islam if we like, and blame that for Isis (after all, Isis isn't just against the West; it wants to take down other Islamic nations and peoples). But, really, WWI probably IS our best starting point.

Which is all to say, we really can't go back before WWI if we're examining the modern problems we're having now. It's not that Islam ever forgave the crusades, but, realistically speaking, the crusades weren't as lingering an issue with Islamics as the West coming in before and around the 20th century and starting to carve things up.

[TM99]

113. You touch on what I meant.

Islam militancy began during the Crusades and the responses to the various European crusaders reflected that. And yes, the Sunni Shiite conflict arose shortly thereafter.

And I agree, WWI and the carving up of the Middle East by the European empires was the start of our modern conflicts.

Cycles repeat and the constant 'meddling' that the West has done in the Middle East is eerily reminiscent of the crusades. GW Bush even called the Iraq War another crusade. IS sees this war with the West as a crusade. Just never ending human stupidity fueled by religions of 'peace'.

[merrily]

144. Let's not forget the religons of imperialism and oil.

[TM99]

165. It is an unholy trifecta.

God, empires, and wealth.

[roguevalley]

222. I don't give a shit about the distant past.

this happened now and she had a hand in it. Its the burning tire everyone who voted for it will bear around their own necks forever. That is why she will never get my vote. She likes war. Syria, Iraq, you name it. She sees nothing wrong with having them.

Consider that the ISIS people are about the age they were when the war came and killed their families. They grew up to be big enough to take their rage and hand it back to us. We created this when the first bomb fell on Iraq, a war she voted for.

This was created by us.

[TM99]

227. I have an undergrad history degree

so it is interesting for me to look at cycles and beginning points.

With that said, I agree.

She has a hand in it. She is the current Dem front runner. This is very much a discussion that must be had. ISIS is definitely a direct consequence of Iraq, and those that pimped it and now the ones who must own it - Democrat or Republican.

[Major Hogwash]

250. Yay for history majors!!

And to think the Republicans thought we only studied art and literature!!

[TM99]

253. Well to be fair to the GOP

I also double majored in Philosophy.

My current field is rather far away from both.

[SCantiGOP]

211. No, read the OP

Hillary single-handedly created ISIS.

[TM99]

228. No she did not,

but she definitely shares responsibility for it as ISIS is a direct consequence of the invasion of Iraq which she not only supported but cheerleadered for.

[merrily]

142. +1

[lewebley3]

97. Bush and GOP created ISIS: Hillary is the best to lead foreign policy

[merrily]

147. Nope.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=806560

[Thespian2]

184. I'm with you...

[merrily]

188. Great! I'm buying.

[Thespian2]

190. Just Lifting My Glass...

Thanks...

[merrily]

193. You're welcome, fellow realist.

[rhett o rick]

189. But she agreed with Bush and Cheney. She even tried to convince others that the Republicons were

correct to invade and the Democrats that opposed were wrong. She sided with the Republicons over Democrats.

[lewebley3]

239. She was not commander and Chief: Bush was: nor is Clinton responbile for 911

[rhett o rick]

240. She voted and lobbied. She is responsible for supporting Bush. A horrible decision. nm

[lewebley3]

241. No she wasn't there is only one commander in Chief at a time: Bush said he made

the decision himself, without anyone's help.

[rhett o rick]

242. First of all you should understand that Bush lies. He never made any decisions on his own.

In any case Clinton voted and lobbied to send troops into Iraq. Watch her speech to the senate.

[lewebley3]

243. You lost the argument: so you want to change subject: so Checkmate!

[rhett o rick]

245. It's very interesting that your answers are pat statements, that often don't apply to my

response. Something very strange going on.

[lewebley3]

246. Your don't have any arguments: You only have opinions

Because you are bias toward Sanders, who
is losing

[rhett o rick]

247. Clinton flies in special planes. Sanders is a common person.

[lewebley3]

249. We don't want a common person: We need an extraordinary person to lead

There is no one with Hillary qualification and experiences running
for office to lead the Dem's. American's don't trust Sanders
with foreign policy, or their safety.

[rhett o rick]

256. Clinton has made big mistakes related to foreign policy. Why trust her

again. She answers to the billionaires and not to the people.

[lewebley3]

257. She doesn't answer to anyone but, herself and the American people

and most American's want her to be President, and they
want her to be in charge of foreign policy

[merrily]

130. The Op is about Isis. Remind me when Isis formed? But, hey, let's also throw in Al Qaeda Iraq and

the huge spike in recruitment by terrorist groups since the Iraq War.

Trying to pass it off as though it has nothing to do with the Iraq War is sophistry--in the service of whom and what?

When Sanders spoke against the Iraq War, he said, among other things, that it would de-stabilize the entire Middle East and he was correct, as he ususally is.

[grahamhgreen]

234. The core of ISIL is ex-Iraqi Sunni military. Lest we forget.

[JoePhilly]

2. HILLARY CREATED ISIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There fixed it for ya.

[NurseJackie]

53. That's pretty much it.

They're slowly realizing that their initials efforts are having little effect, so they're ramping-up the rhetoric and setting their hair on fire to try and get attention.

Other like-minded individuals love it, of course. But such efforts fail to harm Hillary and fail to improve Bernie's stagnant and faltering poll numbers. Looking at the results, one might assume they'd realize what they've been doing so far isn't working as planned, and instead try to determine if there's something ELSE they could be doing that would be more helpful.

But it's oddly comforting. As long as they continue along this path (annoying as it is, laughable as it is) then we can rest assured that Hillary remains a strong candidate with a comfortable lead.

There is no one nipping at her heels, she's far enough ahead that she can barely hear the yapping and howling. She's focused on winning and moving forward, the others can't seem to find a way to stop being distracted by squirrels, digging for bones, and chasing their own tails.

[JoePhilly]

57. They are helping to rewrite the hostory of the Bush Presidency ... so that ...

... Hillary is the one actually responsible for all the terrible things Bush did.

That's how desperate they are.

[restorefreedom]

77. there is no need to rewrite this. the truth is bad enough

this was cheneys war for oil and money. everyone who voted for it and sold it to the american people are partly responsible.

no need to do any revision. the reality is horrid in its own right.

[daleanime]

86. +1

[merrily]

146. BOOM! The simple truth (tragically) is bad enough.

Tell the truth about the truth and tell the truth about the lies.

[restorefreedom]

148. indeed. waiting to see how this is handled tonight. nt

[azmom]

153. +100000

[CentralMass]

81. Putting a check on the power of the executive branch is a responsibility of Congress.

[merrily]

143. Constitutionally, declaring war is the sole responsiblity of Congress and, yes, there's also

Congressional oversight of the Executive Branch, though that can get more complicated.

Legally, Bush needed the IWR resolution to start that war and Hillary helped him get it by advocating for that war.

[Hepburn]

90. She sided with him.

Whether she was the author or not of his bullshit policies, she agreed and supported them.

[Plucketeer]

95. Your assertion is preposterous!

So.... let's review this again.... WHO voted FOR us to go into Iraq - and WHO voted against it? That's the meat of the question. It's not a conditional nor suggestive sorta thing - it's who did and who didn't? And we won't even try to confuse the issue with the observation as to WHO spoke vehemently AGAINST that region-thrashing debacle. We won't talk about all the folks that would still have their heads attached if we'd just kept our hands to ourselves - or the thousands of flag-draped coffins we were officially ashamed of. Really - we won't go into those things. Just WHO VOTED HOW?

[merrily]

136. She is responsible. Not solely, but she certain has responsiblity-and not only for her vote.

She helped sell the war to Americans, much as did Colin Powell in his UN speech.

Her speech on the Senate floor was not for her fellow Senators, any more than Powell's speech in the UN was for nation members of the UN.

Ambassadors to the UN do not come in with an open mind about war until they hear the speeches, then vote for war based on who made the best speech. Neither do Senators. Decisions of such persons are made in other rooms, for reasons having nothing to do with televised speeches. Those speeches, Hillary's and Powell;s were for American viewing public, many of whom are indeed swayed by such things.

Colin Powell had just polled most trusted figure in the Bush Administration. That is why Bushco chose him. Hillary was not just a Senator, but the First Lady of President that, bless his heart, always polled popular, even after impeachment. She was as close to the face of the Democratic Party as any individual member of Congress can possibly be.

First Lady and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's speech put the Democratic imprimatur on that vote and that war to help sell it to Americans.

Republicans and New Democrats:

Address to the Nation on the Invasion of Iraq (January 16, 1991)



George H. W. Bush


Just 2 hours ago, allied air forces began an attack on military targets in Iraq and Kuwait. These attacks continue as I speak. Ground forces are not engaged.

This conflict started August 2d when the dictator of Iraq invaded a small and helpless neighbor. Kuwait—a member of the Arab League and a member of the United Nations—was crushed; its people, brutalized. Five months ago, Saddam Hussein started this cruel war against Kuwait. Tonight, the battle has been joined.

much more at:

http://www.millercenter.org/president/speeches/speech-3428

transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike

CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

much more at:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

more at:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026211673



Senate vote on 2002 AUMF at:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2002/s237



House vote on 2002 AUMF at:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/hjres114

10:16 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.


On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war. These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign. More than 35 countries are giving crucial support -- from the use of naval and air bases, to help with intelligence and logistics, to the deployment of combat units. Every nation in this coalition has chosen to bear the duty and share the honor of serving in our common defense.

more at http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html

[morningfog]

198. Out out damn spot. It's hers to own.

[Moonwalk]

115. Events like this certainly highlight Hillary's experience as Secretary of State...

...and actually being on the front lines during terrorist events like Bengazi, and put into question Bernie's lack of any such experience. Hillary would be able to hit the ground running on these things as she has first hand experience in this venue, and knows the ropes. Bernie would require time to learn all this.

So, yes, events like this put a spotlight on all that while dimming the focus on the domestic which is more Bernie's venue.

[merrily]

137. In 2002, Bernie said invading Iraq would de-stabilize the Middle East and Hillary urged the invasion

Excellent judgment and prescience on the part of Bernie, only God know what on the part of Hillary.

I'm not voting for job titles on a resume.

[Moonwalk]

221. Job title? You're saying she just had the title and did *nothing* as Secretary of State?

...funny, but she seems to have gone to a lot of countries, met and talked to a lot of leaders, been in the war room, made decisions in a crisis and helped hammer out peace with Iran. But you're saying all that's going to sway you is the ONE vote she made fourteen years ago rather than the real world experience she's had in the past four years? It wasn't just a job title she faked on her resume. It was ACTUAL experience and a lot of it.

By your criteria, I should look at the fact that Bernie voted against gun control and use that as my one and only criteria for deciding he shouldn't be president, ignoring anything else on his resume. Bernie certainly didn't seem to recognize that a lack of gun control would destabilize America. Hillary argued in favor of gun control. So, Hillary wins in being present in that instance.

My standard is to look at the resume. I'll give Bernie points and props on the Iraq vote, minuses' on the gun control vote, and I still don't see as much on his resume of real world experience to convince me he's not going to need time to get up to speed on foreign affairs. Obama had to do the same. So it's a question of whether we wait for Bernie to learn the ropes on that score, or we go for Hillary who already knows them. I know who you are voting for and I don't expect to change you mind, but you need to really understand that telling me or anyone else that we're looking only at a "job title" on a resume when we point to Hillary's time as secretary of state...is not cool.

You wouldn't like it if I said that Bernie's civil rights record was just job titles on a resume--and implied that you were being fooled into thinking he had such experience but didn't. You'd point to photos and evidence that he put in actual hard work and got actual experience in that venue. Please show the same consideration in in regards to all the evidence of Hillary's work as Secretary of State. She did not spend those four years at a desk doing nothing. And please show consideration for those who bring up that experience; we are not being fooled by a mere job title on a resume with nothing solid behind it.

[ismnotwasm]

141. Yup

Kind of a disgusting opportunism as well going on.

[paleotn]

235. She voted for the Iraq war, no?

....unless you've got a time machine, that simple fact ain't changing. She is culpable, along with 29 other Democratic Senators and 82 Democratic members of Congress for the blood of 4K US service members and hundreds of thousand Iraqis and counting. Do we have to stick your nose in it for you to acknowledge the truth, or what?

[cantbeserious]

119. HRC Must Immediately Withdraw From The Presidential Primaries For Her Contribution To This Tragedy

eom

[JoePhilly]

123. Impressive fantasy life you've got there.

[cantbeserious]

124. Impressive Reality Life - Calling Out A Neocon Enabler - That Voted For The Iraq War

eom

[merrily]

138. Not only voted for it--advocated for it.

[merrily]

152. Expecting her actually to give up her ambition of decades is a fantasy.

She should, though.

[onenote]

139. And Biden "must" resign as VP and Kerry as Secy of State and Reid as Minority Leader

Oh, wait. None of that is going to happen.

Nor should it.

[cantbeserious]

140. Maybe HRC Should Display Leadership And Take The Lead

eom

[merrily]

150. Remind me what Kerry and Reid did other than vote? Is either of them running for President now?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=806560

[onenote]

151. They're actually serving at high levels of government

If Clinton shouldn't be running because of her vote, then they shouldn't be serving.

Indeed, if Clinton shouldn't be running, Biden shouldn't be serving in an office that puts him first in line of succession. And Kerry is fourth in line. And of course Ryan and Hatch (numbers 2 and 3) should go to.

President Jack Lew.

[merrily]

154. Yes. Obama appointed Kerry and Nevada elected Reid. And?

Who should be serving and who should run for President and/or get votes in 2016 are different issues.

[onenote]

156. Because you say so?

There is zero logic in your position.

If someone shouldn't run to be president because of their IWR vote, someone shouldn't be serving in an office that makes them first in the line of succession (Biden) or fourth (Kerry). ANd presumably Ryan and Hatch (second and third) should not be serving either.

The idea that the IWR disqualifies someone from running for office but doesn't qualify anyone from serving simply demonstrates the ridiculousness of the argument.

[merrily]

159. Because you say so?

[onenote]

160. Well that turneed out well. i presented an argument, And you had nothing.

zero. zilch. nada.

[merrily]

181. Well, no desire to engage with you in the mode you were in.

You can keep trying to point out how stupid and illogical I am to your heart's content, for all the good it will do.

People who post here frequently with an eye to authentic discussion and not with an eye to "gotcha" or combat have a very different opinion of my skills. Their views mean something to me and are enough for me. You, on the other hand, haven't impressed me anywhere near as much as you seem to have impressed yourself.

Have a great day. /ignore.

[onenote]

207. I'd respect your skills if you would try to show them

rather than running away when you're challenged.

[treestar]

255. It demonstrate that the presidency is the only thing that counts with some people

They think all the power lies there.

[Live and Learn]

229. Not alone but she certainly played a role in it. nt

[JaneyVee]

3. Or we can just blame the terrorists.

Like any normal rational person should.

[Armstead]

19. No we have to at least consider the historical forces that led to thee movements

It's not like a bunch of ordinary people woke up all pissed off one day

[JaneyVee]

80. Buddy, terrorist attacks happened before Iraq.

[Armstead]

83. Buddy what the hell dio you think "historical forces" means?

Like go back to WW1.....and long before that if you really want to trace the roots of all this

[Fairgo]

176. Complex thinking sounds irrational

to simplisitic thinkers. Those who do not see the system and history behind the attack, blame the stick that hits them.

[NurseJackie]

58. Normal and rational? HA! Very amusing!

Those two words aren't the ones that immediately come to mind when I read the howling and yapping anti-Hillary posts.

[merrily]

157. Whereas posts like Reply 58 are pure well reasoned enlightenment. Poster, please.

[NurseJackie]

167. You know I'm correct.

You don't need to be an enlightened philosopher to recognize something so painfully obvious.

[merrily]

169. Um, no.

[NurseJackie]

171. Yes I am.

[leveymg]

61. Those who created the conditions deserve part of the blame. Hillary is one of the major factors in

the destabilization of Iraq, Libya and Syria, all countries that were regime changed under her leadership: leading Democratic neocon in the Senate IWR debate; and, as Secretary of State, she was the primary player pushing overthrow of the governments of Libya and Syria. ISIS took root in all three states after the US intervened.

That is the proven track record of terrible judgement and risk-taking behavior which disqualifies her from the Presidency. Any normal person should realize and acknowledge that. How much more blowback is needed until you admit the obvious. Hillary's neocon agenda has failed and it's creating worsening problems, including spreading ISIS terrorist attacks.

[Gmak]

78. On the mark!

Every time there is blowback from our empire-building interference in the Middle East, the neocons and neoliberals want to use it to further destabilize the area. I just hope Bernie is forceful tonight in rejecting knee-jerk reactionary pronouncements from you-know-who. I am old enough to remember the unseating of Mosedech in Iran in the '50s, the British occupation of Palestine, all in the name of controlling the region's oil. Oligarchs will just see the Paris attacks as another money-making opportunity.

[JaneyVee]

79. Yeah, because terrorist attacks never occurred before Iraq.

Do you guys even read what you type?

[leveymg]

121. Didn't say this was the first instance of blowback. But it likely

Won't be the last or the worst that stems from the disastrous neocon regime changes that Hillary had a central role in executing.

[merrily]

149. So make it worse? Ben Laden said he resolved to attack when he saw the blood of children in Beirut.

That was the result of an attack Poppy had ordered.

What made anyone think attacking Iraq would do us any good? Hell, the NIE that Hillary never bothered to read before advocating for the Iraq War said the war would endanger us.

Do you ever think about what you type?

[leveymg]

208. What makes you think we disagree?

[merrily]

209. You and I may agree,

but my reply was to JaneyVee.

I always appreciate hearing from you, though. It's been a while, I think?

[leveymg]

212. Nice to agree with someone here for a change. ;-)

Hard to tell who's talking to whom on this Damn little phone.

[merrily]

213. I know, right? Yet our view is in the majority at DU. Weird.

[leveymg]

214. Thanks for making a difference.

[merrily]

215. I don't know if I do that, but, if I do, we all do. So, thank you and back at you.

[merrily]

155. Terrorists are not asking for my vote. A rational person puts responsiblity everywhere it belongs.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=806560

[Live and Learn]

230. I do. The terrorists on both sides.

And, I would really not like to be forced in to voting for one of them.

[Sheepshank]

4. And the fuck up in Afghanistan enraged Al Q even further

So there is that....thanks Bernie

[brentspeak]

11. "Enraged" them more than they already had been?

al-Qaeda attacked more because of Afghanistan? They were about to suddenly to stop carrying out attacks -- but then the U.S. retaliated against the Taliban, and that changed everything? Is that the line you're trying to push?

[Sheepshank]

15. You linear thinking is hysterical

So, here let me just simplify so we can move on...I'll say what you keep dancing around and make pains to avoid saying out loud, "Hillary is evil, she is responsible for all deaths that come from Isis, so I won't vote for her" Please correct me if I misunderstood your last 100 posts regarding Hillary.

[brentspeak]

18. Considering that this is my very first post

I have ever made concerning Hillary and ISIS, I would have to say that, yes, you're the one who actually sounds hysterical.

[Sheepshank]

69. If I had actually said what you said I said, you may have had a point.

But your constant Hillary bashing is well documented. You reWriting and parsing my words isn't doing you any favors.

[KittyWampus]

5. How do you ignore her years as Secretary of State when you talk about

"her actions"?

And Bernie Sanders voted to fund that War. Did he not? Having it both ways?

[TM99]

9. Oh, I definitely don't ignore Clinton's

time at State - We came, we saw, he died...with a giggle.

Once the war started, you better believe we fund those troops. The US has a long and sorry history of throwing young men into war only to abandon them with resources while they are there and to ignore the psychological and physical damage done once they get home.

Sanders is a very good friend to vets.

[A Simple Game]

89. So you are one of the ones that wanted the troops to have unarmored humvees in Iraq

causing many to be killed and maimed by IEDs. Not to mention many other examples of lack of support from our politicians and many in the public, shame on you.

That's just one of the reasons to support Bernie, after opposing the actions of others to commit our troops to wars of aggression he at least has the sense to fund their needs.

It seems you must agree with Rumsfeld on this: “You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish you had at a later time.”

I am opposed to all wars but at least if you and others wish to send troops into wars of aggression you should join Bernie and I in having the decency to equip them for the job.

[KittyWampus]

91. #1. You make a lot of stupid assumptions about what I want

and I say "stupid" not as an insult but as a way of expressing how uninformed and counter to reality they are.


#2. You probably also made the erroneous assumption I support Clinton for the Democratic primary.

[A Simple Game]

98. I don't assume you complained about Bernie supporting the troops.

And please don't "assume" I'm "stupid" enough to believe you don't support Hillary.

If you are ashamed of supporting Hillary, don't support her, it's simple. Oh, and when I say simple, it's not an insult, it's a way of expressing the reasoning it takes to realize the solution to your problem of being ashamed of supporting Hillary.

[Hepburn]

94. He voted to fund the TROOPS

He did NOT vote for the Iraqi invasion. Supporting the troops and being fooled by Bush-Cheney are totally two entirely different issues. I was and still am totally opposed to the Iraqi invasion. On the date of the first bombing, I was at the Federal Building in West L.A. demonstrating and crying. But do I support our troops and do I want to see them protected with all necessary equipment? Hell, yes. They are the ultimate victims of the asshats who planned the invasion and those who supported it. Hell, yes, vote to fund the troops!

[Evergreen Emerald]

7. ohmygod! You are hysterical.

[polynomial]

232. Finally the bug spray, fruit flies are everywhere

It’s really funny to characterize Hillary saying she invoked 911 for some economical magical political reason that fell flat. The reality is America’s economic system was paralyzed with indetermination on 911.

The center of the Bond market was in the Twin Towers disrupted, destroyed, and reconfigured by the GOP Republican Guard.

Voila, a convoluting master piece of media and political financial jam up of bailouts in a historical proportion that tapped the Treasury of trillions of dollars with a rampage of media lies.

A new genre of our time solidified on 911 that is supported by a resent apology from British Prime Minister Tony Blair admitting now he knows the Intelligence was compromised, and wrong.

Bush Crime Inc. with American money hatched the new culture of mental political disorder, engaged in war torture and misery called Al-Qaedaisis the natural for the military industrial complex profiteering machine.

Hillary made a vote to war on compromised Intelligence that was fabricated by Bush Crime Inc. That is the fly in the ointment.

It should also be part of the analysis that this whole debate process is more of the Hollywood Roast type, of American Idol sensationalism or just plain liar, liar, pants on fire grade school gaming.

[DCBob]

8. That's quite a stretch to blame Hillary for ISIS.

Sounds like RW logic blaming Obama for everything bad and given no credit for anything good.

[shenmue]

87. Yeah

[brooklynite]

10. ISIS also came into being because of the Arab Spring...

...which plenty of people here supported.

I was IN Syria two just before the peaceful protests for Democracy (which triggered the Civil War) started; there was no anti-American sentiment and no religious animosity.

[Cheese Sandwich]

22. But US policy in Syria was a disaster... Obama and Clinton sent arms to supposed "moderate rebels"..

And much of those weapons and groups ended up supporting ISIS and Al Qaeda.

It's the same disastrous policy of regime change that was followed in Iraq, Libya, and Syria, and ended in catastrophe each time.

Hillary Clinton was a leader coming down on the wrong side in each case.

[brooklynite]

32. The alternative was: let Assad bomb and gas civilians

If you want to invoke an isolationist worldview, feel free to give it a try; you're not going to find a lot of support.

[Cheese Sandwich]

37. No no no. There were chances multi-party peace talks and the US refused to participate

The US was committed to a policy of regime change and refused to work with the Syrian government or their allies Iran and Russia, until much much too late.

[bigtree]

93. Hillary expressed early opposition to what Pres. Obama ultimately ordered

February 27, 2012

CBS News correspondent Wyatt Andrews spoke to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who said the U.S. is "deeply distressed" about the civilian casualties but raised serious concerns about calls to arm the Syrian opposition.

"What are we going to arm them with and against what? We're not going to bring tanks over the borders of Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan," Clinton said.

Another administration concern is that weapons might go to al Qaeda.

"We know al Qaeda leader Ayman al- Zawahiri is supporting the opposition in Syria. Are we supporting al Qaeda in Syria? Hamas is now supporting the opposition. Are we supporting Hamas in Syria?" Clinton said. "If you're a military planner or if you're a secretary of state and you're trying to figure out do you have the elements of an opposition that is actually viable, that we don't see. We see immense human suffering that is heartbreaking."

read: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/clinton-arming-syrian-rebels-could-help-al-qaeda/


...so there's at least a question as to what she supported and when.

[Cheese Sandwich]

100. Hillary Clinton still wouldn't give up on training Syrian rebels

Mrs. Clinton has a great talent of being able to somehow be on both sides of every issue at the same time.

CBS NEWS September 22, 2015, 12:01 AM
Hillary Clinton still wouldn't give up on training Syrian rebels

As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton advocated early on for training and equipping moderate Syrian rebels to help fight Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria. At that time, near the end of summer 2012, the president disagreed with her, only to authorize the program two years later after she had left office.
...

Clinton wrote extensively about her advocacy for a train-and-equip program in her 2014 memoir, "Hard Choices."
...

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-history-with-arming-syrian-rebels/

"There are real risks to such an approach," she said in the book, citing the Afghan rebels the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Pakistan armed during the Soviet-Afghan War in the 1980s who later formed al Qaeda.

"But if rebels could be vetted and trained effectively, it would be helpful in a number of ways. First, even a relatively small group might be able to give a big psychological boost to the opposition and convince Assad's backers to consider a political solution," she wrote.

Clinton argued that the U.S. was sacrificing the chance to bring order to the flow of weapons coming to Syria from various Arab states. Those weapons often went to competing armed groups or found their way into the hands of extremists.

The key, she said, was "vetting the rebel fighters to ensure we first weeded out the extremists."

more: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-history-with-arming-syrian-rebels/

[Gloria]

12. If HRC had originated the idea of going into Iraq, I would blame her....

But as one of many lawmakers who were told and accepted what the Admin. said, you can't go there so simplistically. The history is that foreign policy is not a partisan issue, as it has become now. Sanders would have been against anything ... A idealogical vote would be the norm for him. Pick one, vote no.

Oh, except he says he will defend the U.S. if he's President. And what does that actually mean? You can't tell because the world is always changing and new threats are always out there.....

[brentspeak]

14. If Hillary accepted the obvious lies Bush's admin told her

Then that invalidates her as a competent candidate for President right then and there.

[DCBob]

20. They weren't so obvious to many.... most Senate Democrats voted for Iraq War Resolution of 2002.

58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#United_States_Senate

[brentspeak]

27. There could be 20,000 more Senate Democrats who also stupidly voted for it

and it wouldn't make Clinton's incompetence on the matter any less.

[DCBob]

35. Just a reality check that many good Democrats were duped by the Cheney/Bush war dance.

I think the most compelling event was Colin Powell's speech at the UN. Most Democrats trusted Powell and thought he wouldn't lie about something like this.

Both Biden and Kerry voted with Hillary Clinton along with most of the rest of the Dem Senators.

[frylock]

217. The only people making this argument were duped by Cheney/Bush.

Sorry. No sale.

[DCBob]

218. I didn't expect someone like you to buy it.

However, more reasonable, less biased individuals would probably understand.

[frylock]

223. Own it, Bob.

[bahrbearian]

36. Do any of those Dems have the Gall to run for POTUS after that "mistake"

[DCBob]

39. Yes as a matter of fact: John Kerry, Joe Biden and John Edwards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#United_States_Senate

[bahrbearian]

48. All losers in the GE , much like Hillary will be.

if the people wanted a republican president they would vote Republican

[DCBob]

49. So your argument now changes.

[bahrbearian]

51. How so ? Those people had the Gall to run , then lost .

If the people wanted a war Hawk they vote republican.

[DCBob]

56. Well there's yet another new argument.

[bahrbearian]

60. An Argument you have no defense for.

[DCBob]

62. Ok here..

Hillary's vote for the Iraq war will have zero negative impact on her winning the general election. If anything it might help her.

[bahrbearian]

63. Bookmarked

[DCBob]

64. Thanks!

[Armstead]

40. And they all screwed up. Common sense was absent

There was absolutely no doubt that GW wanted war, and the whole "inspections" was just a Kabuki dance.

And the actual "evidence" to justify an invasion.....Flimsy would be an understatement.

[DCBob]

45. I can't dismiss 29 Democratic Senators as simply not having "common sense".

That makes no sense.

[bahrbearian]

50. Its not common sense its power and $$$$$$

[Armstead]

84. Combination of political calculation (cowardice), actual supoport for neo-con agenda..and

well, let's call it an error of judgement.

What it led to was very predictable. It was lighting a match to a dry hay bale, as many pointed out at the time.

PS -- The dya before the vote I called my Senators to ask them to vote no. Ted Kennedy's assistant said "He is viting against it." Period

Kerry's office said "Senator Kerry hasn't yet made a final decision. It's a difficult decision and he is weighing all of the options....etc."

I much preferred Kennedy's answer.

[DCBob]

99. You have to admit it was a tough call for many.

Of course no Democrat trusted Bush.. except perhaps Lieberman... but the evidence they were presenting was hard to dismiss taken at its face value. I think the tipping point for many was the Colin Powell UN speech. Most Democrats considered him a straight shooter and wouldn't lie about something this serious.

[azmom]

158. No, the difficult call was made by those that

Bucked the establishment and did the right thing.

[DCBob]

168. One could argue it was a cowardly vote to vote against.

They knew it would pass anyway so they could vote against it and not have any fear of being held responsible for not stopping Iraq from a potential attack on the US.

[azmom]

172. Are you implying that those that voted for it

Did it so they would not be held responsible for not stopping Iraq from a potential attack on the U.S.?

[DCBob]

173. I am implying nothing more than what I wrote in the previous post.

[azmom]

174. I see. Discussion over.

[AgingAmerican]

111. It was completely obvious to anyone paying attention

She voted the way she did out of political expediency.

[DCBob]

118. Disagree. No one was not "paying attention".

This was a very very tough call for most Democrats. Probably the most difficult of their entire time in office.

[AgingAmerican]

120. Freedom Fries!

War! War! War! War! War!

[Gloria]

21. Not being privy to all the crap being dumped on Congress at the time

I can't say it was OBVIOUS. I was against the intervention for my own idealogical reasons. But, I wasn't sitting there after 911 with my NYC constituents sitting in the ruins of the WTC...

Let's see, Sanders votes against a gun law because he is representing his constituency. So, HRC is representing NYC, her constituency and the mood there (and in the country) is that the US has to get going on this problem of terrorism.

It's not all done in a lab....the times and what's available is what makes a decision happen...not just the idealogical "no war"
stance, that exists no matter what...

[TM99]

34. Clinton either bought the lies,

believed in the PNAC plan, or voted out of political expediency.

None of those options qualify her as a thoughtful and wise Commander in Chief.

[bahrbearian]

38. Clinton's constituency is MIC and Wall street not the people of NYC

[coyote]

132. My 5 year old has better judgement than Hillary.

her vote was for political expediency, nothing more nothing less.

[TM99]

29. You might want to get the talking points straight.

Sanders can't be a dove who would have voted against anything - an ideological vote as you say - but also be a hawk who voted for Kosovo, the Afghanistan campaign after 9/11 and continued funding for the trips.

[99th_Monkey]

13. And war begets war, and more war

and so it goes.

And the war criminals who engineer wars walk free, and demand endless war.

And we all know why. Follow the money, as they say.

[Cheese Sandwich]

16. Not only the Iraq war, but also the disastrous US policy of "regime change" in Syria

The US helped build ISIS by arming scumbags in Syria

[1StrongBlackMan]

25. How many hind-sight OPs ...

will DUers post, between now and the G/E, as if contemporaneous decisions can be judged as right or wrong; but, not using the information available at the time of the "wrong" decision to consider what might have occurred had a different decision been made.

For example, would ISIS exist had Bush the Lesser, not gone against Powell's counsel to not destroy Iraq's political structure and to leave the Iraq military in place?

[brentspeak]

44. Hillary needed a crystal ball to figure out

total chaos would result from the invasion???

[1StrongBlackMan]

67. In short, YES ...

While war always produces total chaos, they rarely, if ever, produce an ISIS (your original point).

[Gman]

105. it's becoming more clear each day that Sanders will NOT be the nominee

Snd these people can't stand it. They're imploding and lashing out because they hate Hillary whether or not Sanders is running. They are at the point of literally having nothing.

[leftofcool]

26. ISIS is all Hillary's fault, as is global warming, tornadoes, and other things.

[bahrbearian]

41. "Iran is the greatest threat to the US" War Hawk

[bigtree]

28. mainly a result of the way Bush's honchos managed their overthrow of Hussein

...Problem was, the political cards were deliberately laid out in Iraq by Bush in a way that both compelled our government to respond as both an ally and an adversary of Iraqis. What other possible reason could there have been for continuing to escalate the numbers of troops in Iraq at the outset of Bush's invasion while they purged the Iraqi police and military forces of thousands of Baathists?

No more evidence is needed to demonstrate the Bush gang's responsibility in creating this latest terror group, which President Obama has opportunistically conflated with our number one nemesis, al-Qaeda, than one of the Baathist leaders of the ISIS forces, Izzat Ibrahim, who was deposed in the initial invasion and occupation of Iraq along with other Baathist supporters of Saddam Hussein, and has been in active warfare with the Shiite-dominated Iraqi regime ever since they were enabled into power and used their U.S.-supplied weapons to stage barbaric attacks against the Sunni minority population.

[Cheese Sandwich]

33. LOL Great invasion but Bush just executed it wrong.

With a real leader like HRC next time we will invade and conquer the right way!

[bigtree]

42. I wrote nothing of the sort

...I've written extensively, contemporaneously, on the Iraq invasion and occupation.

My writings (as with most factual accounts) far outmatch your sad attempt to slander me.

my article archives at OpEdNews.com: http://www.opednews.com/populum/authorspage.php?sid=176&entry=articles&view=all


America's Perpetual Protection Racket in Iraq - We Never Learn

pt.1) http://www.mintpressnews.com/MyMPN/americas-perpetual-protection-racket-iraq/

pt.2) http://www.mintpressnews.com/MyMPN/americas-protection-racket-iraq-never-learn-part-2/

Justifying War: Production For Use

pt.1) http://www.mintpressnews.com/MyMPN/justifying-wars-production-use-part-1/

pt.2) http://www.mintpressnews.com/MyMPN/justifying-wars-just-wars-part-2/

[Cheese Sandwich]

52. "mainly a result of the way Bush's honchos managed their overthrow of Hussein"

The policy of invading and occupying another country, that's the problem that all the other chaos grows out of.

The problem is not simply the way the operation was managed. There is no way to do it "correctly". There's no right way to do that.

My writings (as with most factual accounts) far outmatch your sad attempt to slander me.

My writings are bigger than your writings!!

[bigtree]

54. your responses to me are as shallow as the rest of your postings

...the question was about the creation of ISIS.

That question, as most serious observers have weighed in extensively on, is infinitely more complex than the invasion itself. If you had any interest at all in looking beyond the petty politics you're playing with on this thread, you might find some deeper understanding of the issue.

[Cheese Sandwich]

59. take chill pill nt

[bigtree]

65. why should I 'chill out?'

...I spent the majority of the last decade researching and reporting on Iraq.

I'm not about to give you or anyone free reign to demean ANY of that with the juvenile, ignorant politics which (for a select few) passes for political debate here.

[Cheese Sandwich]

70. Your choice dude

I'm not really aware of your life's work and probably never will be.

I was just responding to the one post. Where you said:

mainly a result of the way Bush's honchos managed their overthrow of Hussein

...Problem was, the political cards were deliberately laid out in Iraq by Bush in a way that both compelled our government to respond as both an ally and an adversary of Iraqis. What other possible reason could there have been for continuing to escalate the numbers of troops in Iraq at the outset of Bush's invasion while they purged the Iraqi police and military forces of thousands of Baathists?

No more evidence is needed to demonstrate the Bush gang's responsibility in creating this latest terror group, which President Obama has opportunistically conflated with our number one nemesis, al-Qaeda, than one of the Baathist leaders of the ISIS forces, Izzat Ibrahim, who was deposed in the initial invasion and occupation of Iraq along with other Baathist supporters of Saddam Hussein, and has been in active warfare with the Shiite-dominated Iraqi regime ever since they were enabled into power and used their U.S.-supplied weapons to stage barbaric attacks against the Sunni minority population.

I don't criticize you personally, but was just criticizing this idea that mismanagement or bad management led to the disaster in Iraq, and that there was some other way it could have been managed better for a better result. There is some truth to that actually. It's a complex issue. I certainly will not defer to your "expertise" on the issue. Hopefully you don't take that as a sign of disrespect. The disaster of Iraq was the decision to invade in the first place. Once the decision was made in Washington to do regime change in Iraq, it was always going to end in a disaster.

Cheney even admitted it when explaining why they didn't go to Baghdad in Gulf War Uno.

[bigtree]

73. again, the premise in the op was that the IWR was responsible for ISIS

...there is a myriad of problems with that simplification; most notably, giving Bush cover for the decisions that he made - decisions which Clinton had absolutely zero say in.

Further, anyone who believes Bush wouldn't have committed troops to the invasion without congressional approval and moved forward with the occupation ignores Bush's own statements before the vote. Indeed, Bush had every bit of power he needed to commit troops for a period of time before informing Congress, and every intention of doing so.

The IWR was an important measure of where our politicians stood at the time, but Bush bears the ultimate responsibility for invading and occupying Iraq. It wasn't a Democratic aim to halt U.N. inspections and invade. There's no indication that ANY Democratic president would have conducted themselves as Bush did.

The vote was a blunder, even a betrayal of Democrats who expected our legislators to stand up against the reflexive militarism republicans were already famous for. However, the invasion and occupation (and so many important and consequential measures he employed there - de baathification, nationalizing their economy, Interim president Chalabi...) was Bush's responsibility, entirely.

Moreover, the subsequent votes to fund the occupation obviously fueled the opportunistic war. Those funding votes are the ONLY significant levers Congress possesses to manage or limit the president's ability to wage war. Refusing to fund the deployments effectively ends them. Those voting (repeatedly) to codify what Bush was doing in Iraq bear responsibility for the outcome, at least as much, if not more than those who tragically voted for that original article of faith that he would use restraint and allow the U.N. inspections to continue.

[questionseverything]

163. maybe if we had punished the torturers instead of declaring they were patriots,things could of been

different

////////////////////
That's who this reluctance to release the torture photos really seems directed toward. It's not just 'anti-American' opposition the White House looks to be worried about inflaming. I believe it's also American, European and other supporters of their continuing militarism that they intend to keep in the dark about the extent of their recklessness and abuses associated with their occupations. The new gang in town doesn't want their militarism branded with the images of the past, but I'll bet we can put up a few images of this administration's militarism, already out there, that can rival these torture pics. Maybe that was also on the president's mind.

[AgingAmerican]

112. Her supporters are suddenly all warmongers today

Orders must have come down from above, "War! War! War!"

[bigtree]

116. the discussion of this important issue (in this thread and others) mirrors the petty politics

...practiced by a select few here.

IWR vote > ISIS is a braindead analysis. Sorry if some believe parroting it is some sort of badge of honor.

The fuck that passes for knowledge here is stunning.

[Cosmic Kitten]

30. The Clinton Doctrine created a humanitarian crisis

The conflict in Syria and Libya
have exacerbated the refugee crisis
and fueled aggression by
the Sunni extremists...

Sunni extremists with ties to Saudi Arabia,
a nation Hillary approved for massive sales
of weapons.

Hillary's foreign policy is a bloody disaster

[in_cog_ni_to]

31. She is definitely complicit in EVERYTHING happening in the world of terrorism. There's no denying it

Had she not voted to illegally invade Iraq, last night wouldn't have happened. ISIS wouldn't exist. She created the mess in Libya and Syria. She gave the world ISIS.

It really does lie at her feet. She has ZERO standing on foreign policy. Zip, zero, nada, none.

Had we followed Bernie's lead and left Iraq alone, last night would never have happened. FACT.

[BooScout]

43. Let's just save everyone time and effort and go ahead and say....

....It's all Hillary's fault that the end of the world is coming.

We should start a petition on this meme to make it officially so.

[sunnystarr]

68. Guess Obama can breathe a sigh of relief ...

I can't believe I'm reading this op on DU. Makes me feel dirty ...

[riversedge]

107. oh -an upcoming thread will agree with The RW....

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/260162-santorum-obama-hillary-created-isis

[freshwest]

226. Who knew Sanctimonious was still popular? Wonders never cease. n/t

[UglyGreed]

46. It's a part of a long list

of meddling in the Middle East. The biggest one IMO was training the mujahideen against the Soviet Union. Radical Islam was born under this strategy. The CIA (with the help of Saudi Arabia) even supplied literature to evoke Jihad. We are the world's instigators first, then the world's police second. We help create terrorists then act as if we have nothing to do with the problem.

[TwilightGardener]

47. She and her sad little errand boy Panetta and General "All In" wanted to destabilize Syria and

arm rebels to overthrow Assad. That left a nice void for ISIS to grow. Of course she's partially responsible, directly through her actions as SoS. You don't even need to go back to the IWR. It's more immediate than that.

[Dem2]

55. Hillary is responsible for ISIS

Got it.

[askew]

66. Bernie and O'Malley were right on the Iraq War. Hillary was wrong.

Her vote helped lead to a vote that destabilized the entire region. I hope Bernie or O'Malley bring that up because the media has brushed over Hillary's poor FP judgment time and time again because they have the same poor judgment.

[George II]

71. Well, you flung it at the wall, but it's not going to stick.

[emulatorloo]

72. BRENTSPEAK: Bush and Cheney get a FREE PASS

Why am a not surprised at your thread? Typical.

[Nye Bevan]

74. Were there Islamic extremists perpetrating atrocities on the West prior to the Iraq war?

I believe there were.

[cantbeserious]

75. Yes - Some Of The Blood Of ISIS Falls To The Neocons And War Hawks - Including ...

eom

[senz]

76. The invasion of Iraq was a colossal mistake creating irreparable damage on a grand scale.

It tore up the M.E., killed hundreds of thousands of people, unleashed ISIS, displaced and made refugees of millions, and played a part in wrecking our economy. The M.E. may never fully recover from it.

And it was started on a transparent, bald-faced lie. The Bush administration should be publicly censured for it and for their negligence in not stopping 9/11 when they had the chance.

I would have a lot more confidence in Hillary if I thought she acted from ethical principles and a sense of responsibility to others, rather than self-interest. In fact, this may be the core of what I find most disturbing in her.

[riversedge]

82. You and the RW-two peas in a pod-smearing a Democratic candidate. Shameful.

[shenmue]

85. She eats people and worships Satan, you know?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

88. That's okay. Her solution will be even more war.

[MynameisBlarney]

92. Oh come on now

I'm no Hillary fan, but this is low.
To politicize this is an absolute disgrace and is totally disrespectful of the victims and their loved ones.

[coyote]

135. This is not politicizing it...

One of the questions everyone should be asking themselves, is why did this happen? And it's certainly not because "they hate us for our freedoms." Hillary did not create ISIS, but she most definitely helped in enabling it. The people against the Iraq warned this could happen and look where we are today.

[MynameisBlarney]

238. Of course it's politicizing it.

This is like the GOP blaming Obama for everything.

[Gman]

96. So it's Hillary's fault?

Michelle Malkin also took cheap advantage of a tragedy for a few worthless political points too yesterday.

You're no better than the worst right winger trashing a good Democrat by taking advantage of the death and injury of hundreds.

Disgusting personal qualities.

[zappaman]

101. Dead bodies everywhere in Paris but Hillary haters can't even take a moment to mourn.

Not when there's hatin' to do!

[ismnotwasm]

145. +1000

[sheshe2]

185. Sad, isn't it. nt

[sheshe2]

186. + 1 from KMOD,

since she can't do it herself.

[DFW]

102. I saw a reasonable thread trashing Gingrich et al. for using the killings for political advantage

I think that thread was spot on. As my old friend Stan says, "'nuff said."

[LuvLoogie]

103. Neither O'Malley nor Sanders will take that position.

Though the moderator might try to serve it up. In which case "hitting it out of the park" might not be the answer you expect. I predict that neither will press the point much as it will not gain them support in the primary, and could even be detrimental.

If the the debate descends into finger-pointing, it will damage the Dems.

[MisterP]

104. absolutely not!

what happened was that we blithely hired and armed proto-IS from the Gulf Council, told them to overthrow Qaddafi for us, get ever-more radical (I'm in foreign-policy history, it's always how this rolls)

then we thought they'd just turn in their guns to the nearest CIA agent (would he have a truck or something? some of those pieces are BIG) and go home to hoe

of course ultra-Salafism, real nationwide power, tremendous oil reserves, Saudi financial and intellectual patronage meant they didn't NEED the outsiders trying to "handle" them, least not the guys at Benghazi

winter turns to spring and Kerry needs someone to attack the next dictator we used to like but don't, and the Libyans and Saudis step up to the plate

just six more months, guys!

[MisterP]

106. and besides bombing Libya turned out great--read it right here on DU

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002388548
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002405978
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002768036
http://betterment.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6720333
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=468383
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025452028
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=161306
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002752959
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/www.scn.org/youtube.com/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x638549
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3611795
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=240964
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002467606

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

108. Oh, shush! It was a Hard Choice between acting stupid or acting with political expediency.

She chose both.

[AgingAmerican]

110. Her supporters are all beating the war drums today

War! War! War! War!

[George II]

125. Point to one.

[AgingAmerican]

126. Here's a bunch

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=805585

[George II]

127. Swing and a miss.

[AgingAmerican]

128. I didn't expect you would click on it

nt

[George II]

131. I went down the entire thread, unless I missed it there was only ONE person who could be....

....remotely interpreted as "banging war drums", and that person said that Clinton will still advocate for a no-fly zone.

There was another saying she should get the Middle East countries together to discuss a resolution to the situation there.

If that's "banging war drums" then we need more of that.

[pinebox]

114. What a giant cluster *uck we've gotten ourselves into

[cantbeserious]

117. Yes - The 99% Should Call For Hillary Rodham Clinton To Immediately Withdraw Her Candidacy

eom

[Beausoir]

122. Yesterday was Hillary's fault?

[Purrfessor]

219. Haven't you heard? Hillary's vote for the Iraq War...

was the only vote that counted. It negated all other votes for and against the war and actually overrode the Bush Administration's desire to allow the weapon inspectors to remain in Iraq and complete their search for WMD.

[TeddyR]

129. This is the type of drivel

That makes me less likely to support any particular candidate. I looked at the vote on the Iraq war resolution and you know which Dems supported in addition to Hillary - VP Biden and the following senators: Feinstein, Dodd, Max Cleland, Evan Bayh, John Kerry, Harry Reid, Schumer, and Herb Kohl, along with numerous other Dems. A majority of senate Dems voted in favor of the resolution. In hindsight it was the wrong approach, but if you are going to try and tag Hillary with fault for this resolution then you need to tag the majority of Dems as well.

[obnoxiousdrunk]

182. You left out liberal heart throb

Author of tale/tail of two Americas.... John Edwards

[jamzrockz]

133. THe question I asked in a different thread

Can someone please help me connect the dots on how the war in Iraq created the atmosphere for the Arab spring and maybe how that Arab spring caused a US supported war in Libya which led to weapons from Benghazi going to Syria which then fueled a civil war which weakened a govt to the point that ISIS was able to take advantage.

Can someone please connect the dots for me. Also by that reasoning, one could say that the years of sanctions and bombing under Bill Clinton's administration created a weak govt in Iraq that was then easily smashed by Bush's war which created ISIS or another way you can look at it. There was no ISIS until Obama and Russia got the Syrian govt to give up their chemical weapon stock. Maybe the chemical weapons prevented ISIS from invading and once removed, ISIS was created.

I think this is really simple, ISIS came about due to the whole democratic push by the people who supported regime change in Libya and Syria. They got the ball rolling and ISIS grew out of that fight. No need looking back 12-20 yrs in order to fight the cause.

[redstateblues]

134. How about all those Nader voters that put Bush/Cheney into office?

Gore would have never invaded Iraq. Following some of the thinking here shouldn't they bear some responsibility?

[randome]

161. ISIS has its genesis way back in 1989.

https://www.quora.com/How-did-ISIS-form-When-and-where-did-ISIS-begin

The group began more than two decades ago as a fervid fantasy in the mind of a Jordanian named Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. A onetime street thug, he arrived in Afghanistan as a mujahideen wannabe in 1989, too late to fight the Soviet Union. He went back home to Jordan, and remained a fringe figure in the international violent “jihad” for much of the following decade. He returned to Afghanistan to set up a training camp for terrorists, and met Osama bin Laden in 1999, but chose not to join al-Qaeda.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Where do uncaptured mouse clicks go?[/center][/font][hr]

[merrily]

162. Thank you. Sanders predicted that invading Iraq would de-stabilize the entire Middle East: correct.

Hillary advocated for the invasion, withiout even having read the NIE. Wrong. So wrong. Oh, so very wrong.

Years later, when she was preparing to run for President she said she was wrong. Her belated admission resurrected no one, healed no bodies or minds, returned a single displaced Iraqi nor returned a single dollar to the US Treasury. No mulligans on war votes. None. You have to get it right the first time. Sanders did.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=806560

He was also right about the Afhanistan surge and Hillary was wrong again. I shudder to think what her judgment and approach may wreak if she is CIC.

Sanders 2016.

[Nonhlanhla]

164. She did not "firmly support" the war

From what she said at the time and later, it was clear that she voted for the war resolution in order to try to avoid war by strongarming Saddam Hussein into giving up potential WMD's, and with the reassurance by people in the administration like Chuck Hagel that they would not use the authority to go to war before the UN inspectors have not done their job. To say that Hillary "firmly supported the war," is a bit misleading. She voted to give the president authority to go to war, thinking that the authority would be used judiciously.

I think that was a gigantic mistake on her part, and she has since admitted as much, but I do not think it is right to accuse her of "firmly supporting" the war.

[randome]

166. Agreed. And nicely played.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Where do uncaptured mouse clicks go?[/center][/font][hr]

[Warren DeMontague]

170. 'she voted for the war resolution in order to try to avoid war'

funny, just yesterday I was told that she voted for the IWR because she was Senator from New York and it was a reasonable representation of her constituents, because 70% of New Yorkers supported attacking Saddam Hussein.

Odd. It would seem if she voted for the war because she didn't want the war, she wasn't representing her state very well.

[Nonhlanhla]

177. Words from her speech

The senator-from-NY rationale for the war resolution vote I've never heard of. If true, it would indeed be disappointing - for the same reason that Bernie's gun support "since he represents a rural state" annoys me.

But here's the reason for my words above. Words from her speech:

"Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation.

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption, or for unilateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.
... it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort."

In an interview with Tim Russert she said the following: "We can have this Jesuitical argument about what exactly was meant. But when Chuck Hagel, who helped to draft the resolution said, 'It was not a vote for war,' What I was told directly by the White House in response to my question, 'If you are given this authority, will you put the inspectors in and permit them to finish their job?' I was told that's exactly what we intended to do."

I don't like her vote, but I think as Democrats we are able to do nuance, and look at the whole picture, and given the whole picture, her vote was not simply a vote for war - indeed, it seems that it was paradoxically driven by the desire to avoid war by strongarming Saddam into giving up (potential) DMW. Her words: "The idea of putting inspectors back in -- that was a credible idea. I believe in coercive diplomacy. I think that you try to figure out how to move bad actors in a direction that you prefer in order to avoid more dire consequences."

Hence my conclusion that it would be wrong to say that she "firmly supported" the war.

[merrily]

179. A resolution authorizing the CIC to wage war is NOT how a Senator avoids war. If you can't

see that, I don't think anyone can help you.

[Warren DeMontague]

183. Bull. Everyone knew exactly what that thing was, what it was for, and what it meant

If she had wanted to not give Bush authorization to wage his war, she should have done what a good number of other Senators did, and voted "no".

She doesnt get to play both sides- 2002 "tough on terra" credit and 2015 "lets be sensible" credit too.

She's admitted it was a mistake, was she lying then?

[Nonhlanhla]

192. Of course it was a mistake

And it is good that she admitted that. She should never have trusted the Bush administration. She should never have believed that they would let the UN people do their work first. She should not have believed that they would use the war powers she helped to give them only as last resort and judiciously, since she should have been able to recognize them for the monsters that they were. On that we agree. She made a mistake in doing so, and for that she should be criticized. But that is not the same as her being an enthusiastic cheerleader for the actions that the administration subsequently took.

[Warren DeMontague]

194. No, but it also means there were a whole bunch of Senators who did their homework

And came to the correct conclusion before the vote.

One of them being Bernie Sanders.

[Nonhlanhla]

200. Yes, and good for him.

But that does not change my point, that despite the mistakes she made in that decision, it does not appear that she necessarily condoned the Bush Administration's subsequent actions. She is more hawkish at times than I like, but I refuse to simply vilify her without paying attention to the details of what she said there.

I'd do the same for Bernie Sanders. I do not currently have a strong preference for the primaries, since my state's primary is late, and I like them all for different reasons. We have an embarrassment of riches in our candidates. They are not perfect, but they're not lunatics like the GOP candidates, and I prefer to give our people the benefit of the doubt where possible.

[Warren DeMontague]

210. I'm not vilifying her, but I do hold her accountable for that vote.

And I think we are remiss in having any sort of a discussion about the future of this country without taking into account the giant clusterfuck that was the Iraq invasion, and its subsequent fallout, which can be seen in a region which is in even worse shape than it was before.

It's not a deal-breaker for me, not anymore, and she's apologized and acknowledged her mistake. If she's the nominee I will support her, but she isn't the nominee, yet.

[Nonhlanhla]

216. I think we largely agree

And please do not think I was suggesting that YOU are vilifying her. But plenty of people here do, attributing all kinds of nasty motivations to her without any real evidence.

And yes, Iraq was a disastrous mistake. I thought so at the time, and have never seen reason to think otherwise. I knew it was a matter of "sewing the wind, reaping the whirlwind."

[merrily]

180. Does "The way to avoid a war is to authorize the CIC to wage war" sound anything like Orwell's 1984?

[merrily]

178. NONSENSE. You avoid war by NOT voting for a war resolution. The Clintons alway pull this.

It's their thing. They always try to have it both ways. Some fall for it; some pretend to.

I tried to pass a flag desecration bill to avoid a Constitutional amendment. Bull puckies. The bill couldn't even pass BOTH times she tried, let alone a constitutional amendment. If it couldn't even get out of Congress the first time, it was clear it wasn't going to be a constitutional amendment, yet she tried again, giving the same story for both attempts. Have I mentioned bull puckies?

I signed DOMA to avoid a constitutional amendment. Also bull puckies.

On August 13, 2009, during Netroots Nation, when confronted by LGBT activist Lane Hudson, Clinton explained that he had to sign DOMA in order to prevent a constitutional amendment that would proscribe same-sex marriage: "We were attempting at the time, in a very reactionary Congress, to head off an attempt to send a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage to the states. And if you look at the eleven referenda much later -- in 2004, in the election -- which the The Clintons alway pull this. Republicans put on the ballot to try to get the base vote for President Bush up, I think it's obvious that something had to be done to try to keep the Republican Congress from presenting that."[37][38]

In an op-ed written on March 7, 2013, for The Washington Post, Clinton again suggested that DOMA was necessary in order to preclude, at that time, the passage of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and urged the Supreme Court, which would shortly hear arguments on United States v. Windsor, to overturn DOMA.[39][40]

Clinton's explanation for signing DOMA has been disputed by gay rights activist Elizabeth Birch: "In 1996, I was President of the Human Rights Campaign, and there was no real threat of a Federal Marriage Amendment. That battle would explode about eight years later, in 2004, when President Bush announced it was a central policy goal of his administration to pass such an amendment."[41]

Evan Wolfson, who, in 1996, ran the National Freedom to Marry Coalition, while an attorney at Lambda Legal, has also criticized the suggestion that DOMA was stopping something worse: "That's complete nonsense. There was no conversation about something 'worse' until eight years later. There was no talk of a constitutional amendment, and no one even thought it was possible -- and, of course, it turned out it wasn't really possible to happen. So, the idea that people were swallowing DOMA in order to prevent a constitutional amendment is really just historic revisionism and not true. That was never an argument made in the '90s."[42]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

What Hillary said afterward was cya. This is what Hillary said then-without even having bothered to read the NIE first-- and why she said it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=806560

The way you are sure Bushco doesn't go to war before you think he should is not to give them authority to do that, not by verbal assurances from Bushco. Hillary is a lawyer. She knows that. She also knows what documents say and mean. And if she did know no better, she should not be President. Either way.

The other Bill Clinton mantra is "veto proof majority." While that's also bull puckies, I've discussed it elsewhere and won't discuss it here because it is not relevant right now.

[Nonhlanhla]

197. True, she should not have trusted them

On that we agree. But the issue here is whether she was a firm supporter of the war. Her words then indicate that she was NOT. You may choose to simply disbelieve her. That is your choice. But I am willing to give our Democratic candidates the benefit of the doubt. I do the same for Bernie when it comes to things like guns, where I really don't like his stance.

[merrily]

199. She was. Her words were carefully chosen with a close eye on her Presidential run. Again, the have

it both ways syndrome. And I don't think for five minutes that she trusted them. I think she was behind that war, just as she was behind every way and surge for which she was eligible to vote--maybe more, because she didn't make speeches about those.

[Nonhlanhla]

202. You think so then

As I said, your choice. I prefer not to vilify her or any other Dem candidate unless there is really clear evidence to do so. Since there isn't clear evidence to suggest that she was truly enthusiastic and into this war, but at best mistaken in her judgment, I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt and not ascribe motivations to her that I see no evidence for.

[merrily]

204. Thanks for repeating.

[Dems to Win]

175. I hope Bernie / Martin bluntly point out HRC's poor judgement evidenced by her IWR vote tonight

Of ALL the members of the Senate in 2002, Hillary should have known Bush was peddling a pack of lies.

Hillary was 'co-president' from 1993-2000, when the US bombed Iraq weekly or monthly to enforce the no-fly zones enacted after the first Iraq War. The Clinton White House enforced crippling sanctions on Iraq the whole time. It made not a bit of sense that Iraq had an active weapons of mass destruction program when the country couldn't even get spare parts to repair their sewage treatment plants. Never for an instant did I, and the millions marching against the war, believe Iraq could possibly be a danger to the US after the destruction of the First Iraq War and subsequent bombings and sanctions.

It never made a bit of sense that secular Saddam, known for brutally repressing the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, had anything to do with Al Qeada and 9/11. Not for a single moment did I, or the millions of others marching in the streets, believe Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. Hillary should have known this, too.

If she is smart and competent and the co-president during her husband's term, she would have been leading the charge for NO votes on the IWR. Instead, she voted yes and authorized the epic travesty of the Iraq War and all that followed, the biggest mistake the US has made during my lifetime.

Without the Iraq War, there would have been no Al Queda in Iraq, no ISIS, no Paris attacks.

I hope Bernie and Martin bluntly point out her poor judgement and the tragic consequences of that poor decision tonight.

[polly7]

201. +1,000,000. nt.

[99Forever]

187. True dat.

But don't expect her to take a bit of responsibility for it. Ain't how she rolls.

[passiveporcupine]

191. Agreed, she is partly complicit

but to be fair, it required a lot of votes, not just hers to allow this war to take place. So she is not alone in causing this crime.

I still think she is a war hawk, and not suitable to be President. We need a peace President.

[AtomicKitten]

195. Bernie was right. Hillary was wrong with catastrophic consequences.

[AzDar]

196. She cast her vote 'with conviction'. She's either incompetent, or a liar...

[DianeK]

203. Hillary supported the Bush doctrine...

I could never trust Hillary with foreign policy

[Turbineguy]

205. This blame America first is bullshit.

violent Islamic extremists have been around for well over 100 years. Until recently the movement was not well financed. That's the difference. Unless they are being financed by Americans or Europeans, what they do is by their own choice. They and only they are responsible for their atrocities.

[EndElectoral]

206. Would there be an ISIS w/o the Iraq War? If not, Hilary needs to accept her contribution to that.

[PBass]

220. Disgusting use of a tragedy to score a political point.

Your thread has stooped to the level of wingnuts who can't stop talking about "Benghazi" because they hope it will damage Hillary Clinton.

Way to use dead civilians as a political football, so you can score some cheap points to promote "your" candidate.

[brentspeak]

237. Anything like HRC's statement last night concerning 9/11?

"Political football", right? Politician using dead civilians to "score cheap points"?

[Major Hogwash]

251. She couldn't even wait for the final body tally in Paris before she gave that response.

And that's because she has no conscience.
She is as pathological as Dubya Bush.

[PBass]

224. DU is the only website where I see this kind of garbage.

Idiot "super liberals" pointing the blame at Hillary Clinton.

:vomit:

[saturnsring]

231. desperate b. s.-er what's a matter candidate not doing so well you have to stoop to this?

[Warren Stupidity]

233. Not only that but the Cheney/PNAC/Neocon program to wipe the slate clean

in the middle east has been carried out by the Obama regime, deposing Qaddafi (and of course wrecking Libya) moving right along to Assad in Syria (words cannot express the horror we have created there) with our sights on any opportunity in Iran all along.

Our rulers learned nothing from Iraq. The only conclusion I can draw from that is that the outcomes were not unexpected and that the cost in carnage is, to them, quite acceptable.

[polly7]

236. +1000. nt.

[moobu2]

244. "Had Bernie Sanders' stance actually been followed"

That's just it. Bernie Sanders has poor leadership skills and Hillary didn't support the Iraq invasion. Nice smear.

[misterhighwasted]

252. And bernie voted to fund that war he opposed, Vt made out like a bandit on that

..big old piece of pork called the F-35 MIC Contract bernie rolled out the welcome mat for.

He was against the war, then he was for it.
Profit before people.
Glad to know how bernie rolls.
Glad he will never be trusted to hold The Office of Commander in Chief.
He has zero foreign policy, until it comes to MIC Contracts.
He certainly knows a little about helping himself to that big piece of the pie.

[treestar]

254. It's a lot more complicated than that. eom