2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumPolitifact: Hillary's claim that Bernie voted for regime change in Libya is mostly true
Bernie was quite foolish for trying to attack Hillary on Libya, especially considering the fact he cosponsored a bill calling for Gaddafi to step down.
Hillary came prepared and gave Bernie the smackdown.
-----------------------------------------------
Hillary Clinton says Bernie Sanders voted for regime change in Libya
By Lauren Carroll
Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton got into a tussle over their differing foreign policy visions at the Democratic presidential debate in New Hampshire.
Sanders criticized Clinton for being too hawkish in the Middle East.
"I think -- and I say this with due respect -- that I worry too much that Secretary Clinton is too much into regime change and a little bit too aggressive without knowing what the unintended consequences might be," he said Dec. 19. "Yes, we could get rid of (former Iraqi leader) Saddam Hussein, but that destabilized the entire region. Yes, we could get rid of (former Libyan dictator Muammar) Gaddafi, a terrible dictator, but that created a vacuum for ISIS. Yes, we could get rid of (Syrian dictator Bashar) Assad tomorrow, but that would create another political vacuum that would benefit ISIS. So I think, yeah, regime change is easy, getting rid of dictators is easy. But before you do that, you've got to think about what happens the day after."
Clinton shot back, "With all due respect, senator, you voted for regime change with respect to Libya. You joined the Senate in voting to get rid of Gaddafi, and you asked that there be a Security Council validation of that with a resolution."
<...>
We rate Clinton's statement Mostly True.
Read more: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/dec/22/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-says-bernie-sanders-voted-get-rid-/
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Calling for someone to step down is so far from backing rebels, creating a no fly zone etc it's laughable.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)I think I'll go with Politifact.
merrily
(45,251 posts)angrychair
(8,702 posts)"Congress never voted to authorize U.S. military action in Libya, so what is Clinton talking about?
On March 1, 2011, the Senate approved a resolution "strongly condemning the gross and systematic violations of human rights in Libya."
The Senate approved the resolution by unanimous consent, so senators never actually voted on it. But Sanders showed his support by joining in as one of 10 cosponsors.
The resolution called for peaceful regime change, saying Gaddafi should "desist from further violence, recognize the Libyan peoples demand for democratic change, resign his position and permit a peaceful transition to democracy."
Lastly:
""In effect, all this resolution does is say, Gaddafi is a bad person and should stop, " Huder said, noting that this document cannot be interpreted as expression of congressional intent to take specific action to oust Gaddafi"
mountain grammy
(26,624 posts)rpannier
(24,330 posts)From Politifact
The reality is a bit more complicated than the sound bite. Sanders supported a non-binding Senate resolution that called on Gaddafi to resign his post in a peaceful, democratic transition of power. While the Senate passed the resolution by unanimous consent -- meaning no one actually voted on it -- Sanders was one of 10 cosponsors
"The reality is a bit more complicated than the sound bite. Sanders supported a non-binding Senate resolution that called on Gaddafi to float rainbow bubbles out his butt and shoot mini golden unicorns from his flaring nostrils...."
rpannier
(24,330 posts)and now you've given me proof
I think I can also infer that he hates large golden unicorns and clear bubbles
Tortmaster
(382 posts)Perogie
(687 posts)No, you didn't. It asked Ghaddafi to step down. Not the same as what Hill did giving Bush military authority to attack Iraq. Apples and Oranges. Or do i need to explain that difference also?
bigtree
(85,998 posts)...according to the standard set here for Hillary by his supporters, this is a lie.
I'll go with 'misspoke.'
HerbChestnut
(3,649 posts)Read the article. The resolution Bernie co-sponsored called for Gaddafi to step down voluntarily in a peaceful manner. It had nothing to do with military intervention.
bigtree
(85,998 posts)...and how much grief Clinton has taken for the consequences of that vote.
You should realize that vote was about more than a sense of the Senate, it was a green light to the administration to see regime change through.
1 March 2011: The US Senate unanimously passed non-binding Senate resolution S.RES.85 urging the United Nations Security Council to impose a Libyan no-fly zone and encouraging Gaddafi to step down. The US had naval forces positioned off the coast of Libya, as well as forces already in the region, including the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya
S.RES.85 Urges the Gadhafi regime to abide by Security Council Resolution 1970, and (2) the Security Council to take such further action to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory.
This is the measure that Sanders co-sponsored. You mean to tell us that he didn't know military action was imminent and encouraged by this bill? From that point on, NATO took over operations.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Others may differ, but to me that is the difference between "Mostly True" and "Mostly False" with this Politifact rating.
ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)I would call it somewhat fuzzy when all things are explained. Not the HARD SUPPORT she wanted everyone to believe.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)See the rest of the Politifact article...it pretty much shows what is wrong with this OP
rpannier
(24,330 posts)The reality is a bit more complicated than the sound bite. Sanders supported a non-binding Senate resolution that called on Gaddafi to resign his post in a peaceful, democratic transition of power. While the Senate passed the resolution by unanimous consent -- meaning no one actually voted on it -- Sanders was one of 10 cosponsors
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Last edited Wed Dec 23, 2015, 01:08 AM - Edit history (1)
I think there's quite a difference "calling" for someone to step down and voting to take action to make it happen. Are you aware of any vote by the Senate to take action? Please post it. Thanks in advance
However, here are snips of an very extensive article (3 parts) from the Washington Times this past Jan (before HRC decided to run- if I'm not mistaken) in regards to what went on with who and how. Enjoy!
Both inside and outside the Obama administration, Mrs. Clinton was among the most vocal early proponents of using U.S. military force to unseat Gadhafi. Joining her in making the case were French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, and her successor as secretary of state, John F. Kerry.
Mrs. Clintons main argument was that Gadhafi was about to engage in a genocide against civilians in Benghazi, where the rebels held their center of power. But defense intelligence officials could not corroborate those concerns and in fact assessed that Gadhafi was unlikely to risk world outrage by inflicting mass casualties, officials told The Times.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/28/hillary-clinton-undercut-on-libya-war-by-pentagon-/?page=all
Listen to the tapes: Intel undercuts Hillary Clintons primary argument for Libya military action
http://www.washingtontimes.com/listen-tapes-libya-clinton/
See also Hillary Clintons WMD moment: U.S. intelligence saw false narrative in Libya
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/29/hillary-clinton-libya-war-genocide-narrative-rejec/
*****For those that find the source offensive- perhaps you will find these more acceptable?****
Yes. Hillary, too. She was the real mover behind the Libya-Syria operation. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=389069
Hillary Defends Her Failed War in Libya http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/hillary-clinton-debate-libya/410437/
Opinion
Hillarys Libyan Disaster Is A Bigger Scandal Than Who Emailed Her
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/25/hillarys-libya-disater-is-a-bigger-scandal-than-who-emailed-her/#ixzz3v7KU1LVf
Benghazi-Blowback-Confirmed-US-Intel-Confirms-Attack-Linked-to-Pipeline-of-Libyan-Jihadis-to-Syria
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2012/10/25/1150015/-Benghazi-Blowback-Confirmed-US-Intel-Confirms-Attack-Linked-to-Pipeline-of-Libyan-Jihadis-to-Syria
Behind Petraeuss Resignation https://consortiumnews.com/2012/11/10/behind-petraeuss-resignation/
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)campaign manager for the right wing rag Washington Times? No thanks.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Didn't think so. You have a good evening to
Codeine
(25,586 posts)Clinton Derangement Syndrome is a helluva drug.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)*****For those that find the source offensive- perhaps you will find these more acceptable?****
Yes. Hillary, too. She was the real mover behind the Libya-Syria operation. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=389069
Hillary Defends Her Failed War in Libya http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/hillary-clinton-debate-libya/410437/
Opinion
Hillarys Libyan Disaster Is A Bigger Scandal Than Who Emailed Her
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/25/hillarys-libya-disater-is-a-bigger-scandal-than-who-emailed-her/#ixzz3v7KU1LVf
Benghazi-Blowback-Confirmed-US-Intel-Confirms-Attack-Linked-to-Pipeline-of-Libyan-Jihadis-to-Syria
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2012/10/25/1150015/-Benghazi-Blowback-Confirmed-US-Intel-Confirms-Attack-Linked-to-Pipeline-of-Libyan-Jihadis-to-Syria
Behind Petraeuss Resignation https://consortiumnews.com/2012/11/10/behind-petraeuss-resignation/
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)Anyone thinking that any of the DNC candidates can throw rocks isn't looking at reality.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)bobbobbins01
(1,681 posts)I can't remember the exact issue, but there was another item like this where they just got it dead wrong. And here they go again. Calling for a leader to step down is a far cry from voting for regime change. Especially since the original context was US intervention for regime change.
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)only partly lying?
Yay for Team Hillary -- she nearly told the truth!
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)We all would "like" to see regime change in Syria, N. Korea, Russia, BUT calling for it, and appropriating funds to make it happen militarily are two entirely different things.
Sorry, but trying to equate this with HRC's advocating military regime change, and giving GWB carte blance to militarily ravish Iraq is a diversion by her, NOT an honest rebuttal, but deceiving.
fbc
(1,668 posts)I think the people that decide the rating need to read the article on top of it.
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)SoapBox
(18,791 posts)My, my, my...poor Hill gets ALL "False" meter readings.
Am I surprised at all...of course not!
Thanks for posting!!
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)The vote
The U.S. military spent about $2 billion and several months backing the Libyan uprising against Gaddafi, who had held power for decades. The uprising -- part of the Arab Spring -- toppled Gaddafi in August 2011, and rebel forces killed him the following October.
Congress never voted to authorize U.S. military action in Libya, so what is Clinton talking about?
On March 1, 2011, the Senate approved a resolution "strongly condemning the gross and systematic violations of human rights in Libya."
The Senate approved the resolution by unanimous consent, so senators never actually voted on it. But Sanders showed his support by joining in as one of 10 cosponsors.
The resolution called for peaceful regime change, saying Gaddafi should "desist from further violence, recognize the Libyan peoples demand for democratic change, resign his position and permit a peaceful transition to democracy."
HerbChestnut
(3,649 posts)The article itself disproves its own title. The resolution Bernie co-sponsored clearly requested the Gaddafi step down voluntarily and in a peaceful manner. Nowhere did it say anything about military force, which is the staple of regime change. It's no wonder Hillary didn't let him respond to that charge during the debate.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)HerbChestnut
(3,649 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)HerbChestnut
(3,649 posts)The bill called for Gadhafi to voluntarily step down from power in a peaceful manner. That's it. It made no mention of military force, which is what Hillary was advocating for the whole time.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)HerbChestnut
(3,649 posts)Wow.
Furrfu
(32 posts)It's a LISA.
Quatloos for anyone who knows exactly what I'm talking about.