I was right about Vietnam. I was right about Iraq.

[Uncle Joe]

Link to tweet

[David__77]

1. Hubert Humphrey was wrong about Vietnam.

Scoop Jackson was wrong about the Soviet Union.
Those who voted to give Bush power to attack Iraq were wrong about Iraq.

Thankfully people can learn. Making the right historical verdicts counts.

[Wellstone ruled]

10. You are spot on.

[betsuni]

9. Not Us, ME!

[Skittles]

18. LOL

yup

[TidalWave46]

3. Hard not to K&R this.

And the guy sure as heck has every right to tout it.

[Mr.Bill]

4. So was I

along with millions of other people.

[KPN]

28. Can you say that about all candidates though?

Sanders is pointing out his bonafides as a candidate. He is right to. Judgement at critical junctures is important, especially when the possibility of war and the potential loss of thousands of American lives weighs in the balance.

So what if you or I and many others were also right about Vietnam and Iraq? So what? How about this:

isn’t it important that the person we elect was also right.?

[Mr.Bill]

72. Most of the other candidates

weren't in Congress to cast those votes. Others were not even born or were too young. But there's nothing terribly unique about being against those wars.

Also, we are not electing any candidates past. e are electing their future, and that is what matters.

[KPN]

86. True. Most but not all. I suppose Sanders is

just pointing out some of his bonafides relative and in contrast to Biden. Why not? Biden’s the front-runner. That’s what candidates do and actually need to do. Present their case relative to the competition.

Yet some here are disingenuous in turning his statement wrongly, disparagingly and, frankly, childishly into some kind of “pompous self aggrandizement” on his part — which it is not.

[greatauntoftriplets]

33. Me three!

[Kahuna7]

89. That's what I say. Doesn't make me qualified to be president. nt

[George II]

5. Where was he on Russia (and Iran) Sanctions, Magnitzky Act, Oleg Deripaska Sanctions.........

...and so many other issues?

[KPN]

31. Im 100% comfortable with the reasoning he explained at the time for his votes

on sanctions and Magnitsky.

[George II]

34. Yes, he ALWAYS has a "reason" for voting against the Democratic position, even as he....

...."caucuses with the Democrats" and is hailed as a "better Democrat" than most Democrats.

But when it comes down to it, that claim rings hollow.

[KPN]

48. It doesn't ring hollow to tens of millions of

voters (Democrats and Is or undeclared). I am glad he has a legitimate reason when he does vote against Democratic leadership — which he actually does far less than a substantial number Ds. It’s not about being lemmings, it’s about being right, just or at least mindful of the people.

[George II]

59. It rings hollow to many more millions of voters.....

He actually was the ONLY Senator, Democratic or republican or independent who voted against both the Russia/Iran sanctions and the Magnitzky act.

And as for the Oleg Deripaska Sanctions he was the only Senator to not participate in the vote. The other 99 Senators did.

[KPN]

70. I disagree.

[Uncle Joe]

60. +1000

[BootinUp]

43. Minor details, boring!

[Hassin Bin Sober]

6. He ain't lyin'

Bernie being on the right side of history so often pisses off the right people

[George II]

21. Where was he on Russia (and Iran) Sanctions, Magnitzky Act, Oleg Deripaska Sanctions........

...and so many other issues?

[KPN]

32. Because he's Bernie and not just a lemming.

[msongs]

7. gee I was right about those things too as were millions of others nt

[KPN]

35. So isn't it important to you that on those issues

especially the person who sits in the WH holds your same views? Do all the candidates?

[JoeOtterbein]

8. Bernie is killing it on C-SPAN right now!

All Dems need to listen to the man!

Try it. You'll like it!

[KPN]

36. And on Jimmy Fallon two nights ago.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

11. He voted for McGovern?

[comradebillyboy]

23. I don't think he voted in that election.

And he certainly was invisible in the Vietnam anti war movement.

[George II]

37. He didn't vote at all until he was 40, and that was because he was running for Mayor of Burlington.

[KPN]

39. No he wasn't. Weren't you? I was.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

47. Huh.

[Skittles]

12. so were a lot of us

actually, anyone with a couple of brain cells would know that

[Uncle Joe]

13. If that's the case how did we end up waging war against Vietnam and Iraq?

Hindsight is easy, what political leaders decide during the moments of pressure are what counts.

[Skittles]

14. LOL....um

the WAR MACHINE doesn't care what anyone thinks

[Uncle Joe]

16. I agree the war machine doesn't care

but technically speaking a President and Congress ultimately make the decisions in regards to waging war or not and all of them have at least "two brain cells."

So leaving the war machine aside for the moment all we have in regards to analyzing a political leader's wisdom, foresight and strength of character is their record on supporting or opposing aggression against other nations of the world in real time.

Unfortunately those virtues have been in too short of supply otherwise we never would've waged war in Vietnam and Iraq.

[KPN]

41. So ah fuck it right? Who cares? That is just so disingenuous.

[KPN]

40. BINGO!!!!

[myohmy2]

15. do you know what this proves?

Bernie,

" I was right about Vietnam.

I was right about Iraq.

I will do everything in my power to prevent a war with Iran.

I apologize to no one. "


...that's right

...Bernie doesn't have to learn from his mistakes...

[jalan48]

17. Bernie's the real deal.

[OilemFirchen]

19. He was even right about Kosovo.

But, for dog's sake, don't tell his acolytes.

[betsuni]

20. Yes. Bernie's answer when asked under what circumstances he would use force:

"Well, obviously I voted, when President Clinton said, 'Let's stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo,' I voted for that. I am not a pacifist, Anderson. I supported President Clinton's effort to deal with ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. I happen to believe from the bottom of my heart that war should be the last resort, that we have got to exercise diplomacy. But yes, I am prepared to take this country into war if that is necessary."

[KPN]

44. Bernie was right about that as well yes. And I applaud

and 100% appreciate his judgement when it comes to putting American lives on the line. He has made the right decisions in the moment. There aren’t too many who have been around as long as him can say that.

[OilemFirchen]

61. He was also right about targeted drone strikes.

Thanks in part to Senator Sanders' full-throated support, Qassem Soleimani is no longer a menace. Right?

[Uncle Joe]

62. What is the law regarding targeted drone strikes?

Pelosi says Trump launched strike killing Iranian general without authorization
Source: the hill


By Rachel Frazin - 01/03/20 08:42 AM EST



Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday said that an airstrike that killed Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani was not authorized and Congress was not consulted on the decision.

“The Administration has conducted tonight’s strikes in Iraq targeting high-level Iranian military officials and killing Iranian Quds Force Commander Qasem Soleimani without an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against Iran," Pelosi said in a statement.

"Further, this action was taken without the consultation of the Congress," she added.

She also said the move provoked "further dangerous escalation of violence."

"We cannot put the lives of American service members, diplomats and others further at risk by engaging in provocative and disproportionate actions," the top House Democrat said.

..........................................

Read more: https://thehill.com/policy/defense/476626-pelosi-says-trump-launched-strike-killing-iranian-general-without

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142414381

[OilemFirchen]

66. Murky.

Has Senator Sanders qualified his support based on Congressional consultation?

TIA for cites.

[betsuni]

76. When asked if he would use special forces and drones, he said "All of that and more."

"Look, a drone is a weapon. When it works badly, it is terrible and it is counterproductive."

When asked if he would be comfortable with the idea of using drones if an important terrorist was isolated, he said, "Yes."

[OilemFirchen]

77. Senator Sanders was right to support the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act.

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy stating that "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq ...

The Act was cited in October 2002 to argue for the authorization of military force against the Iraqi government.

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

BTW, I'm enjoying out little conversation, betsuni. I hope others are as well.

[Uncle Joe]

78. Cited or not, the The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 did not authorize the U.S. to use military force

against Iraq otherwise Buch/Cheney et al wouldn't have needed the

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002

The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1] informally known as the Iraq Resolution, is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No. 107-243, authorizing the use of the United States Armed Forces against Saddam Hussein's Iraq government in what would be known as Operation Iraqi Freedom.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Iraq_Resolution_of_2002

[OilemFirchen]

80. It was used in support of the AUMF. No matter, though.

More importantly, it explicitly gave the green light to Operation Desert Fox:

The 1998 bombing of Iraq (code-named Operation Desert Fox) was a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets from 16 to 19 December 1998, by the United States and the United Kingdom. The contemporaneous justification for the strikes was Iraq's failure to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions and its interference with United Nations Special Commission inspectors.

[Uncle Joe]

82. Did you read your own link? The 1998 Iraq Liberation Act did not authorize

the use of military force furthermore this history only degrades even more the credibility of some Democrats in Congress claiming to being bamboozled while "trusting" the Bush administration and voting for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.

From your link

(snip)

Although there was no Authorization for Use of Military Force as there was during Operation Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom or a declaration of war, as in World War II, Clinton signed into law H.R. 4655, the Iraq Liberation Act on 31 October 1998.[6] The new act appropriated funds for Iraqi opposition groups in the hope of removing Saddam Hussein from power and replacing his regime with a democratic government. Despite the act's intention of support of opposition groups, Clinton justified his order for US action under the act.

(snip)

Accusations of U.S. interference in the U.N. inspection process

(snip)

In a 2005 interview Ritter criticized the Clinton administration's use of a blocked inspection of a Ba'ath party headquarters to justify the bombing.

Public perception is that the Iraqis were confrontational and blocking the work of the inspectors. In 98% of the inspections, the Iraqis did everything we asked them to because it dealt with disarmament. However when we got into issues of sensitivity, such as coming close to presidential security installations, Iraqis raised a flag and said, "Time out. We got a C.I.A. out there that's trying to kill our president and we're not very happy about giving you access to the most sensitive installations and the most sensitive personalities in Iraq." So we had these modalities, where we agreed that if we came to a site and the Iraqis called it 'sensitive,' we go in with four people.

(snip)

Accusations of U.S. interference in the U.N. inspection process

(snip)

Inspectors not thrown out

The claim that UNSCOM weapons inspectors were expelled by Iraq has been repeated frequently. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, in his 5 February 2003 speech before the U.N. Security Council, called for action against Iraq and stated falsely that "Saddam Hussein forced out the last inspectors in 1998".[20] The claim has appeared repeatedly in the news media.[21] However, according to UNSCOM inspector Richard Butler himself, it was U.S. Ambassador Peter Burleigh, acting on instructions from Washington, who suggested Butler pull his team from Iraq in order to protect them from the forthcoming U.S. and British air strikes:

I received a telephone call from US Ambassador Peter Burleigh inviting me for a private conversation at the US mission... Burleigh informed me that on instructions from Washington it would be "prudent to take measures to ensure the safety and security of UNSCOM staff presently in Iraq." ... I told him that I would act on this advice and remove my staff from Iraq.[22]

(snip)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_(1998)

[OilemFirchen]

83. I'm well aware of the history.

Then Representative Sanders voted for the Iraq Liberation Act, which President Clinton used to justify Operation Desert Fox.

That sounds oddly familiar, especially in the context of the tweet which prompted this OP.

[betsuni]

79. I'm enjoying it too. Heh.

[KPN]

84. Me too!

[redqueen]

22. He was wrong to support the 2001 AUMF.

Wish i understood why we only had ONE Dem vote against it

[George II]

24. That's an old tweet. Why present it as though Sanders said that yesterday?

[Uncle Joe]

25. Apparently Bernie retweeted it yesterday considering it highly appropriate now as

Trump is on the brink of leading us to war with Iran.

Link to tweet

[George II]

29. He tweeted it again, he didn't retweet it - two entirely different things in the twitter world.....

If he retweeted it people would see that it was just something he said many months ago, not a reaction to the events of this week.

[Uncle Joe]

38. Well apparently if you are correct and Bernie tweeted it again,

yesterday's tweet had an almost 300% increase in likes 270,000+ and counting versus the tweet from May in your post at 96,500 so thanks for that.

[The Valley Below]

26. "I apologize to no one."

Pretty much says it all.

[Uncle Joe]

27. I agree, that cherry picked quote post of yours with absolutely no context

pretty much does say it all.

[George II]

42. Back in May when he tweeted that it had "absolutely no context" either.

[Uncle Joe]

49. Well apparently 96,000 people back in May disagreed with you and today

that figure is over 270,000.

[George II]

30. That's been his creed for 50 years.

[KPN]

45. So?

[KPN]

46. Bernie on the right side of history. That's

important to me. As is telling it unapologetically like it is and like it is viewed by tens of millions who just happen to also be aware and share the same priorities.

[Uncle Joe]

50. I feel the same way KPN.

[The Valley Below]

51. Is it "the right side of history" to claim that the Bolivia of Evo Morales or

the Venezuela of Chavez/Maduro are models for "The New American Dream?"

We could go on.

[KPN]

56. I don't believe Sanders has or would make that case today -- not by any stretch.

Show me some relevant proof.

[The Valley Below]

71. "These days, the American dream is more apt to be realized...

in South America, in places such as Ecuador, Venezuela and Argentina, where incomes are actually more equal today than they are in the land of Horatio Alger. Who's the banana republic now?"

Posted on Sen. Sanders' website in 2011.

He was wrong.

[KPN]

85. No he wasn't. All three of those countries had

lower income inequality rates than the US at that time. Not only that, the inequality rate in them was in a downward trend while here in the US it was climbing dramatically.

Just because you are predisposed to thinking he was wrong doesn’t make him wrong.

[at140]

52. I admit Bernie was smarter than me re:Vietnam & Iraq

Because I had thought both those wars were justified at the time.
But now I know better, from actual results, that Bernie was right all along.

[Uncle Joe]

53. Thanks for sharing at.

[Scurrilous]

54. "... I was right and you were wrong now make me president."

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[Uncle Joe]

55. Since when is stating one's truthful record in opposing war against Vietnam and Iraq

considered "Narcissism?"

By using Watson's "logic," no political leader could state their record or personal history should history prove them correct.

P.S. Shouldn't any political leader's political record and personal beliefs be taken into account by the people when making their deliberations on who to vote for or in whether to support waging war?

[Scurrilous]

81. "I was right..." "I was right..." "I apologize to no one."

Bernie's statement comes off self-centered and arrogant...hallmarks of the narcissist.

Stating your record isn't 'narcissism.' Stating it the way Bernie did may very well strike one as.

[NYMinute]

57. Me Me Me Me ME

I voted against the wars but voted to fund them every chance I got.

[Uncle Joe]

58. When our troops are sent overseas despite a political leader's vote against sending them into a

hostile environment, why should said leader vote against resources to keep them armed and fed?

Should said political leader abandon the troops just out of spite?

[NYMinute]

63. Nice excuse - people with convictions don't play games

Either one is for something or against something.

If one is wishy-washy, there is no right to claim a moral high ground. One can never have it both ways.

[Uncle Joe]

64. You're binary purity test won't fly.

People of good conscience with convictions aren't spiteful.

The moral high ground was in not sending our troops there in the first place but why punish our men and women in harms way if our democratic republic overrode your objections to waging war?

[NYMinute]

65. You mean "conscience" not conscious

In any event, one cannot be against something and keep funding it over and over. He could have voted against it since the funding would have passed anyway.

One cannot vote to ban smoking and then vote for farmers' tobacco subsidies for example. It is hypocrisy at its finest.

[Uncle Joe]

67. Thanks for the correction but yes one can be against something and keep funding it

until your overall point of view prevails.

Voting for protecting our men and women already in harms way is in no way comparable to tobacco subsidies, and furthermore should any political leader opposed to sending our troops into a hostile zone in the first place follow that up by voting against protecting them would only serve to weaken said leader's credibility with the American People.

"Such and such abandoned the troops" which in turn would weaken the overall argument against waging wars based on lies.

[NYMinute]

68. Votes for tobacco subsidies can have an excuse of saving the farmers nt

[Uncle Joe]

69. Not their lives.

[BannonsLiver]

73. Yes a lot of "I" in that tweet.

And you know, there’s no “I” in team.

[Uncle Joe]

75. There is an I in the word "like," apparently now 279,000+ people and counting

like Bernie's tweet.

[brooklynite]

74. When Sanders was "right" about health care in 2009...

...what did his leadership abilities do to get MfA (or at least a public option) passed?

[yardwork]

87. I don't see this latest Trump disaster as a plus for Bernie Sanders.

Sanders' campaign leaders bragged about not supporting the Democratic candidate in 2016.

There's no way that any of this reflects well on Sanders.

[Uncle Joe]

90. Personally I don't see Trump's assassination of an Iranian General as a plus

for anyone except Putin.

Having said that our nation's long history of supporting coups against democratically elected governments whether it be the Middle East, South America, Central America or anywhere else just because our mega-corporations don't like their policies is the seed of this bitter fruit and Bernie to his credit has long been against those coups.

The same can't be said for others.

[yardwork]

91. The false equivalency between Republicans and Democrats is destroying the US.

Deflecting responsibility from the Bushes and Trump by blaming Democrats does nothing to prevent continuation of atrocities.

[Kahuna7]

88. So was I. That doesn't make me qualified to be C-i-C. nt

[Joe941]

92. Bernie is correct.