I never, ever thought I'd see the day

[MannyGoldstein]

when people who call themselves progressive Democrats excuse a vote to wage war in Iraq.

Astounding.

Sorry, I don't see this as a gray area. It was nothing but staggering stupidity or staggering malevolence, and neither is acceptable to me, nor should it be acceptable to you.

[marym625]

1. Because there isn't

I don't know what happened to our party but it is no longer either liberal or progressive.

K&r

[BP2]

137. WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam Wars were all declared under Democratic presidents :(

The sad reality is that if it's under a Democratic president, War doesn't seem to matter too much.

[SCVDem]

162. Why was that?

Was it due to Republican policy failures?

Not every country wants a corporate takeover overseen by the US of A!

[former9thward]

192. No, Republican policy failures did not cause any one of those wars.

Neither did Democratic policy failures cause any of those wars except possibly Vietnam.

[hifiguy]

216. Vietnam certainly was.

Read "The Brothers" by Stephen Kinzer - a dual biography of Allen and John Foster Dulles, CIA director and Sec of State during the Eisenhower administration. Most of why the US government and its foreign policy is so hated around the world to this day is explained by that book.

The Dulles brothers manifested all the very worst qualities of Americans - inability to understand or even consider complexity, a truly nauseating missionary Calvinism, a belief that American big business should be able to do whatever it wants to whomever it wants anywhere in the world, and that rich, white "Christian" men should run the world. These values, which they built into the instruments of foreign policy, still dominate today.

One of the most enlightening books I have ever read. Well written and a good read, to boot.

[KingCharlemagne]

345. The Dulles brothers are singularly obnoxious, but one can also point a finger at

Zbigniew Brzezinski with his Russo-phobic 'Asia Pivot' nonsense and at Madeleine Albright with her Churchillian willingness to see Arab children sacrificed on the altar of pax Americana imperial might-makes-right realpolitik. Only 500,000 Iraqi children died during the 90s from entirely preventable diseases like dysentery so, hey, it was 'worth it.'

N.B. Had the same proportion of American children died from preventable diseases thanks to sanctions instituted and maintained by a U.N. acting at the behest of Iraq, we'd be looking at, conservatively, some 3-4 million American infant and child deaths.

[sabrina 1]

420. Good post, thank you. The only thing we can hope for is that the US is going through a very

dark period, and sooner rather than later, it will end. It will probably be called our 'Imperial period' and we are being egged on by some of the previous fading or faded Empires of Europe, using our strong military to fight more Imperial Wars. Some habits never die.

[mrmpa]

171. World Wars I and II were..........

wars declared by Congress.

The Korean War was a Military engagement authorized by United Nations Security Council Resolutions and funded by Congress. The Vietnam War was not a declared war, but an action authorized by Congress.

[former9thward]

190. Which means what?

That they weren't wars?

[mrmpa]

217. Oh yes they were wars........

but not declared as wars by Congress. The Korean War is historically seen as a "Police Action". it was the first time that the US aligned with the United Nations and sent Forces to join with the other countries in fighting against North Korea. My Dad fought in Korea and he met Turkish, English and French Forces while fighting.

As for Vietnam, again it was not a declared War. Congress supplied money for Forces to fight against North Vietnam aligning thinking and philosopy with the Truman Doctrine and the "Domino Theory."

In not declaring War in these 2 instances, Congress was able to not anger the Soviet Union and China who were allied with the North Koreans and North Vietnames.

I think the belief was that if the US declared War, the Soviets and Chinese would see it as an affront to them and would have sent forces to fight against the US. However my Dad did see the Chinese fighting in Korea at the Chosin Reservoir.

edited for spelling.

[former9thward]

226. The Chinese sent 700,000 troops into the war.

Last edited Sun Mar 8, 2015, 01:41 AM - Edit history (1)

The Soviets provided some military support but no troops. The only reason the Chinese did not take the whole country is their air support was not up to ours.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War

[mrmpa]

231. My Dad told me.........

that at Chosin Reservoir he met up with 250,000 Chinese Troops. They attacked at night. The temperature during this battle was about -30 F. The Chinese my Dad said wore light weight pajama style uniforms & canvas shoes. They attacked with clubs, very few had firearms. The Americans would hear the Chinese begin to howl and scream and that's when the Americans knew an attack was coming.

[former9thward]

267. Yes, an almost forgotten war.

Fought by brave troops under horrid conditions.

[BeanMusical]

375. +1

[Major Hogwash]

337. Good point.

The fact is we had to participate in both of the World Wars, and to a degree, in the Korean War because of the UN.
But, the Vietnam War was definitely not a necessary war, or a war we fought to protect our freedom.

[Ken Burch]

389. The UN didn't exist at the start of either World War.

World War II was probably unavoidable due to the complete failure of the "winners" of World War I to handle the postwar situation with any degree of competence(Britain and France are largely responsible for Hitler coming to power in Germany because of the insanely punitive conditions the imposed on post-World War I Germany(they punished an emerging democratic government for the crimes of its imperial predecessor), but the U.S. never had to get into World War I. In fact, there was no good reason for World War I even to have been fought, because it didn't really matter which feather-helmeted German emperor defeated his German imperial cousins(at this point, all the decaying royal houses of Europe were part of the same basically German family-even the Battenbergs, er I mean the Mountbatten-Windsors).

[Major Hogwash]

414. Read that again, Ken.

I was referring to the Korean War.

[Ken Burch]

421. Here's the way you phrased it:

"The fact is we had to participate in both of the World Wars, and to a degree, in the Korean War because of the UN."
The way the sentence was constructed makes it sound as if you were ascribing our participation in all three wars to the UN.

In any case, we never had to participate in World War I, and there was no good reason to have World War I. It was about nothing but corporate greed and imperial arrogance on all sides.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

279. I would have supported the first three wars in a NY minute

And the U S fought in the Korean Conflict under a U N flag.

[dflprincess]

322. After Pearl Harbor, FDR didn't have a lot of choice in asking Congress for a declaration of war

against Japan.

He had to go back to Congress a few days later (I think it was the 12th) to ask for another declaration of war against Germany - but that didn't happen until after Germany declared war on the U.S. Again, not a lot of choice in the matter.

[KingCharlemagne]

343. Technical note: Eisenhower sent the first U.S. military advisors to Vietnam in the 50s, following

French defeat at Dien Bien Phu and the resultant Geneva Treaty (which our puppets in the South had no intention of honoring). War was never 'declared' in Vietnam nor, for that matter, in Korea, which was a U.N. police action authorized by the Security Council after the Soviets walked out.

[B Calm]

388. Bingo! The first US deaths in Vietnam were under Eisenhower.

[KingCharlemagne]

401. Not to be unduly persnickety, but the very first U.S. death in Viet Nam came

while Truman was in office, IIRC. The casualty was an OSS officer killed while serving for the U.S. against the Imperial Japanese before their surrender in World War II. (In a huge twist of irony, the OSS, predecessor to the CIA, had made common cause with Ho Chi MInh's Viet Minh against the Japanese. The Viet Minh rescued and spirited to safety many U.S. OSS pilots shot down by the Japanese over Vietnam during World War II.)

[Jackpine Radical]

413. Ho Chi Minh, who had once washed dishes on Staten Island,

tried to get a copy of our Constitution from the Americans to use as a template for the one he intended to write for all of Vietnam.

There was no strategic or tactical need for the war. All we would have had to do in the 1954-56 era was to guarantee Ho protection from the mainland Chinese, open trade, and send a little aid to rebuild the country after all its years of war with the French, the Japanese, and then the French again. The French had been horrible colonial masters.

Instead, we sabotaged the reunification elections that were to be held in 1956 and backed the remains of the old, corrupt French puppet regime in the south. Because Ho called himself a Communist and allied himself with Russia.

Look at it from Ho's point of view for a moment. His country had been under the brutal heel of the French since 1880. However, the traditional enemies of Vietnam were the Chinese, who had intermittently ruled them for centuries. (The Cho Lon district of Saigon is the Chinese district, a remnant of that era).

At the beginning of WWII, in 1940, the French pulled out so that the Japanese could move in without a battle (These dates are from memory; may not be exact). Ho fought the Japanese with American military assistance.

Then, at the end of the war, the Japanese moved out and the French moved back in. This time, though, the French had a more formidable opponent in the Viet Minh, who were now far better armed with their new American weaponry.

After the war, though, the Americans sided with their old European allies, the French, and cut off resupply to the Vietnamese.

Ho needed foreign military assistance. Obviously we weren't going to give it to him, and he really didn't want to deal with the Chinese because he feared that to do so would be tantamount to invite them back in as rulers. So what could he do? At that time there was a deepening political split between China and Russia--and Russia was a lot further away than China. The Russians were thus happy to supply Ho with weapons, because with this one action they could push a thorn into the sides of both China and the US.

So in 1954 Ho wore the French down at the siege of Dien Bien Phu, where the French Foreign Legion finally gave it up, the French pulled out, and the country was divided into north and south, leaving behind the puppet Diem government to rule in the south and a plan to re-unify the country in a 1956 election.

With the 1956 elections suspended (mostly at the demand of the Americans), Ho continued to fight for the freedom of his country against the Diem regime and, when he got close to toppling Diem, the Americans responded with their buildup of support troops for Diem, and our slow slide into involvement in the war.

The rest, as they say, is history.

[KingCharlemagne]

435. In '45, when he addressed the masses in Hanoi following the Viet Minh's

Last edited Mon Mar 9, 2015, 10:29 AM - Edit history (1)

successful occupation of the city (before the French temporarily resumed control), Ho Chi Minh had the absolute temerity to quote from the U.S. Declaration of Independence. The cheek of that comrade, I tell you!

One thing that absolutely infuriates me (having missed out on Vietnam by about 10 years) is that the American people let Bush get away with Iraq-nam, including the transparent lies used to sell the war, analogues to the lies about the Tonkin Gulf, including our taking sides in another country's civil war(s). And including our razing of the city of Fallujah in Anbar, analogue to Hue ca. 1968.

As Dylan said, a hard rain's a gonna fall.

[Jackpine Radical]

438. I saw Hue in March 1968, less than 2 months after Tet.

Last edited Mon Mar 9, 2015, 12:49 PM - Edit history (1)

Rubble with bullet holes.

Oh--and just for the record, I don't remember seeing Bill O'Reilly there.

[KingCharlemagne]

440. I think you meant to write "I saw Hue in March 1968 . . . ," based on

your description.

This may come as small consolation now, but this term I have two Vietnamese students, one from Quang Ngai City and the other from Ho Chi Minh City (pka "Saigon&quot . Both students are far younger than I but neither seems to bear the U.S. or its military any ill will. (I brought my copy of Karnow's Vietnam to class to clarify exactly where each student lived on one of the maps and I think each was touched that I actually knew something about his country.)

[Jackpine Radical]

441. Thanks. Yes, I meant Hue.

My brigade of the 1st Cav was moved from Qui Nhon to the DMZ after Tet, & went via (Japanese-flagged, unarmed) LSTs to Da Nang & then convoyed through Hue on our way to Camp Evans, where we staged to go in & dig the Marines out of Khe Sanh, where the NVA had had them under siege since Tet.

And I still say I didn't see O'Reilly there.

[cui bono]

378. Were they based on lies put forth by the administration?

Were they waged against innocent countries who had nothing to do with an attack on our soil?

Clinton voted for a war when she knew damn well the evidence was fabricated. We all knew it.

[marym625]

387. WWII

Was the only justifiable war, IMHO, that we should have been in. Vietnam was another war we were in that was based on lies.

The Korean War was us joining with the UN. Still, a mistake in my opinion.

I have never said we were the be all and end all. In modern times, if you're going to count wars, let's not forget all the wars we started while staying behind the scenes. Those came under Republicans. And the only time we started a war, actually started a war, went in bombing people that were no threat to us and no current war existed, was Iraq. In WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam, there were wars in progress. In Iraq, we just decided to fuck them up so money could be made.

[L0oniX]

332. Didn't you get the pragmatic message? We have to kiss 1% ass to get campaign funding.

[marym625]

334. I got the message

I just prefer kissing elsewhere. Ass, not my thing.

[drynberg]

381. "Money doesn't talk it screams", B.Dylan

[marym625]

385. my absolute favorite song. ever.

It's alright ma, I'm only bleeding

[LWolf]

2. It's not a gray area for me.

Neither are trade and labor issues, social security, or public education, among others.

But I see people calling themselves progressive Democrats supporting neo-liberal policies in these areas as well.

[RiverLover]

9. DU Rec^

Its incredibly disappointing.

[marym625]

19. I feel like we're in some

Lala land. So much is such, unbelievable, denial of reality that I sometimes think they're not here as Democrats

[Buzz Clik]

27. "neo-liberal policies": Did I miss the invention of this phrase during my absence?

I clearly didn't miss much...

[LWolf]

63. I apparently missed your absence, lol.

It's a well-established term, "invented," I believe, by Alexander Rustow in the 1930s.

[Buzz Clik]

68. neo-liberalism started 85 years ago? I love oxymorons.

[ND-Dem]

83. why the snark? the other poster is correct and i see no point to your posts

Originally neoliberalism was an economic philosophy that emerged among European liberal scholars in the 1930s attempting to trace a so-called ‘Third’ or ‘Middle Way’ between the conflicting philosophies of classical liberalism and collectivist central planning.[9] The impetus for this development arose from a desire to avoid repeating the economic failures of the early 1930s, which were mostly blamed on the economic policy of classical liberalism. In the decades that followed, the use of the term neoliberal tended to refer to theories at variance with the more laissez-faire doctrine of classical liberalism and promoted instead a market economy under the guidance and rules of a strong state, a model which came to be known as the social market economy.

In the 1960s, usage of the term "neoliberal" heavily declined. When the term was reintroduced in the 1980s in connection with Augusto Pinochet’s economic reforms in Chile, the usage of the term had shifted. It had not only become a term with negative connotations employed principally by critics of market reform, but it also had shifted in meaning from a moderate form of liberalism to a more radical and laissez-faire capitalist set of ideas. Scholars now tended to associate it with the theories of economists Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman.[7] Once the new meaning of neoliberalism was established as a common usage among Spanish-speaking scholars, it diffused directly into the English-language study of political economy.[7]

Neoliberalism also represents a set of ideas that are famously associated with the economic policies introduced by Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom and Ronald Reagan in the United States.[2]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

[Buzz Clik]

143. Why the snark? Did you read what you posted?

Calling some (or their outlook) "neo-liberal" is hardly a compliment, but it's also a ridiculously dated insult. Or am I guilty of being a ne'er-do-well?

My "snark" comes from the neverending quest by a certain segment of DUers that continually attempt to separate themselves from others by classifying themselves as a liberal/progressive purist and putting everyone else in some other box: DLC, DINO, neo-lib, whatever. It's really stupid and pointless, and I owe no one an apology for running that ca-ca straight back in the face of the people trying to be so divisive.

[ND-Dem]

150. if that is your criticism, it would have been clearer to address it directly rather than question

the history of the term "neoliberal".

[Buzz Clik]

155. For the love of God

Give it up. No, I'll let you have the last word. What the fuck ever.

[Maedhros]

326. You're exceptionally abrasive.

Bye.

[cui bono]

380. Why stop now? You're doing such a good job of not being "divisive".

[sabrina 1]

444. What do you mean by 'separating themselves' it's a MAJORITY of DUers not a 'certain segment'

Why do you have a problem with Democrats being proud of the policies they have traditionally supported, and POINTING OUT those who do NOT support those policies?

That is what this forum is for. It is for Democrats to work towards getting Democrats and Democratic policies which happen to extremely popular across the political spectrum, into power in order to make this a better country. So what are you so upset about? Do you disagree with Democratic policies?

[Buzz Clik]

445. A lot of DUers spend a lot of time trying to categorize others as impure.

I find it divisive and ridiculous. Take pride in the the traditional policies? Sure. Demean those who do not embrace all of them? Despicable.

That is what this forum is for.

Okay. No problem. But, this forum is also for people like me who disagree strongly and are willing to say so.

So what are you so upset about? Do you disagree with Democratic policies?

As I was saying...anyone who disagrees has their loyalty challenged.

[Marr]

126. It's been around for decades.

You should try to hold back your mockery until you have at least some vague idea of what it is that you're mocking.

[Buzz Clik]

131. "until you have at least some vague idea of what it is that you're mocking."

Good advice for yourself. It was illustrate quite clearly when this was established well before you posted.

[sabrina 1]

422. Just use 'Third Way', it's more 'modern'. And if you need any information on who they are and

their policies, I'll be happy to provide it. Sadly they have grabbed power within our Party over the course of a few decades, first known as the DLC, and when they became too unpopular with Voters changed their title to the Third Way. Like 'halfway between Republicans and Democrats. Only it's more like three quarter Republican, and what's left over could be called Democratic, re policies.

And that is what is dividing the Dem Party right now.

Eg, they supported the Iraq War. Which is the topic of this thread, and so did the candidates they fund.

Their Board of Directors is made up of Wall St Investment Bankers.

[Jackpine Radical]

79. Did you miss much?

"I apparently missed your absence"

I didn't.

[LWolf]

128. No.

I just missed noticing the absence, lol.

[Buzz Clik]

132. Yeah, shit.

I cleared my Ignore list when I came back.

It might be time to put you back on.

[BrotherIvan]

177. I'd like to be on that list.

[Buzz Clik]

180. I'm not sure you understand how it works.

Take a second to think about it.

[BrotherIvan]

219. How your ignore works?

Put me on the goddamn list! Is that how you do it?

[Buzz Clik]

228. ..

[Jackpine Radical]

210. I'd be honored.

[Doctor_J]

207. you've never heard of the term neo liberal before?

How many decades was your absence?

[ND-Dem]

74. +100 these days, "progressive" = support for individual rights (gay/black/hispanic/women) and

that's about it.

progressives divide themselves into little individualistic "rights" groups that can be set against each other to fight for scraps while the "captains" take more and more of the pie.

[1StrongBlackMan]

398. I suspect that PoC, women, and the LGBT community ...

would say ... on DU you have that exactly backwards.

The DU "progressive" is about the 1% and nothing else ... the DU "Progressive" ignores the fight for collective class rights in favor of individual income equality ... And the DU "progressive" likes to pretend that their income inequality juggernaut is a unifying as they ignore the concerns of PoC, women and the LGBT community.

[ND-Dem]

406. There is no income inequality juggernaut. And few people at DU talk about class in the economic

sense at all.

Look at what's on the front page of gd today.

[840high]

106. ...^ that

[HereSince1628]

138. But they -DO- support those issues... nonsupport is "limited" and ALWAYS pragmatic

Social issues are fine if they aren't directly related to money or power

Say serving in the military while LGBT, or walking in public while non-white, there is LOTS!!! of support. There's lots of support for FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, if you're Charlie Hebdo, and not part of democratic base complaining about the pursuit of campaign funds corrupting democracy.

If you look at it, it's a simple well defined problem...support of progressive ideas goes hinky when things like LABOR/UNIONS interfere with -IMPORTANT THINGS FOR MATURE ADULTS-things like PROFITS from selling imported stuff, and getting retirement funds to buy worthless bets on bets about overly risky mortgages.

And it -REALLY-insults them when they see us fail to acknowledge the goodness of their intent, in how they worked to deregulate banking in order to solve the housing problem by making available predatory loans

[LWolf]

152. Yep. nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

318. Walter Benn Michaels has their number:

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2011/01/let-them-eat-diversity/

(emphasis added)

Walter Benn Michaels: The differentiation between left and right neoliberalism doesn’t really undermine the way it which it is deeply unified in its commitment to competitive markets and to the state’s role in maintaining competitive markets. For me the distinction is that “left neoliberals” are people who don’t understand themselves as neoliberals. They think that their commitments to anti-racism, to anti-sexism, to anti-homophobia constitute a critique of neoliberalism. But if you look at the history of the idea of neoliberalism you can see fairly quickly that neoliberalism arises as a kind of commitment precisely to those things....

...Stalin famously won the argument but lost the war over whether there could be socialism in one country, but no one has ever been under the impression for more than a millisecond that there could be neoliberalism in only one country. An easy way to look at this would be to say that the conditions of mobility of labor and mobility of capital have since World War II required an extraordinary upsurge in immigration. The foreign born population in the U.S today is something like 38 million people, which is roughly equivalent to the entire population of Poland. This is a function of matching the mobility of capital with the mobility of labor, and when you begin to produce these massive multi-racial or multi-national or as we would call them today multi-cultural workforces, you obviously need technologies to manage these work forces.

In the U.S. this all began in a kind of powerful way with the Immigration Act of 1965, which in effect repudiated the explicit racism of the Immigration Act of the 1924 and replaced it with largely neoliberal criteria. Before, whether you could come to the U.S. was based almost entirely on racial or, to use the then-preferred term, “national” criteria. I believe that, for example, the quota on Indian immigration to the U.S. in 1925 was 100. I don’t know the figure on Indian immigration to the U.S. since 1965 off-hand, but 100 is probably about an hour and a half of that in a given year. The anti-racism that involves is obviously a good thing, but it was enacted above all to admit people who benefited the economy of the U.S. They are often sort of high-end labor, doctors, lawyers, and businessmen of various kinds. The Asian immigration of the 70s and 80s involved a high proportion of people who had upper and upper-middle class status in their countries of origin and who quickly resumed that middle and upper middle class status in the U.S. While at the same time we’ve had this increased immigration from Mexico, people from the lower-end of the economy, filling jobs that otherwise cannot be filled—or at least not filled at the price capital would prefer to pay. So there is a certain sense in which the internationalism intrinsic to the neoliberal process requires a form of anti-racism and indeed neoliberalism has made very good use of the particular form we’ve evolved, multiculturalism, in two ways.

First, there isn’t a single US corporation that doesn’t have an HR office committed to respecting the differences between cultures, to making sure that your culture is respected whether or not your standard of living is. And, second, multiculturalism and diversity more generally are even more effective as a legitimizing tool, because they suggest that the ultimate goal of social justice in a neoliberal economy is not that there should be less difference between the rich and the poor—indeed the rule in neoliberal economies is that the difference between the rich and the poor gets wider rather than shrinks—but that no culture should be treated invidiously and that it’s basically OK if economic differences widen as long as the increasingly successful elites come to look like the increasingly unsuccessful non-elites. So the model of social justice is not that the rich don’t make as much and the poor make more, the model of social justice is that the rich make whatever they make, but an appropriate percentage of them are minorities or women. That’s a long answer to your question, but it is a serious question and the essence of the answer is precisely that internationalization, the new mobility of both capital and labor, has produced a contemporary anti-racism that functions as a legitimization of capital rather than as resistance or even critique.

[HereSince1628]

328. That's an interesting read...I'm not trained in economics so

I'm not really sure about the application of the neo-liberal label, or really much of the philosophy that label might implies.

I agree with what you say above in as much as within the phrase social-liberal and economic-conservative, I think social-liberal is merely a foil that attempts to deflect well deserved criticism of the social harm inherent in economic-conservatism.

[friendly_iconoclast]

335. I used to live in Wellesley, Massachusetts, a wealthy town

Being decidedly working-class myself, I was always amused about how the locals made
a lot of noise about being 'an open and welcoming community'.

Indeed, they were-open and welcoming to *all* rich people, regardless of race, nationality,
or sexual orientation. A white kid from north Natick, or a Brazilian immigrant from Framingham?

Fuggedaboutit...

[MannyGoldstein]

350. Checking in here from northern Newton

Yeah, Wellesley is a little upper-crusty, like southern Newton, Weston etc. But people *are* really nice, I find.

[Enthusiast]

392. +1 You nailed it.

[hrmjustin]

3. I am do not excuse it but I am capable of forgiving that vote.

I protested Hillary, Chuck, and Vito Fossela when they voted for that war. I voted for Chuck, Hillary, and Kerry since so I will not hold it against her in 2016.

[MannyGoldstein]

5. And this?

[hrmjustin]

6. I am not going to cry for the man. He was a dictator.

[MannyGoldstein]

10. Do you know what Libya's turned into since his death?

And what it tells the world when we kill a foreign leader after he voluntarily gave up his nuclear weapons program?

[hrmjustin]

15. The people on the ground were rebbelling and we helped them.

The fact is the country is falling apart and we share some blame for not trying harder to win the peace but the dictator was not a good man and his people sent him packing. Still not crying for him.

[ND-Dem]

86. *which* people on the ground? *why* was the country falling apart? we certainly did a

lot to help it in that direction.

[hrmjustin]

96. Yes we had a hand in it but the locaks were rising up against their goverment.

That is a fact.

[ND-Dem]

211. blanket statement about "the locals" doesn't = "fact"

[hrmjustin]

214. That is fair. We don't exactly know who they all were.

[sabrina 1]

139. Which 'people on the ground'? The ones who have been terrorizing civilians now for several years?

The ones who were armed by the West and then left to rampage through a country once among the most developed in Africa?

The 'people' who were shipped in from Qatar and the Al Queda contingency in Libay once kept under control by Gadaffi, at our request? Now part of ISIS?

I really wish we had a free and open press with actual journalists in this country.

Maybe some day after the rule of law is restored and the war criminals and propagandists finally held accountable.

Until then, the Rendon Group et al will be the providers of 'news' in this country, sadly.

[hrmjustin]

148. Who are the war criminals here?

[sabrina 1]

159. Yes, who are they? How many civilians were killed by NATO bombs in Libya? Do you know?

I would start with the French who instigated the Libya 'war' and who for months before were plotting the 'protests'. Their interests were the driving force for getting NATO involved, at least initially.

Where are they now that the people of Libya are desperately trying to either get out of that ravaged nation, or in hiding, or being brutalized by those who were 'on our side'?

Doesn't it bother you when you are told you are supporting civilians who are being attacked, then find out that isn't the case?

Are you aware that the Libyan Govt has collapsed, that torture and brutality is now the norm in that nation?

Can you identify the 'protesters' and don't forget the British agents caught in disguise as Libyans btw, who they were, their names, so we can find out were they even all Libyans?

I've been following Libya since the invasion, have you?

[hrmjustin]

161. I am asking you here, who are the war criminals?

Please list them if you don't mind?

[sabrina 1]

172. I am asking YOU who the protesters were? You are supporting what happened in Libya, but don't

appear to know even who the 'protesters' were, the ARMED protesters, I am talking about who were not there in the beginning, btw.

You have not expressed no opinion yet on the claim that they went there to 'protect civilians'.

Did NATO, ARE they protecting civilians?

Decisions on who is the guilty party cannot be made until facts are established.

As of now, those who are murdering civilians are certainly war criminals. Are any arrests being made? Any ATTEMPT to stop them? Human Rights groups are and have been begging for help for Libyans.

Your question demonstrates a level of disingenuousness which indicates to me, you are not interested in actual discussion of the issue, but attempting to play political games.

I am not interested in games, I am interested in facts. I asked you some questions to try to establish what facts you are in possession of.

You don't want to answer, fine. But playing games with the lives of human beings isn't something I have ever been interested in.

[hrmjustin]

174. I never claimed to support anything. I said I was not going to cry over it.

I am not playing games. Perhaps you should read my posts before answering.

I made the statement that there were people on the ground rebbeling. They didn't check in with me who they were.

Oh by the way I think Gaddafi was a criminal.

[sabrina 1]

178. I'll do the crying then for the innocent who are being murdered and tortured. You don't have to.

And fyi, we have zero proof that the armed protesters were 'rebelling', zero.

What we do know is that there were often protests, UNARMED protests in Libya just as we have here.

The ARMED protesters who appeared among the not abnormal small groups of unarmed protesters were unknown to the legitimate protesters, many of whom left and went home, frightened by the presence of these outsiders who were so violent they were shocked to see them there.

It doesn't matter what YOU think Gadaffi was. I think Cheney and Bush, Ledeen, Rove et al are worse criminals. The people of Africa, not just his own country, viewed Gadaffi very differently from Westerners like you.

Mandella eg, viewed him as a brother who provided so much help to him during the fight against Apartheid, while OUR Western 'leaders' were FOR Aparthied.

Africa is not our business, we have been imposing our Western cultures, equally criminal and violent, and in fact responsible for leaders like Gadaffi, supporters of him even, when it suited our purposes, for centuries.

I would like to know why THIS country has now replaced the former Western Empires who went around the world brutalizing and occupying continents like Africa and South America and when we are going to stop?

[hrmjustin]

179. My opinion doesn't have to matter to you but it does for me.

And like you give yours I will give mine.

Cheers!

[sabrina 1]

184. Our Western opinions of African nations, yours or mine, do not matter to African nations. Which was

my point.

Considering the horrific history of Western influence on that Continent, I would think at least this country would have avoided joining the former Colonial Imperialists in their oppression of those countries.

Once free to make their own decisions, amazing how we in the West think that people of color around the globe, cannot possibly know what's good for them without our WMDs helping them to decide, they finally, with help from Libya among others, ended Apartheid in South Africa.

So I have confidence that African nations are as capable of deciding their own futures, utilizing their own resources, as Gadaffi did, for the benefit of their own people, as we supposedly are, though looking around the Western nations lately, that too may be in question.

[hrmjustin]

185. I am all for them making their own choices.

[sabrina 1]

276. It's really none of our business. We have no rights in Africa, we are not in a position to 'allow

them' to do or not to do anything.

And yet, there we were, destroying an African country that had the highest standard of living, thanks to the use of their OWN resources, and now it is the way Colonialists have historically left African nations they decided to 'help'

Look, we know why NATO was there. It was to once again, take control of an African nation's resources.

And when that mission was accomplished, they left the civilians to try to survive against the brutality of the gangs of murderous thugs sent in by NATO and their allies, Qatar, dictators btw, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.

Maybe the West just can't stand to see an African nation thriving economically, using their resources for THEIR people.

Whatever the reason, a nation that climbed out of the last mess left by Imperialists, has been put 'back in its place', again by the West.

And best of all, THEY no longer control their own resources. So 'bye 'bye EDUCATION, which was free, including college in other countries in Libya, all the incredible Social Services they had, paid for with their own oil. Homes for the mentally ill, it was a law there that every Libyan had a right to a home.

Well, the West decided to end those 'terrible' policies, paid for with what they clearly think is 'our oil'.

I opposed it, I opposed Apartheid, I opposed Iraq, Afghanistan and all the other 'proxy wars' we wage against people for their resources.

And in the Imperial West, NO ONE is a War Criminal. As we found out after Iraq.

[think]

14. How about the Iraqi people?

[hrmjustin]

16. The Iraqi people will suffer from that horrible war and that is tragic but I am still voting for

Hillary.

[ND-Dem]

90. the price was worth it, eh?

[hrmjustin]

97. Did I say it was? No.

I said I am still voting for Hillary.

[cui bono]

382. How do you know that already? You don't even know who else is going to be running?

It would be much better if you made up your mind after hearing all the candidate's positions, don't you think?

[hrmjustin]

400. My mind is made up and if she runs she has my vote.

[cui bono]

432. Hm. I hope you would reconsider having your mind made up already.

You should keep an open mind. You never know what will happen.

Closed minds are dangerous.

[hrmjustin]

433. I will listen to the others but my vote is with Hillary.

[MrMickeysMom]

42. Funny thing about dictators...

When they are installed by us after the particular coup, we wheel and deal. Not caring is just part of that formula.

What I really don't want to cry for is the people who loose their political and moral compass, who feel no remorse to create or perpetuate this little scheme, which serves neither country from both sides.

[hrmjustin]

43. ok.

[rhett o rick]

73. So you are saying that getting rid of Saddam was worth the betrayal of Americans

by our government? We were lied to and HRC was a big part of that. This wasn't just a minor mistake, it was a mistake that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands and also probably brought on the death of the Great American Middle Class.

You act like we don't have any other Democratic choice.

Oh yeah, our use of depleted uranium is the gift that will keep on giving. Ask the Iraqis if it was worth it to get rid of that dictator.

[hrmjustin]

89. Where did I say it was a good idea to get rid of Saddam?

Where did I say that? Oh I didn't.

And no I don't act like Democrats don't have any choices. I just advocate for someone who is not your choice and you don't like it.

Cheers!

[ND-Dem]

93. "also probably brought on the death of the Great American Middle Class" = indeed

[marym625]

100. +1000

[Autumn]

13. Manny I gave her a pass on her IWR vote. I have always liked her laugh. But that?

I saw that and it turned my stomach. I felt sick to see someone I had admired and respected go there. I'm not about to give her a pass on that.

[zeemike]

50. It goes to show us we don't really know them.

All we know and admire about them is a public image that they themselves create.

But my first indication was when Hillary's first action as a Senator was to sponsor a flag burning ammendment...sent up a red flag to me, and was probably designed to show her intent to the right wing that she is with them. And then she proved it with the IWR.

I won't get fooled again.

[ellennelle]

82. thank u

for reminding us of this moment.

it's emblematic of what has creeped me out about her and her husband, and the entire DLC sellout.

they really are gop-lite, and by design and agenda.

the standard caveat, of course i'll vote for her over walker or jeb, but sheez, dammit ~

WE CAN AND REALLY SHOULD DO BETTER!!

[Agony]

298. means that she does not belong anywhere near a position of power.

[sabrina 1]

33. I think it's up to the victims, those who survived, to forgive, not up to people

who did not lose their daughters, or see them raped and murdered, or their babies, blown to bits or burned to death by WP, or sons maimed for life, or gone by suicide.

Or the 4 million Iraqi refugees still living in refugee camps in Jordan and Syria, now being driven out of Syria also by the terrorists who are destabilizing another ME country.

What I want all those victims to know if possible, is that this may have been done in our name, but many of us condemned it then and still do. And will never condone it.

If Sen. Byrd was able to see what the horrific consequences of such an invasion would be for the Iraqi people, AND for US troops, and if we could foresee it, anyone who didn't does not belong in a position where they might need to be 'forgiven' ever again.

Libya was a nation with one of the highest standards of living in Africa before 'we came, saw and he died'.

Now it is a tragic, brutal, wasteland, with brutal criminal, marauding gangs roaming the country, murdering, robbing and torturing civilians.

The people who are angry at Gadaffi were the Al Queda terrorists who WE asked him to contain.

He was fine until he decided to change Libya's oil currency in order to benefit Africa, especially Libya, and when he decided to create an African NATO to try to prevent Imperial Colonialism after centuries of brutal domination by various Western Empires, from happening again.

As for Hillary's hinting we had something to do with the war crime that was Gadaffi's death, Madella and especially Bishop Tutu were shocked and 'saddened' by that statement about someone who THEY viewed as a 'brother'.

What is NATO doing now about those civilians they claimed to care so much about btw?

[hrmjustin]

34. I lost my cousin in the war so I have standing to forgive thank you.

[sabrina 1]

85. I am sorry for the death of your cousin. And even if everyone were to forgive those responsible for

the most horrific crimes committed against a nation that was no threat to us, it would not alter the fact that those who made that terrible decision have no place in positions where they could make such a terrible decision ever again.

Some Iraqis have forgiven this country also. Many more are still seeking some kind of legal justice through the courts. And more are joining violent groups to take revenge for the injustices they witnessed.

More consequences of one of the worst decisions made by elected officials in recent history.

Regardless of all that, WE in the US do not have the standing to forgive those responsible for that massive crime, on behalf of the Iraqi people whose lives were shattered by our WMDS.

Forgiveness isn't the issue, the terrible, fateful decision proving a lack of competence of mammoth proportions, is the main reason issue.

We need people who make the right decisions at the right time and who won't need any forgiveness after it is too late.

[hrmjustin]

92. Thats your opinion and it is principled but I think we do have standing to forgive.

[sammythecat]

291. What do you mean when you say you "have standing to forgive"?

Do you mean your reaction somehow has more authority than others?

[hrmjustin]

292. No. I was making a point to the poster who said only the victims of the war have standing to forgive

My point was that I lost someone so I personally feel I do have standing. I also think everyone has this standing.

[sammythecat]

300. Thanks for clarifying. I agree with what you just said. n/t

[hrmjustin]

305. Thanks.

[zeemike]

59. +1

A little reality check is what your post is.

[Jackpine Radical]

84. I don't see it as a matter of forgiveness.

It's more a matter of an awareness that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

[hrmjustin]

94. It is perfectly reasonable to question her vote.

[BumRushDaShow]

390. "best predictor of future behavior is past behavior."

And so this applies to Elizabeth Warren the former Republican?

[Jackpine Radical]

410. Certainly.

Of course the predictive value of a behavior, in most predictive models, declines as a function of the square of its distance in the past.

[Logical]

238. Of course you will not. nt

[hrmjustin]

241. No I won't hold it against her. My right. n/t.

[Logical]

243. And my right to think you are a hypocrite. nt

[hrmjustin]

247. Please explain how I am a hypocrite.

[Logical]

251. Like you said "It's my right". nt

[hrmjustin]

252. Can you back it up or are you just here to call me names?

[hrmjustin]

255. Well are you going to back it up?

[Logical]

286. "It my right" is all I heard from you. nt

[hrmjustin]

288. I always respected your opinion here.

I didn't always agree but I always appreciated your ability to hold your own and give a great argument.

Recently you have not cared for my support of Hillary and that has put us at odds. That is fine because I get along with many people who don't like her.

I may or may not be a hypocrite. I am just a mere mortal and I make mistakes but i will be made a fool of.

Since you refuse to back up your claim and appear to be playing games with me I feel that conversation with you is not fruitful for me. I believe it is time for me to use the ignore function I am sorry to say. I will wait for your response of course and respond to you today if I feel the need. I owe you that. But our time talking together is at an end.

[Logical]

294. OK, I am wrong here.......

I don't get the total forgiveness of votes for the war. And reacted wrong to your being OK with it. But many others are also.

I apologize for my reaction.

I have said many times, I will fight hard to make sure Hillary is not the nominee. But if she is, I will vote for her. I will not donate to her or work for her but will vote for her.

[hrmjustin]

297. Accepted and I think she will have to answer for her vote.

My willing to forgive basically came from the fact I voted for Kerry and I feel I can not hold it against her since I voted for her three times since the war vote. The vote is not forgotten but I don't feel I personally hold it against her

[BainsBane]

319. It is not your right to insult other members

and why you think your opinion of another member relevant to anyone but yourself, I have no idea. There is a congress full of people who voted for that war, including I suspect the presidential candidate you voted for in 2004. Yet the only person you people ever mention that vote about is Hillary Clinton. Talk about hypocrisy. I have never before seen people on this site carry so much hatred for a public figure, and that includes Bush. That has next to nothing to do with Clinton herself because the very concerns you raise are common to the Democratic party and our political system as a whole. And then you have the nerve to call Justin a hypocrite because he doesn't fall in lock step with the group think. As offensive as you may find it that people are allowed to think and vote it ways that you don't control, that is the nature of our society. If you had an actual argument to make, you would do so instead of relying on insults. You don't like one member of the political elite that Justin happens to like. So fucking what? Deal with it. If you gave even the slightest shit about any policy issue, you would focus on changing that rather than making Democratic voters the enemy. If you understood anything about the nature of the problems facing this country, you wouldn't fool yourself into believing it's all about a single individual. I cannot begin to understand how it's possible to cultivate so much anger over something that amounts to so little.

I bet seven years ago the conversations were very similar. You all thought everything depended on defeating Clinton. How did that work out for you? Did capitalism suddenly evaporate because you succeeded in keeping the evil woman from office? Did war disappear from the place of the planet? Have you all learned nothing over these past seven years? How can you continue to delude yourself into thinking it's all about what personality occupies the White House? Do you all do this every election, vest all your fears and hopes into specific individuals, while the system remains the same and even gets worse? At what point are you going to figure out you are focusing on the symptom rather than the cause? The MIC or the relationship between capital and the state doesn't rise or fall based on a single member of the political elite. You all are trapped in a perpetual cycle of Groundhog day, and you show no desire to get out. Instead, you continue to hope for a political messiah that will magically transform America, and in the process insult everyone who doesn't share your particular view of one individual. And I expect in a few minutes you will insult me for not sharing your delusion.

[betsuni]

360. +very large number

[sabrina 1]

426. Who are 'you people'. I want to know if I am one of them so I can correct that statement IF I am one

of that group of 'you people'.

[BainsBane]

430. There is no question in my mind that you are a unique individual.

but certainly you are among the forefront of posters who has been leading a campaign against Clinton for years now. In your particular case, that juxtaposes with your admiration for Vladmir Putin and his popularity, something that results from the "strength" he has shown in rebuilding the great Russian empire.

It is of course your right to hold any opinion you choose, as it is my right to disagree with most of them.

[OnyxCollie]

310. Will you forgive an attack on Iran?

Clinton says U.S. could "totally obliterate" Iran
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/04/22/us-usa-politics-iran-idUSN2224332720080422

On the day of a crucial vote in her nomination battle against fellow Democrat Barack Obama, the New York senator said she wanted to make clear to Tehran what she was prepared to do as president in hopes that this warning would deter any Iranian nuclear attack against the Jewish state.

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran (if it attacks Israel)," Clinton said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."

"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them," she said.

"That's a terrible thing to say but those people who run Iran need to understand that because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic," Clinton said.

As an aside, I just noticed that the title of this article says "could 'totally obliterate'" when the actual quote is "would 'totally obliterate'"

[cui bono]

383. To further your "aside"... it actually says "would *be able to* totally obliterate them, not

"would totally obliterate them". So to be fair, she didn't say we necessarily would do it, but that we are capable of it.

[OnyxCollie]

408. Thanks.

It was a long day yesterday and the lack of sleep had caught up to me.

[cui bono]

431. That's okay. I do resent the fact that you made me defend Hillary though.

[leftofcool]

4. Did you vote for Kerry?

[MannyGoldstein]

11. Not in the primary. nt

[Andy823]

142. What about in the general election

Did you vote for Kerry instead of Bush?

[MannyGoldstein]

158. Of course. nt

[think]

12. And if one didn't vote for Kerry then they SUPPORTED BUSH! No matter how one voted

They were wrong...

[joshdawg]

25. ^^^Yes, this!^^^

If one does not vote for the Democratic nominee, the republican wins.

[think]

29. And if one did vote for Kerry obviously they were hypocrites that supported the war.

Again the person voted wrong.....

[HereSince1628]

165. lots of us were against Kerry before we were for him, before we were against him

it's just the nature of politics to be 'adaptable'.

[Major Hogwash]

339. Ha ha ha!

No wonder you guys were referred to as "flip-floppers" by the Deaniacs.

[HereSince1628]

341. But I -was- a Dean supporter...but now I'm not

Many things are possible in the ebb and flow...of perception of who supports labor and consumers.

So many seem to support labor and consumers...yet can't consistently stay the course.

[uponit7771]

213. +1

[rhett o rick]

77. Is that your argument / rational for voting for HRC? We can do better than

HRC and her baggage.

[Scuba]

7. I just can't rec this post enough.

[L0oniX]

336. Let me help out with another K & R

[tularetom]

8. It was neither staggering stupidity nor staggering malevolence

It was in fact, staggering political cowardice.

[marym625]

39. Isn't that the same thing?

Staggeringly stupid to be a political coward. It's what got us bush in the first place. Well, that and cheating the American public

[rhett o rick]

103. I seriously disagree. HRC is not a coward.

The cowards were those hiding under their desks with wet pants and voting to support the Republicons instead of doing what was responsible.

That doesn't include HRC who, not only voted for the war, she helped promulgate the lies. She knew they were lies. Everyone with half a brain knew they were lies. I don't think it was a smart political move. Just think of the standing she would have now had she opposed the war. But something compelled her to betray the Democrats and help the Republicons. My vote is for "staggering malevolence." It's the only explanation I can imagine.

[tularetom]

122. Yeah something did compel her to betray the Democrats

Fear of being called a "peacenik" by the people she was trying to suck up to. Of course she knew it was all bullshit but she thought the neocons would respect her as "tough" if she voted for it.

She knew that Democrats would excuse her lapse if she voted for the IWR. But if she voted against it she'd be ridiculed forever on Fox as well as the "liberal" media for being one of them kumbaiya singing hippies who just didn't understand how dangerous the world really was. She knew better, but she lacked the spine to do what was best.

She is a political coward. Maybe it's because she is smart enough to see which way the political wind is blowing in this country and she knows it would be suicidal for her to stand up to it. Maybe it's because she's married to the biggest political chameleon we've seen in a long time. I don't know, but I do know that she lacks the courage of her convictions and that to me is inexcusable.

I don't know, maybe we're saying the same thing.

[ReRe]

124. She sold out. Period.

[rhett o rick]

129. Bingo, in three words. nm

[ND-Dem]

223. she didn't sell out. she's always been a goldwater girl on the essentials.

[ReRe]

266. I guess I had my...

... rose-colored glasses on when she first became First Lady. I thought she was left of Bill. But when their time was up at the WH, I expected her to get a d-i-v-o-r-c-e, and when she didn't, I knew something was different about Hillary.

[99Forever]

17. No gray here.

Anyone that voted for or supports that War Crime, is no ally of mine.

[Mnpaul]

134. Anyone that voted for the continued use of cluster bombs in civilian areas

knowing that innocent children are getting maimed/killed by unexploded bomblets, is no ally of mine.

[bread_and_roses]

391. +1,000s (n/t)

[JaneyVee]

18. Due to lies from the Bush administration.

[woo me with science]

293. Already covered in Manny's OP.

That would be option "A": staggering stupidity.

[TheKentuckian]

20. About any area is gray when one is openly dedicated to being amoral as SOP.

Winning isn't just everything, it is the only thing is a statement of a logic that easily gets well out of hand in and disastrously distorts the game the speaker was referring to.
That is just a game for entertainment and it flies apart very quickly and in much worse ways in real life application, especially governance.

After all, we are talking about the portion of society that creates, interprets, and enforces the law.
How dangerous is it to lose track of both letter and spirit and devolve into a game of spin, brinkmanship, lining up dollars for propaganda campaigns?

Nothing but ever going bad to worse is even possible save by random chance when this sick mentality runs unopposed.

[Buzz Clik]

23. Wow. That's quite a declaration. "Amoral"? "Sick mentality"?

Hyperbole much?

Rein it in, dude. We're still 20 months out.

[ND-Dem]

115. you subscribe to 'winning is the only thing' i take it?

[Buzz Clik]

229. You take it wrong.

But hyperbole is standard at DU, so I'm hardly surprised.

[TheKentuckian]

206. "It" isn't mine to rein in, I'm just calling them as I seem them.

My personal editorial on those sad state of affairs would make some people's souls curdle, I guess.

[Buzz Clik]

230. You're incapable of reining in your emotions?

That's a level of honesty seldom seen at DU.

[TheKentuckian]

234. What emotion? You haven't seen my personal editorial, that was observation.

[Buzz Clik]

235. I see. So you have declared as FACT that Hillary is amoral and possesses a sick mentality.

Aren't you special.

[SHRED]

21. Because isn't the worst Democrat...

...still better than the best Republican?

[FBaggins]

75. No

That would be true only if we ignore the impact on other races/years

A really bad Democrat that causes large loses elsewhere and hands the White House and Supreme Court away for multiple terms is worse than living through another Republican term that reminds people of how bad they can screw things up.

[Buzz Clik]

22. Such a great and new point! No one ever brought this up before. Ever!!!

Damn, Manny. Really? Plowing the old ground? AGAIN?

How many prominent Democrats (wrongly) voted for the war in Iraq? Answer: 58%

How many Dem candidates for either president or vice president who were in the Senate that day voted for the war? 100% (5 Senators)

So... why now? Why still?

Are we using the Tea Party Purity Litmus Test for our candidates? Seriously?

[marym625]

26. seriously?

This cannot be brought up enough.

How about looking at how many Democrats that voted no and are gone? Seems the "yes" vote brought in a great deal of money.

How about looking at what we support vs what we should support?

[Buzz Clik]

30. "This cannot be brought up enough." No shit! Endlessly, apparently.

Except, of course, when we were desperate to get Bush out of office and Kerry/Edwards were our only hope. Then we didn't really mention it much at all.

Let's cut the bullshit: this is just another case of Democrats carrying water for Republicans and attempting to destroy ourselves from within. The ONLY attribute DU has is fighting from the minority position, even when it's against our own. It's fargin' psychotic.

[Buzz Clik]

37. Addressing your second point:

How about looking at how many Democrats that voted no and are gone? Seems the "yes" vote brought in a great deal of money.

How about looking at what we support vs what we should support?

Now THAT is a good point.

We at DU yell a good game, but fall apart when it comes to execution. All we do is find the minority position and scream. We aren't real good at action, or those who voted against Iraq would still be in office.

[marym625]

41. Thank you

I keep saying this and you are the first one to actually even acknowledge it.

[tularetom]

135. The only Democrat who ever GOT ELECTED president didn't vote for the war

And yes I know he wasn't in the Senate, but from what he said at the time, I have confidence that he would not have voted for the IWR.

[Buzz Clik]

146. uh, yeah.

No doubt.

[Enthusiast]

24. I appears that we now have perpetual war.

Boots on the ground? I don't think so. I call bullshit on that notion.

[OKNancy]

28. Fortunately you are not the arbiter of what is acceptable or not

Clinton said she would not have voted that way.... "Obviously, if we knew then what we know now, there wouldn't have been a vote," she said in her usual refrain before adding, "and I certainly wouldn't have voted that way." - 2006
She was also against the "surge"...

So it is not a disqualifier for me at all. Unlike some, i think a lot of Democrats voted for the authorization with good intentions.

[marym625]

45. except we all knew that the WMD bullshit

Was bullshit. So her "if we knew then" crap is just crap.

[roody]

57. +1,000,000

[marym625]

62. wow! that's a whole bunch!

Thank you!

[Enthusiast]

394. If we knew it was crap, They® certainly knew it was crap.

Now there is media wide theater where they all pretend that no one could have known it, including the Dubya Administration. And, of course, even if they knew it they meant well because they loved Merica. Jesus and stuff.

And that is utterly ridiculous.

[marym625]

395. Hey, jesus didn't just show up

On a cheese sandwich for nothing! It was his love for America and no other country that he did that for, damn it!

[Enthusiast]

396. I can see what you say is true. Amen.

[marym625]

397. jesus bless you. and cheese sandwiches for you!

Hee hee

[BubbaFett]

69. Actually, each one of us as individuals

and all of us as communities are the FINAL arbiters of what is acceptable or not.

Voting for an international war crime is never going to be acceptable to decent folk, no matter how clumsily you parse it.

[OKNancy]

72. LOL - so we aren't decent folk...

We shall see how it all shakes out....

[BubbaFett]

81. If you support someone

who voted for the Iraq War Atrocity, then yes, you really have to take a long look at yourself, because, no, that isn't something decent people would support.

[OKNancy]

87. I have no problem with my decency. Perhaps someone should not sit in judgment

of millions of Democrats who have voted for her and will vote for her.
Stay happy in your certitude.

Over and out - since you will no longer be able to answer because you got a hide lower in the thread...

[Mnpaul]

166. There should have been demands made before that vote

Democrats should have demanded a discussion of the intel before any vote to send our troops in harms way. Democrats who actually read the classified intel knew there were problems. Democrats should have demanded that the FBI investigate Curveball's claims before the vote. The Republicans blocking this investigation should have set off all kinds of alarms.

[Logical]

240. LOL, so war is OK if she thinks it was justified at the time! LOL, classic! nt

[cui bono]

384. We all knew it was lies while it was happening. And she had a lot more information than we did.

Her claim of not knowing is bs or stupidity, just as the OP states.

[TreasonousBastard]

31. And I never thought I'd see the day...

when someone would once again bash a leading politician over that vote. Any vote.

So, now that you've had your whiney-ass little tantrum over that vote, exactly what will you do if she is the candidate against any of the leading Republicans out there?

You gonna sit out the vote and claim some moral superiority? Waste your vote on some third party loser and help the Republican win?

No. You're gonna shut the fuck up, eat your words and suck it up and vote for Hillary because whatever she is she's better for the country than any of the Republicans.

That's life in a democracy of 300 million people.

[BubbaFett]

40. Some things are fundamentally inexcusable

Voting for the Iraq War Atrocity is fundamentally inexcusable.

[TreasonousBastard]

52. OK, so whatcha gonna do if she's the candidate? Go...

hide in a closet and cry about how she's the new Franco?

[TreasonousBastard]

60. "The perfect is the enemy of the good." Just remember that should...

you refuse to vote for her in the general and watch Jeb win.

[BubbaFett]

61. well

30+ years of Republican and Republican-lite rule so far.

The America I was born in is long gone.

[Mnpaul]

154. I think many here don't realize that

They have never seen that America. All they have seen is Republican and Republican-lite rule.

[ND-Dem]

109. that might apply if there were some significant good to point to. but what we get is

"the republicans would do it worse, and quicker"

[ND-Dem]

104. +10,000 Where's the positive movement to inspire people, especially young people, to change

life for the better? Where's the equivalent of Kennedy and King today?

Nothing but duplicitous and often evil horse-wagering, and "this is all there is, like it or lump it, you're powerless"

[TreasonousBastard]

218. Actually, I rather agree with that hidden post you're replying to...

However, if you look at American and colonial history for the past 300 years you will find precious few eras with inspiring, or what we today would call "progressive", leadership. Unless we're in times of severe crisis, this is pretty much as good as it gets.

[ND-Dem]

221. I agree; the ptb are forced to concede something to their serfs in times of crisis. crisis from

outside and internal crisis.

[Efilroft Sul]

236. +10,000 to your post, too.

And to the four people who voted to hide the post above, you need to find a way to reverse your rectal-cranial insertions. Jesus Christ, the party is not above such criticism.

[ReRe]

145. Hear! Hear!

+20,000!

[Martin Eden]

290. First, let's make sure she's not the candidate. n/t

[SidDithers]

51. +1...

And your post was alerted on. Will post results when they come in.

Sid

[TreasonousBastard]

53. Of course it was alerted...

never diss the sainted Manny.

Or defend the hated Hillary.

[BubbaFett]

65. Did Manny vote for an International War Crime Atrocity?

[TreasonousBastard]

220. Oh, floating around here somewhere is a post explaining that...

the Iraq War Resolution wasn't so much an order to go to war as it was a threat to Saddam that we were capable of going to war should he continue to be the little shit he insisted on being.

Alas, the lesser Bush used it to prove he was as ignorant a little shit as our alleged enemy.

[Number23]

270. Wait... what?

Oh, floating around here somewhere is a post explaining that...the Iraq War Resolution wasn't so much an order to go to war as it was a threat to Saddam that we were capable of going to war should he continue to be the little shit he insisted on being.

Do you have a link to that? It's already been posted about a couple of dozen times that the OP considered the election of President Obama to be the ONE presidential election he'd like to have seen overturned (and that was when presented with the option to overturn Bush vs. Gore. Something to seriously think about) but this is a new little wrinkle.

[TreasonousBastard]

373. here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6326455

Did you say Manny would have preferred Romney win? That's quite an accusation.

[840high]

111. So no matter what a Dem does - they

will always get your vote?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. Between 100,000 and 500,000 casualties from the Iraq war they signed on to.

Either they were monumentally stupid or coldly ambitious enough to have people massacred to further their lust for power.

[BubbaFett]

38. Betwen 100,000 and 500,000

poets
friends
lovers
brothers
bricklayers
fathers
artists
doctors
singers
truck drivers
mothers
teachers
farmers
computer whizzes
sisters
etc.

These were real people just like us.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

46. Exactly. Sacrificed for the political ambitions of those who want to "lead" the nation.

But, we're supposed to shrug, forgive, and vote for those people for the sake of Party Loyalty.

[BubbaFett]

48. Not if you come from decent folk

my people didn't raise me like that.

[BeanMusical]

379. Yeah, and we must look forward, not backward and all that crap.

[BubbaFett]

35. Iraq War vote

should automatically disqualify Hillary Rodham Clinton.

She should be so monumentally ashamed to have done that.

She should have the dignity, shame, and remorse to not even consider running.

[world wide wally]

36. The "real" Democratic Party became history when those evil genius Republicans changed our

language and "liberal" became the absolute foulest thing you could be called. From that point on, some dumb fuck campaign advisors have sold Dem politicians on running as "Republican Lites".

A backbone is a terrible thing to waste.

[MyNameGoesHere]

44. I cannot excuse John Doe

It was his fault we went to war. Then again his fault those same people keep getting elected. I blame John Doe for never holding those people accountable. Yes John Doe you are as guilty as those who abdicated their authority away.

[Cryptoad]

47. Now you know why you were not put in charge of defining,,,

"Progressive Democrat"

[OKNancy]

67. Russ Feingold voted to confirm John Roberts for the Supreme Court

So I guess he is disqualified too. LOL!

( Hillary voted no )

[sabrina 1]

141. Did you support the Iraq War?

[Cryptoad]

167. no

[sabrina 1]

170. In which case your judgement was better than some of our elected officials.

Sad isn't it, WE knew they were lying, but some of our elected officials, made the wrong decision on one of the most important decisions an elected official will be asked to make, sending this country to war.

I hope we are not presented with anyone whose judgement was less competent than the average citizen who had no access, nor did they need it as the lies were so obvious, to the information that was available to those who were voting as our representatives.

I hope the candidates are people who got it right on such a momentous decision.

[LittleBlue]

199. Well said

[JoePhilly]

49. DU's high priest of liberalism has spoken!

Evangelical Baptists have got nothing on you.

Sitting above the congregation, pointing out the sinners, and the damned.

[Alkene]

54. +1 n/t

[neverforget]

55. It showed incredibly poor judgment on a matter of foreign policy to

trust the Bush administration. It also showed that there are many Democrats who will vote for war as a political consideration and not think of the consequences just their political future or reelection.

[BubbaFett]

70. It just shows the "Win, win, always play to win" ethos of the careerist plutocrat

[roody]

58. Why did Kerry concede so rapidly to Bush?

Because he wanted to remain a member of the elite.

[Kip Humphrey]

88. Skull & Bones... He could not refuse.

[Atman]

64. They're ALL fucking multi-millionaires. They have no connection to regular people.

To them, their universe is different than ours. They're making backroom deals to benefit/support other backroom deals which will make them more money or garner them more influence over other backroom deals. They've completely lost touch with the rest of the people in this country who don't even have a voice in what hours they work, let alone what countries we bomb.

I'm pretty sick of it. The sad part is, as disgusting as our own party has become, do you think the country will get better by having even more Republicans in control? Can you imagine a Republican president with both houses of Congress at his beck and call? Oh, wait. It has nothing to do with party politics anymore. Unless by "party" you mean Fundraising Cocktail Party.

[BubbaFett]

66. I was alive when there were plenty of people around

who lived through the Great Depression and World War 2.

That America is gone and dead.

[ND-Dem]

121. +100

[KingCharlemagne]

362. Please allow F. Scott Fitzgerald to explain:

They were careless people, Tom and Daisy- they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made.

The Great Gatsby

[Nye Bevan]

71. And a vote for Reagan was a vote for trickle-down economics and screwing AIDs victims.

Is that excusable?

[think]

78. Equating voting for a Republican president with voting to send America to war based on lies?

[Bluenorthwest]

191. Pretending that being a full tilt Republican starting with Nixon and running past Bush 41 is 'voting

for a Republican President' is not very accurate. She was a loyal Republican for 30 years of racist, homophobic, anti choice, Union busting, war machine feeding policy. Or 'voted for a Republican President'.
Those who voted for Reagan the first time were voting for a man who as Governor of CA, when asked about student protests said ""If it takes a bloodbath, let's get it over with. No more appeasement." Three weeks later was the Kent State Massacre. That's what she voted for, to make Governor Bloodbath the President of the United States, because she liked his economic policies. His economic policies were another sort of bloodbath.....

[druidity33]

405. there's a difference

between voting as a citizen and voting as a Legislator. I'm happy to examine her votes as a Senator... but as a private citizen, she wasn't even necessarily obligated to tell us her past party preferences. I think saying she contributed to Reagan's demise of America based on a single vote in a National election (especially given her current passions) versus voting to go to war as a Senator is an unfair comparison.

just my 2 pennies...

[F4lconF16]

102. Point made.

Difference is, she's done a complete 180. Others? Not so much, more a 15° turn to the right.

[Bluenorthwest]

188. Has she? Reagan was a Supply Side monster, a racist who actively supported aparthied following

policy crafted by Nixon, another Warren supported Republican. Warren voted for Reagan and for Bush, in spite of their egregious inaction on AIDS in the face of thousands of American deaths.
I have never heard her speak about any of that. I have noticed that her boosters are lily white, arrow straight and that many of them also like to tout the Pope, who is anti gay and anti choice just like Republicans.
Let me know when Warren is adult enough to stand up and talk about why she remained in a racist, homophobic anti choice Party for 30 years. So far she says she was a Republican because they 'best supported the markets'. I don't care for that answer. 'I was in a bigoted Party for the money!' 180? Really?
I lived through all of those years as a Democrat. I knew right from wrong, good policy from bad. She did not. She knew how to make herself rich and not think about the harm done to others.

I wish progressives would support Bernie, I can't and won't do the Reagan revisionist shit for Warren. No one is worth that price.

[KingCharlemagne]

363. This is a most righteous jeremiad. I think you and I may have had our differences in the

past, but on this matter there's not one millimeter of daylight between our positions.

People have forgotten that Reagan presided over the worst recession this country had seen since the Great Depression. (Adult unemployment reached 12% in 1982, IIRC.) That is the monster whom Warren supported, someone willing to beat inflation on the backs of the working class.

[think]

76. Apparently some here feel voting for the Iraq war no was is no big deal

That is pretty disappointing but not unexpected.

Americans in general are very isolated from the consequences of war and it shows.

[MineralMan]

80. Well, I excuse nothing. I vote in presidential elections

for the Democrat, because I've seen what the other party does when it's in power. If you want someone who did not vote for the Iraq war at the top of the ballot in 2016, you're going to have to work to get one on that ballot. If that doesn't happen, Democrats will vote for the Democrat at the top of the ballot. That's not excusing anything. It's just a vote to set the course for the next four years.

A choice has to be made in November of presidential election years. Before that, we have an opportunity to select who will run. My advice is to promote the candidacy of someone you support. That will, at least, be something productive to do. In November of 2016, the choice will be a binary one. You can choose to vote for the Democratic candidate or not to vote for that candidate. Primary season's about to begin, Manny. Work for a candidate of which you approve.

[sabrina 1]

99. Are there any candidates for the WH right now?

And btw, did you support the Iraq War?

[MineralMan]

140. There are some apparent candidates, yes.

We'll soon know who is seeking the nomination.

And no, I did not support the Iraq war. I don't support any wars. I'm opposed to warfare. We have wars, though, from time to time, and I have nothing to do with their beginnings or endings, generally. I protested in front of the Pentagon in 1968 and 1969, and in other places in the DC area, though. I doubt that my protests had anything to do with Vietnam ending. Prior to then, I was too young for war protests, I'm afraid.

Congress has something to do with the beginnings and endings of wars, as does the President. That's one of their functions. They make the wrong decisions frequently. However, that is not all Congress and the President does. If it were, things might be different. Both the executive and legislative branches of government have many, many responsibilities. Looking at the entire picture, I strongly prefer Democrats to Republicans to be in power. Will they always do what I prefer? Certainly, they will not. That does not mean that I can ignore the choice I have in elections.

A number of people have said that I'm a Hillary Clinton supporter. They are incorrect. I don't really have anything to do with who the candidate will be, so I don't really interest myself in that too much. Presidential politics is not my interest, except to work toward getting the Democratic candidate elected in the general election. I do prefer that a Democrat wins, whoever that is. I think it's very likely to be Hillary Clinton, frankly, who will be the candidate nominated. If that is the case, then I will support her election and will campaign for her along with all the other Democrats who will be on the ballot where I live.

I am a Democrat, you see.

[sabrina 1]

149. Then your judgement was better than that of those who did support it. Since there are no declared

candidates right now, I hope we are presented with candidates whose judgement on one of the most important decisions an elected official has to make, is at least as good as yours.

Anyone who was in the House or Senate at the time, as you correctly point out was at least as responsible as Bush, and who abdicated that responsibilty, hopefully will not be among those candidates.

[MineralMan]

157. I think I can assure you that some who voted for that war

will be candidates. There will still be an election, where we will have a binary choice. We can vote for the Democrat or not vote for the Democrat. I know what my choice will be, because I have always made that choice, even when defeat was certain.

If you have a favorite potential candidate, then I think you should be working hard to help that candidate get the nomination. I will be voting for the Democratic candidate in any case, though, and recommend that all Democrats do the same. But it's everyone's personal decision. I will simply recommend a vote for the Democrat. You will do as you choose.

[sabrina 1]

272. And as always, those who voted for that war will not win. So if Dems want to win, they need to find

people who get these kinds of things right. It's a simple matter, like any job, when you screw up, the one who doesn't generally gets the job.

I do not see the reason for the resistance. Voters made it clear they want leaders who have good judgement. That doesn't seem like too much to ask.

[marym625]

194. Here you go

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_candidates,_2016

[sabrina 1]

351. Thanks, and I would add Sherrod Brown and Bernie Sanders. Warren too if she wants to run.

That's quite a few candidates, but so far, no one has declared their candidacy.

[marym625]

354. no, a few have. no one good but it's starting

The following individuals have formally announced that they are running for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016 and/or have filed as a candidate for such with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

Jeff Boss
Conspiracy theorist and perennial candidate from New Jersey

(Website)
(FEC Filing)

Boss filed as a 2016 candidate in 2012.[1]

Vermin Supreme
Performance artist and perennial candidate from Massachusetts

(Website)

Supreme initially announced his intention to run in 2016 during his 2012 presidential campaign.[2]. He confirmed his candidacy in May 2014[3][4] His official slogan is: "Vermin Supreme 2016:Riding our ponies into a zombie powered future"

Robby Wells
Former head football coach at Savannah StateUniversity; Candidate for the 2012 presidential nomination of the Constitution Party

(Website)
(FEC Filing)

Wells declared his 2016 presidential candidacy in November 2012.[5] After initially announcing he would run as an independent candidate, Wells later declared his intentions to instead seek the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party.[6][7]

[Rex]

91. Sorry Manny but we've all been assimilated. It doesn't hurt really.

It will all be over in a few minutes, you won't feel a thing.

[1StrongBlackMan]

98. Anti-war has never really been high on the Democratic Party's list ...

Here, I refer you to the words of one of your compatriots:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x478248

[wyldwolf]

101. Will Pitt's spirited defense of John Kerry's vote for the IWR

oops.

Apparently, back in the day (around August 2004) Mr. Pitt interviewed John Kerry. One the main points of the interview was the Senator's vote for the IWR. Here is an exchange between Will and several other DUers:

Please bookmark this post, because I am puking sick of typing it over and over again.

Kerry did not say he would still have gone to war in Iraq. This is what he said:

"Yes, I would have voted for that authority but I would have used that authority to do things very differently," Kerry said after a short hike from Hopi Point to Powell Point on the Grand Canyon's South Rim.

The 'Yes' vote on the IWR essential to the establishment of effective weapons inspections. Only the threat of force made the previous inspections effective. I asked Scott Ritter personally if his seven years in Iraq as an inspector would have been effective without the threat of force. He said the inspections would have been useless without the threat.

The US wrote Res. 1441. The US wrote "weapons inspections" into it. It was unanimously approved by the Security Council. The threat of force had to be there; Hussein had jerked around UNSCOM until we bombed him into compliance.

The threat of force got rid of the weapons from 1991-1998. The threat of force was needed to get rid of whatever he might have developed since. As Ritter said in my book, no one was absolutely sure they hadn't retained any of their weapons capabilities.

Are you in favor of weapons inspectors, backed by a unanimous UN Security Council, going in to make sure VX and other weapons were not being developed?

If you were in favor of weapons inspectors, YOU WERE IN FAVOR OF THE THREAT OF FORCE TO BACK THE INSPECTORS. There is no separating the two. Period. (bolding is Will's)

still_one: The authority that Congress gave to bush allowed him to go to war...

WilliamPitt: allowed ***HIM*** to go to war" Any President - even Mr. Gore - would likely have looked hard at Iraq post-9/11 because of that nation's history of WMD development. Gore would have gotten inspectors into the game, and would have asked for a threat of force to back the inspectors up. The difference is the handling of that power, not the delivery of it.

Kerry's reasoning is the same defense offered up by EVERY Democrat who voted for the IWR. "I did not vote for war, I voted for the threat of force to get weapon inspectors in." Will defends Kerry. Angrily defends Kerry, the long-time Senator as in "how dare you question it and I'm sick of repeating it.."

Hillary, the JUNIOR senator from New York. Burn the witch.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x605385

Mr. Pitt also wrote a great article, defending (excusing) John Kerry's vote for the IWR.

http://www.truth-out.org/archive/item/46460-william-rivers-pitt--the-trial-of-john-kerry

[aikoaiko]

105. Most excellent post

[Hissyspit]

263. How?

[msanthrope]

264. Memories.....

https://m.

[MannyGoldstein]

112. I love Will Pitt

IIRC, he and I used to battle on issues like this years ago.

I wonder if he feels the same way today?

[wyldwolf]

116. Is he a 'progressive Democrat?"

[MannyGoldstein]

120. Based on Will's post a few days ago,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026306914

I'll go with "yes"

[wyldwolf]

125. Which proves my point. He held Kerry to different standard. Wonder why?

Long time Senator Kerry - cool.
Junior Senator Clinton - witch.

Man. Woman?

[MannyGoldstein]

127. Or he's evolved on the issue.

Assuming he's sexist, without a reasonable set of data, is grotesque.

[wyldwolf]

130. Had no problem with Biden less than 3 years ago. Hmmm...

No problem with Kerry or Edwards. No problem with Biden twice. No evidence he's evolved. Only the candidate has changed.

[MannyGoldstein]

144. Did he have a problem with Hillary's vote in 2008?

That would be good to know.

Also, do you have links that support your claims?

[MannyGoldstein]

151. To clarify my previously post

Do you have evidence that at the same time Will was bashing Clinton for her awful vote, he was OK with Biden's and Edwards' vote?

[wyldwolf]

181. You're finding it difficult to reconcile your OP with Will Pitt's words.

You're finding it difficult to reconcile your OP with Will Pitt's words. And I understand that. Pitt has always been a great and sane voice on DU. But on this IWR issue, he was all over the map. Probably trying to be pragmatic.

The only 'evidence' is his words or his silence.

Here's what we know:

1. He wrote a book with Scott Ritter in 2002 about Bush lying us into war.
2. By 2004 he was defending John Kerry, a Senior Senator, for his vote for the IWR. As far as anyone can tell, he never had an issue with the bill's co-sponsor, John Edwards either.
3. In 2006, Pitt didn't want Hillary to run, worried that fake Clinton scandals would detract from Hillary sin of voting for the IWR

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=629976&mesg_id=630088

4. In 2008 Will didn't care WHO got the nomination - he'd vote for any of them - because ALL OF THEM would pro-science and health care (I guess he'd decided then the IWR was no longer that big of a deal.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2629749

Quick review so far: 2002, anti-IWR. 2004, it was cool that Kerry did. In 2006, it wasn't cool Hillary did. By early 2008, it wasn't a factor in his choice because they all agreed on pro-science.

5. In 2008, Ritter wrote a piece based on that book condemning Hillary Clinton (but not Biden)
6. Will never had an issue with Biden being on the 2008 ticket that I can tell or remember, nor did he insist Biden be removed from the 2012 ticket.

[MannyGoldstein]

197. Whoa. Let's focus.

One thing at a time.

Are you accusing Will Pitt of being a misogynist?

[wyldwolf]

205. Nope. Just of using a different standard on Clinton...

... Who happens to be a woman, than three others who've been on the national ticket - who happened to be men on the subject of the IWR. There could be many reasons for that.

It doesn't rise to the level of misogyny in my book. And now that we've got that out of the way...

And kudos to you. You seem to have been quite consistent over the years in your feeling for the IWR.

[MannyGoldstein]

208. Then your pants are on fire.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6326595

[wyldwolf]

227. Is he a 'progressive democrat?'

Yes? No?

[MannyGoldstein]

232. Your pants are on fire, and

I already answered that.

[wyldwolf]

233. Your pants are on fire and tell us...

"he and I used to battle on issues like this years ago."

What issues make you a 'progressive democrat' and Will not one?

Your attempt to divert by smearing is standard for you. I'll bet I can find some instances where you've been accused of misogyny.

[MannyGoldstein]

237. You accused Will Pitt of misogyny

then denied that you did this.

Why on Earth would I discuss something with you? Like nailing Jello to a tree.

[wyldwolf]

239. No I didn't. I said he held Clinton to a different standard than he did three men

[wyldwolf]

242. So what makes you a 'progressive democrat' and not Will?

What are some of those issues that separates you from him?

[MannyGoldstein]

246. I said he is a progressive Democrat

Discussion over.

[wyldwolf]

250. according to the logic in your OP, Will Pitt isn't a 'progressive democrat"

Or did you forget to sign your OP 'Third Way Manny?'

[Doctor_J]

253. since most who oppose hrc right now favor Warren, your misogyny claims fail the laugh

test. But don't let that stop you. Personality cults are difficult to deprogram

[wyldwolf]

254. Your attempt at smearing to divert the point is typical.

But don't let that stop you.

since most who oppose hrc right now favor Warren

We're not talking about 'most' and the conversation is definitely not confined to 'now.'

your misogyny claims fail the laugh test

You attempt at contributing to the discussion fails the laugh test.

[Doctor_J]

256. your "point" is to taint all criticism of Hillary by calling all critics anti-woman. I pointed out

that such attempted smears are patently wrong, and easily proven as such. Sorry for the inconvenience.

[wyldwolf]

257. Really? You have links to back that charge? No, you don't

What you're trying to do is shut down push-back from Clinton supporters by using that smear.

[Doctor_J]

311. errr, Manny has a link about three posts up from here, and one of your posts right in

this thread blames criticism of Hillary on anti-woman bias. Why don't you see if you can go for an entire week defending Hillary's corporate, pro-establishment record without calling her critics sexist?

[wyldwolf]

312. errr, no he doesn't.

Unless you're relying on the new Manny Fanny definition.

[Hissyspit]

262. Ok I just read the whole thing, and it didn't strike me as a spirited defense.

In fact, I read it at the time.

Seems more like reportage. Did I miss something?

[wyldwolf]

265. yeah, you did miss something

WilliamPitt: allowed ***HIM*** to go to war" Any President - even Mr. Gore - would likely have looked hard at Iraq post-9/11 because of that nation's history of WMD development. Gore would have gotten inspectors into the game, and would have asked for a threat of force to back the inspectors up. The difference is the handling of that power, not the delivery of it.

THAT isn't reporting. THAT is editorializing. THAT is saying "ANY President" would have asked for a threat of force - which is what the IWR was.

But hey! If you don't see "spirited" in that or Will saying "Please bookmark this post, because I am puking sick of typing it over and over again," then you and I have a different threshold of what the term means.

[Hissyspit]

269. Yeah, I don't agree. Maybe I'm wrong.

But the OP is not about Will, anyway.

[Martin Eden]

296. Kerry was fooled?

It comes down to this:

Will's argument is that Kerry believed Bush would use the war power responsibly to force Saddam to accept weapons inspectors, because the goal was to make sure Iraq did not have WMD.

If Kerry actually believed that, he's an idiot.

It was glaringly obvious the Bush neocons were hell-bent on war and regime change and that passage of the IWR meant the invasion was inevitable regardless of cooperation with the inspectors or what they found.

[rhett o rick]

309. Sorry but that's all bunk. When they signed it, are they saying they trusted Bush not to go to war?

Did they make it clear that they were only authorizing the threat to get inspectors in? And when Bush did what most of us suspected he would, DID THEY SCREAM BLOODY MURDER FOR BEING BETRAYED? Did they initiate a bill recinding the right to wage war? What did they do? I will tell you, they crawled under their desks and prayed for forgiveness as they well should. Tens of thousands of children died bloody, horrible deaths, millions of Iraqi's were displaced and turned into refugees. Thousands of our troops died and tens of thousands of them were wounded. The cost of the war besides the human cost, was over a trillion dollars that will cripple the middle class probably forever and probably destroyed our democracy.

The rationalizations are pathetic. "We weren't sure that Iraq didn't still have some of their old, old WMD's left." Even if they did, how effective could they be? And we could wait and see before killing them.
We weren't sure if they didn't develop or gain more WMD's." Really? Our intellegence was that bad? We knew. Also, when Bush could only produce bogus proof, and it stunk, it should have been a tip-off of what he was up to. But the rationalization was that they never guessed he would actually invade. THE NEOCONS WERE PRAYING OUT LOUD FOR AN EXCUSE TO INVADE.
AND NONE OF THIS PERTAINED TO 9-FRACKING-11.

Tell Kerry and HRC to save their lame rationalizations for their maker.

The invasion was illegal and immoral and a war crime.

[Lancero]

331. Methinks you gave someone a sad - Jury results

Will Pitt's spirited defense of John Kerry's vote for the IWR
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6326455

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Why call out (in a derogatory manner) someone not participating in the thread who is not here to defend themselves. It is uncalled for and has traditionally been against the rules.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Mar 7, 2015, 08:51 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I might be interpreting things wrong, but I see it more as pointing out how hypocrital DUers are for giving Kerry a pass on voting for the IWR, yet - As Wolf puts it - they jump to burn Hillary at the stake because she voted yes.

Essentially, it's the 'speaks his mind' vs 'angry woman' ideal that so many on DU love to call Republicans out for - That is, treating genders differently when both do the same exact thing. Kerry? He's speaking his mind. Hillary? She's a angry women who, according to some on DU, is successful only because she slept with a guy who got a blowjob in the White House.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Put this in a Pitt thread and it may be OK. Not so much here.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I humbly say suck it up. Mr. Pitt is well equipped to handle this ish without an alert. He doesn't need a jury defense.

Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It is a double standard, fine to be exposed.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

[stevenleser]

462. replying just so I can refer back. nt

[aikoaiko]

107. Feels like ancient history

And Not particularly important today.

[Martin Eden]

301. Ancient history features only dead people.

Today we're talking about a living person who is complicit in making a lot of people dead, and giving her the power to make history repeat itself -- as it always does when we fail to learn from history.

[KMOD]

108. I shudder to think of how much war we'll get,

if a republican wins the presidency.

[MisterP]

169. wasn't that what Qadima figured in Lebanon? start a war so the warmongering Likud

doesn't get in, because they'd have TWO wars?

and where's Qadima today?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

110. " I never, ever thought I'd see the day..."

"I never, ever thought I'd see the day when people who call themselves progressive Democrats excuse a vote to wage war in Iraq."


Proudly voted for Joe Biden twice and John Kerry once.

"Too err is human, to forgive is divine."

[libodem]

113. I'll raise my glass to that

.


We need a wine smilie. We're Democrats, dammit.

[PedXing]

114. Because any Democrat is better than a Republican

Even a Democrat that votes as a Republican.

That is today's Democratic Party. Big tent, no convictions.

[Autumn]

153. How is a Democrat who votes as a republican better than a republican?

[PedXing]

386. I'm not sure.

A moderate Republican is certainly better than a tea bagger, but if moderate Republicanism becomes the default Democratic position, what's the point?

[sabrina 1]

117. Is there is no gray area Manny. And no one who contributed to that massive war crime, whether out of

ignorance (rendering them too incompetent for public office) or malevolence, should be acceptable to any Democrat at least.

[Tom Rinaldo]

118. In 2008 a whole lot of progressves round here were singing praises for John Edwards

And he not only voted for the war in Iraq, he fucking cosponsored the Iraq War Resolution in the U.S. Senate. How quickly we forget (when it's convenient)...

[Hoyt]

283. +1. I suspect a lot who are saying they were against it and "knew it was a lie," really didn't.

I expected bush to use the "authorization" to pressure Saddam, not invade them almost immediately. bush should have listened to Hons Blix.

I don't blame people who honestly thought they were doing the right thing by giving bush "authorization," especially when bush forced them into a corner with his mushroom cloud speech and similar lies.

[Rex]

119. Okies I've replied in all three 'never see' threads, so no jury duty for me!

Goodluck players! May your threads turn out to be as divine as you want them to be! Me personally, I have to go purify myself in the waters of lake Titicaca.

[Bluenorthwest]

123. I saw that day, it was July 29th 2004 in Boston, when Democrats named Yes voters John Kerry

and his running mate, yes voter and original co-sponsor of the IWR John Edwards as our Presidential and Vice Presidential Nominees. By the time Biden, another Yes voter, became Obama's running mate I'd gotten used to this once astounding display. The continued promotion by Obama of IWR Yes voters to high office, extending even to Republican Yes voters added another level to it.

But considering that day was over 10 years ago, I have to wonder how you missed it. Of the 4 people this Party has nominated for Executive Offices since that vote, 3 have been Yes voters and 1 has promoted only Yes voters. In 2004 it was a day I never thought I'd see, in 2015 it is a day I've seen over and over and over again.

[ND-Dem]

136. a little quibble with that description...

In his time in the Senate, Edwards co-sponsored 203 bills.[25]

Among them was Lieberman's 2002 Iraq War Resolution (S.J.Res.46), which he co-sponsored along with 15 other senators, but which did not go to a vote.

He voted for replacement resolution (H.J Res. 114) in the full Senate to authorize the use of military force against Iraq, which passed by a vote of 77 to 23,[27]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards


just because Edwards wasn't the sole co-sponsor of Lieberman's iwr, not was that bill successful.

[Bluenorthwest]

160. I did not say he was 'the sole co-sponsor' just that he was what he was, an origninal co-sponsor

of the Senate version, Lieberman's version, which was as I'm sure you know substantially the same as the Hastert-Gephart HJ 114.
Edwards was in fact the very first Democratic co-sponsor of Lieberman's bill in the Senate. One of 7 Democrats to co-sponsor it, along with 9 Republicans.
SJ 46 and HJ 114 virtually the same legislation. Edwards, being a Senator, could not co-sponsor the House version even if he wanted to. But he sure as hell voted for it.

I'm not really sure which hair you wish to split, but no matter which strand you pick, the root is 'Kerry and Edwards both voted for IWR, Edwards was a leading Democratic co-sponsor of legislation that evolved into the final version which he and Kerry voted for.
Thus exclaiming that one thought one would never see the day a full decade out from those men being nominated is inexplicable. Which was my point. Already saw the day, long ago, more than once.

[ND-Dem]

163. because your version makes it sound like he stood alone as cosponsor.

[Bluenorthwest]

173. No it does not. He was the very first Democrat to co-sponsor the Senate version, original co-sponsor

does not mean 'exclusive co-sponsor' nor 'only' nor 'sole' co-sponsor. It means the first, and he was. And that bill was virtually the same as the House Version the Congress passed with a vote from Edwards and a vote from Kerry and another from Biden.

I'm sorry you don't care for the facts. Words have meanings. If Edwards did not wish to be remembered as the original, initial, first and most eager Democrat to rush to co-sponsor Joe's IWR bill, he should not have done so. Had he not done that, we could focus on his run for President, in which he claimed to have strictly Baptist views of marriage that precluded acceptance of same sex marriages right up until his mistress and their child hit the news. That makes him sound so much better. 'IRW Yes voter and adulterous hypocritical religious opponent of gay marriage, John Edwards'.

He'd stand on stages and weep about his Baptist Deacon Daddy 'It's just a part of me' he'd say 'I see marriage as a sacred contract between one man and one woman.' Yeah, a great guy.

[ND-Dem]

175. in his hypocrisy not much different from most politicians. just paid by a different faction.

which was why he came to grief, imo.

[Bluenorthwest]

182. And yet he was given a pass on the IWR vote twice, once as VP nom and second as candidate

eliminated only by his own two faced nature and mendacious behavior. The Party was fine with the Yes vote, you say he's not much different but his Yes vote sure gets a different treatment than Clinton's. Which is sort of my point. The OP's affects amazement at the sight of Democrats excusing IWR Yes votes, claims he never, ever thought he'd see the day, but we've all seen that day many times over already.

Just don't try to pretend utter shock at the sight of an Iraq War yes voter being considered for President after you have nominated 3 of them and considered many more. Tell me you are dismayed to see it yet again, fine. But 'never ever thought I'd see what we have all seen repeatedly' is the sort of double standard bullshit that I dislike.

[ND-Dem]

198. everyone was getting a pass in those days.

[Autumn]

204. I gave any Democrat who ran against Bush a pass at that time. I would have given the devil

a pass and a fucking donation and worked his campaign if he had run against Bush. I think most of us felt that way. But now? I have no passes left to give.

[still_one]

133. Well gee Manny, LBJ expanded a bloody war in Viet Nam, yet the social programs and civil rights act

that were realized by him were some of the most progressive legislation passed.

That you do not see that a person can be a progressive on most issues, but not on everything, does not make them not a progressive. That type of thinking is nothing but staggering stupidity, especially with regard to republicans verses Democrats

Must be very simple in your world with the all or nothing philosophy. Nothing gray.

[Buzz Clik]

147. +1

[MannyGoldstein]

156. Lots of things are gray

And LBJ did not get a second (full) term.

[still_one]

168. Actually it would have been a third term technically Manny, and we will never know if he would or

would not, since he decided not to run.

Believe or not, I don't always agree with you, but I do appreciate your comments, it makes DU an interesting place

[ND-Dem]

176. i've read that lbj was actually trying to wind down the war & got rat-fucked, but i can't

find the piece.

if I do, i'll post it.

[still_one]

200. That would be interesting. No evidence of that was mentioned in "The Fog Of War". Thanks

[ND-Dem]

201. mcnamara had a vested interest in blaming johnson for all

I think it was this:

The treason came in 1968 as the Vietnam War reached a critical turning point. President Lyndon Johnson was desperate for a truce between North and South Vietnam.

LBJ had an ulterior motive: his Vice President, Hubert Humphrey, was in a tight presidential race against Richard Nixon. With demonstrators in the streets, Humphrey desperately needed a cease-fire to get him into the White House.

Johnson had it all but wrapped it. With a combination of gentle and iron-fisted persuasion, he forced the leaders of South Vietnam into an all-but-final agreement with the North. A cease-fire was imminent, and Humphrey’s election seemed assured.

But at the last minute, the South Vietnamese pulled out. LBJ suspected Nixon had intervened to stop them from signing a peace treaty.

In the Price of Power (1983), Seymour Hersh revealed Henry Kissinger—then Johnson’s advisor on Vietnam peace talks—secretly alerted Nixon’s staff that a truce was imminent.

According to Hersh, Nixon “was able to get a series of messages to the Thieu government [of South Vietnam] making it clear that a Nixon presidency would have different views on peace negotiations.”

Johnson was livid. He even called the Republican Senate Minority Leader, Everett Dirksen, to complain that “they oughtn’t be doing this. This is treason.”

“I know,” was Dirksen’s feeble reply.

Johnson blasted Nixon about this on November 3, just prior to the election. As Robert Parry of consortiumnews.com has written: “when Johnson confronted Nixon with evidence of the peace-talk sabotage, Nixon insisted on his innocence but acknowledged that he knew what was at stake.”

Said Nixon: “My, I would never do anything to encourage….Saigon not to come to the table….Good God, we’ve got to get them to Paris or you can’t have peace.”

But South Vietnamese President General Theiu—a notorious drug and gun runner—did boycott Johnson’s Paris peace talks. With the war still raging, Nixon claimed a narrow victory over Humphrey. He then made Kissinger his own national security advisor.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/08/12/george-will-confirms-nixons-vietnam-treason

[KingCharlemagne]

368. LBJ couldn't publicly blow the whistle on Nixon b/c, to do so, LBJ would have

to divulge that he or the NSA had secretly and illegally wiretapped the Nixon campaign's conversations with the cut-out Claire Chennault (the go-between from Nixon and his cronies to the Theiu puppet regime).

[stonecutter357]

164. pretending to be morally pure.

[Number23]

274. I have seldom seen an idividual get so thoroughly clowned in their own thread as in this one

This is epic stuff right here.

People posting old DU links, old articles pointing out the ignorance, arrogance and hypocrisy of people who see the world this way. Not that I think there is anything real about the OPs beliefs, he comes across so much more as just willing to say anything to get the seals to clap and rec.

[wyldwolf]

278. The difference between this thread and others by the OP is...

... the Manny fan club never showed up to shout other people down.

I knew he lost it when he went off on his 'misogyny' smears.

[wyldwolf]

282. well put.

[treestar]

183. Since no one is to be forgiven

Last edited Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:58 PM - Edit history (1)

For anything ever, it is equally appalling to support anyone who has ever been a Republican at any time in their lives.

[MannyGoldstein]

186. Forgiving is fine

Forgetting is nuts.

Excusing is another thing entirely.

[Bluenorthwest]

193. But that of course does not apply to selfishly advocating horrible economic policies in a right wing

Party of racist homphobes for 25 or 30 years, does it? That's supposed to be forgiven, forgotten and never even mentioned.
'My candidate was birthed as a 46 year old Progressive, she emerged like Minerva from Zeus' brow full grown from the forehead of Paul Wellstone, having previously existed only on the astral plane as the spirit of all things good, she now has taken human form to walk among us and pull us all to the left.'

Forgiving is fine.
Forgetting is nuts.
Silence = Death
Knowledge = Life

[MannyGoldstein]

196. More of your "Warren murdered milions" froth

Before I respond... I'll wait for an apology for your horrific and factually-wrong attack on me:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6193133

to see if you're intellectually honest.

[Bluenorthwest]

203. Gosh, you put quote marks around and attibute to me something I most certainly never said and

never would, then you speak of intellectual honesty? You are making up things, claiming I said them and that's just wrong.
'I never, ever thought I'd see the day'. Good God. Kerry, Edwards, Biden. If you'd said 'I hate seeing this yet again' I'd have agreed with you. But instead you affect 'never, ever thought I'd see it' when all of us have seen it, seen it again, seen it a third time then seen it named Sec of Defense.
The sheer melodrama of your affected stances is a sight to behold.

But stop making up shit and claiming I said it. That's disgusting.

[MannyGoldstein]

287. Clearly, you don't understand all the functions of quotation marks

Versatile, but this can make them confusing, that's true.

Again, I await your apology for the forrific and untrue things that you said of me.

[leftofcool]

307. In other words, you got nothin'

[Number23]

275. HELL of a point. And that goes for the OP as well as his (current) favorite politician

This thread is epic. And judging by how thoroughly he's getting his tookus handed to him, probably not in the way that the OP intended.

[emulatorloo]

304. He's got too many 'personas' for anyone to actually know who his favorite politicians are.

DU's roadshow production of "The Three Faces of Eve'.

All I know is he spends more time bashing Democrats than Republicans.

[one_voice]

325. I want to go on record here to say I think your...

comment #281 was a horrible hide. I know you can't respond, seriously what the heck? I've learned certain times of the day and the weekend there are certain posters that are above reproach. You simple cannot say ANYTHING that might be taken as a slight against them or you'll get a hide.

All you have to do is look around and see who's posting and you know if you'll get a hide if you speak out against certain ones.

I've had two posts hidden since DU 3 one was something I said to one of those 'special' posters and one was to a now banned poster.

[MannyGoldstein]

353. 160 recommendations.

Truly, a tuchus roto-rootering.

[zappaman]

359. And that's what's it's all about, yes?

[MannyGoldstein]

361. That's not the *only* thing

Making silly people look silly is quite rewarding, too.

[marym625]

364. They can't get the recs

So they try to use it against you. Just like some check to see who is rec'ing what. Sad, really.

[MannyGoldstein]

370. They can't get them up

So they simply gaze at mine with great envy.

The recs, that is.

[marym625]

371. Haha!

Good one!

I'm sure you're right. Sometimes even pills just make people see blue and nothing else.

[sheshe2]

443. we................

to your awesomeness. your recs, they awe us. you are truly the sainted one.


~snort

[sheshe2]

442. Ain't that the truth!

Making silly people look silly is quite rewarding, too.

You are so silly Manny! And so very full of yourself~

[pansypoo53219]

187. UGH!!!! again. CONTEXT matters as well. FUCKING IDIOT GEORGEE MADE THAT VOTE POLITICAL!

he PURPOSELY had them vote RIGHT before an election. WAVING the bloody 9/11 flag higher & higher. he using the gnewz war pigs pushing it.

[MannyGoldstein]

189. So why did most Congressional Democrats vote "no"? nt

[pansypoo53219]

195. probably cause most districts are 'safe'. senators are statewide.

[wyldwolf]

212. Politics 101

Something many on DU have a deficient understanding of.

[think]

215. Voting for war instead of losing an election makes a lot of cents....

[neverforget]

261. Sacrifice some 18 year old American boys and a bunch of foreigners

for political expediency.

[wyldwolf]

268. It's horrible but nevertheless true.

[neverforget]

271. Are you okay with that?

[wyldwolf]

273. No but it's nevertheless true. Politicians vote the way their constituencies would

[neverforget]

284. Sacrificing thousands of Americans is a small price to pay to win an election.

[1StrongBlackMan]

404. Now, why ...

in this representative form of government would we want our elected representatives to vote the way they think those that they represent would vote?

[dflprincess]

333. Clinton was not up for election that year

so she can't even use the very weak political expedience excuse for her vote.

[think]

202. Because the war was not sanctioned by the UN, preemptive, and based on false claims?

[Rex]

324. Because they knew GWB was so full of shit it would tarnish their future careers?

Is my guess.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

225. So, they were suckered by Bush into voting for a war that killed hundreds of thousands?

I guess that having people killed to advance political ambitions is just..what?...necessary? Pragmatic? Realistic? Smart politics?

[Logical]

244. So it is his fault dems had no guts? nt

[Martin Eden]

303. That VOTE was a GREAT OPPORTIUNITY for DEMOCRATS to show some LEADERSHIP

Instead, they were cowed by FUCKING IDIOT GEORGEE ... so the voters, as usual, cast their ballots for real Republicans instead of Democrats trying to emulate them.

And when it came time to oust FUCKING IDIOT GEORGEE in November 2004, the IWR vote hung around John Kerry's neck like an albatross and THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER got another four years to wreck our country.

So ... I agree with you: CONTEXT matters.

[DeSwiss]

222. K&R

[center]''We came, we saw, he died.''[/center]

[Efilroft Sul]

248. We always have been.

But the modern era of lies, depredation, and corruption finds its beginnings about 45 years ago with the Powell Manifesto. Ten years after its publishing, the manifesto's ideas were championed and implemented by the poster boy for all that his been wrong about America in my lifetime, Ronald (6) Wilson (6) Reagan (6).

[wyldwolf]

245. So why are you a 'progressive democrat' and William Pitt isn't?

[MannyGoldstein]

258. Why did that Bosnian sniper shoot at Hillary?

So many bogus questions from your crew.

[wyldwolf]

260. You OP logic says anyone who excuses the IWR vote can't join the 'progressive' club

Did you make him an honorary member?

[OilemFirchen]

313. Is it just me?

Upthread the OP said he voted for Kerry. Doesn't that simple declaration itself disqualify him from membership in his own club?

Having a hard time comprehending why this hasn't been put to rest yet...

[OilemFirchen]

320. I hereby declare this thread closed.

The OP never thought he'd see the day when, in fact, he had seen it... and participated in it.

This coroner's conclusion: Suicide by petard.

[Major Hogwash]

347. Ha ha ha!!!

This coroner's conclusion: Suicide by petard.

[sheshe2]

365. It's a post and hide thing. Post and hide them. Drive them off the board.

He posts, then alerts on everyone that disagrees with his silly opinions. Look at at the hides here! All of his posts, every time, a huge amount of hides. I should know.

You want odds? Bet I get an alert and maybe a hide.

Major.

Hey jury, take a look what happens on his threads. Numerous hides. And some jury members attack members. I was alerted upon and hidden on a post about SOTU and children. Yup Manny posted over 22 times to me. He never posts on his own Ops. Yet 22 plus times on mine. Why was that? It was an ugly attack on me and my Op. Yet he and his friends got me a hide. One of his buddies, I do believe I know who he is, called me the worst bully on DU and went on to say we did not need this bitchiness. They called me a bitch, a jury member called me a bitch. They hid away. They were anonymous. They were a coward to hide in a jury and call me names.

So. I need to ask DU. An Op about children, is that okay to attack on DU.

[NutmegYankee]

409. You got the alert.

The hide on the other hand...


On Sun Mar 8, 2015, 12:54 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

It's a post and hide thing. Post and hide them. Drive them off the board.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6330126

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Personal attacks combined with persecution fantasies and bizarre conspiracy theories.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Mar 8, 2015, 01:06 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Go to bed Manny
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I have to disagree with the alerter...
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[sheshe2]

424. Thank you NutmegYankee!

[n2doc]

277. An interesting essay on this subject

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a17314/the-echoes-of-iraq/

Clearly we have made excuses in the past (Kerry) and will continue to do so until the last of the people who voted pass out of politics.

Question is- Every candidate has a black mark. Clearly Iraq is a major black mark on HRC's, and JK's, record. Where is the cut-off? Or is there even one when dealing with a completely horrendous alternative?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

285. It's like "waving the bloody shirt'' turned upside down./NT

[Martin Eden]

302. A black mark has no shade of gray.

Most of the faults that can be found with politicians are gray marks, some darker, some lighter.

The IWR vote is about as close to pitch black as a mark can get.

It falls into the category of egregiously inexcusable, and it crosses the proverbial line.

[great white snark]

280. I forgive you for your constant endeavor to divide and purge.

[Fumesucker]

299. Q: You don't buy the party unity argument?

A: I don't..

At 0:35

[colsohlibgal]

289. Just A Shameful Time Period

I salute the very few politicians and pundits who saw through this rush to a disastrous first strike war.

The literal cost is staggering and will cost us big time for years. We condemned thousands to an early death and sentenced more to a compromised life going forward. We destabilized the whole region and we keep seeing the danger that has followed. We sullied our national image.

All for bogus reasons that had to do with controlling oil in that region and some daddy issues from Dubya.

[blkmusclmachine]

295. But...it's Hillary's turn, dammit!!!1!

[leftofcool]

308. + a gadzillion

[wyldwolf]

315. I like the part when she said...

... it is well known by all that you are the final arbiter of who calls themselves "progressive Democrats", along with what we should find acceptable or not. Surely we should all just defer to your superior judgment on all matters.

> for those who need it.

As for the "never thought I'd see the day" meme, I once thought I'd never see the day when DemocraticUnderground would play host to "democrats" whose sole function seems to be dividing the party's members into warring factions, while smearing (D) politicians with more frequency and vitriol than Freeperville.

On the brighter side, no one here need go to FR or other such sites anymore to see what bullshit is being spewed about Democrats - they can just read DU to see the worst of it from their "fellow Dems".

(Manny alerted enough until he finally found a sympathetic jury)

[betsuni]

316. I'm shocked that was hidden.

It's all true.

[wyldwolf]

317. "It's all true." - that's why it was.

[Autumn]

327. That hide is a shocker, as it goes that one was rather mild.

[msanthrope]

446. Not shocking at all. Hell...I once quoted Caddyshack to Manny and got a hide.

I was more shocked by one of your votes to hide.****

****On edit....I apologize. ..you voted to lock, not hide (because it had survived a jury) my fifty shades of grey thread. Thank you for including a link to the thread in question below.

Tell me....when you voted to lock....and then denied my appeal to change your vote, were you influenced by a plea from a DUer sent privately to a Host?

[Autumn]

447. I'm more shocked that as a DUer and a "lawyer" you don't know that jurors

hide posts based on DU's community standards as outlined here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

and hosts lock or leave OPs that are alerted on by DU members based on the SOP for each forum as outlined here.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025307978

Yeah I was a lock vote on your OP. One of the DUers you mentioned in your OP was offended enough to alert your OP as Meta and as a host I agreed with her that it was Meta and IMO a call out. If it still bothers you, write a letter to the admins.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026325965#post446

Star Member msanthrope (29,605 posts)
446. Not shocking at all. Hell...I once quoted Caddyshack to Manny and got a hide.

I was more shocked by one of your votes to hide.

[msanthrope]

448. Didn't another DUer contact a Host to complain? Care to share his name?

I mean...since you're being transparent.

[Autumn]

449. I'm not going off topic for you. Is there a difference in the terms hide and lock?

Yes, there is. Jurors vote to hide individual posts that are uncivil or violate the TOS. Hosts lock OPs.

You want to discuss your locked OP? Discuss it but it won't be with me. That alert is long done with. If it still bothers you contact the admins. They can chose to find it and unlock it or not. I posted the alert that was sent to the host forum, you contacted me. I wasn't the locking host. You searched out my post on this thread, you responded to me and I responded to your claim that I voted to hide a post of yours, that's not true. I didn't serve on a jury for a post of yours. I voted to lock an OP of yours that was alerted on.

[msanthrope]

450. So you are upset I conflated the terms, "hide" and "lock?" On the lock, did a DUer privately

contact a Host regarding their inclusion on the list, as opposed to using the more public alert system? Did that plea influence your decision to deny my appeal to change your lock vote?

I am sorry I conflated "lock" and "hide." I shall edit my post.

[Autumn]

451. I'm not upset at all. I simply responded to your post to me.

You were mistaken that I had voted to hide your post. As a lawyer you should certainly appreciate the clarification. Have a good day.

[msanthrope]

454. I thank you Autumn....for a few things......

1) Your posting of the 50 shades link. We call that The Streisand Effect. 'Cause that was a funny damn thread....and it was all fun and games until the thin-skinned complained. The jury comments on the Leave were priceless.

2) You giving me the opportunity to delineate the lock process on that thread.

3) Your leaving absolutely no doubt as to who complained to the Host privately, not using the more public SOP alert system.....and thus my appeals were denied, even when I offered to edit the complainer's name out.

There's a technique in cross.....sometimes you will have a witness who you know will jump up to inform the jury how wrong you are.....you just have to set it up properly. And then they will tell the jury exactly what you needed to have come out. The trick is, you have to be self-deprecating enough to appear to be wrong.

So I appreciate your setting us all straight.

FYI.....this lawyer did that before her morning coffee.

[Autumn]

456. As to 3) the letters were posted by the locking host. I have no idea who told you I posted the alert

I just know someone did because you started PMing me until I blocked your PMs. But as I said, I'm done with your OP and the alert, it doesn't live in my head . I don't presume to set anyone straight, I simply pointed out that you were wrong. I did not hide your post. Again. Have a good day.

[msanthrope]

457. I never claimed you posted the letters....but thanks for confirming

to all of DU exactly what I did claim.

I appreciate it.

[Autumn]

458. Hosts do post DU mails involving alerts in the host thread, someone did tell you I posted the alert

Again. Have a good day.

[msanthrope]

460. Oh--you posted the original alert, but you didn't post the PM sent from another source who did

not use the public SOP alert system....

That poster, undoubtedly, influenced you and others into denying my appeal. That is the unmistakable take-away from this subthread.

Interestingly enough, thanks to the link to the original 50 shades thread that you posted in your defense, every single DUer can read that OP and decide for themselves just how prophetic it was.

[MannyGoldstein]

349. Yes, so well written

Silky-smooth, yet with the pungency of an ox corpse.

The jurors were peasants.

[betsuni]

352. Thank you ever so for your thoughtful and informative comment.

[MannyGoldstein]

356. You're welcome.

As a connoiseur of both fine writing and ox corpses, I feel particularly authoritative here.

[betsuni]

372. So if this thread were a movie,

it would be "Rotting Oxen, Hidden Post." (The rotting oxen are not the hidden posts, they are the bait.)

[leftofcool]

330. Of course he did, as usual.

[Bobbie Jo]

344. What a pathetic, bullshit alert

good gawd people, what a buncha pathetic Heathers.

Honestly, y'all deserve each other.

[msanthrope]

455. Check out the sub thread above you....Nance was not hidden in vain. nt

[Bobbie Jo]

459. Yes

Nicely done, counselor.

No surprise there....

[msanthrope]

461. I thank you. Did you like how I referred to as a "lawyer?" nt

[SidDithers]

321. Selma...nt

Sid

[sheshe2]

355. Selma...

Forgotten for some. Or never really acknowledged.

Sad that!

Sid~

[BainsBane]

323. Oh I expect there will be a lot more excusing

when Warren votes for military action against ISIS.

[Maedhros]

329. Not from me. [n/t]

[BainsBane]

340. Did you vote for Kerry in 2004?

What about for your Senators?

[Maedhros]

374. For the record: Yes, and Yes (for Wyden and Merkley)

But why should anyone owe you an answer to that question? We have closed ballot elections for a reason.

[BainsBane]

429. Of course you don't owe me an explanation

or anything else. I asked a question. and you chose to answer. The point is that people have justified the war vote on some level if they voted for Kerry, since he too voted to authorize it. People act like Clinton is the only Democrat who voted for the war, or the only vote that somehow was unforgivable. Just about everything they blame on Clinton can be attributed to the majority of the Democratic Party and our political system as a whole. That is why I think the opposition on this site to Clinton has very little to do with what people claim.

[Maedhros]

436. Maybe people have realized that their vote for Kerry may have compromised their ideals.

Maybe some people have grown and changed since 2004? I'm certain that I have.

Regardless, the situation is much different now than in 2004. The Forever War was only 3 years old then, and reasonable Americans were trying to depose the man who started it. Fast forward eleven years, and the Democratic successor to Bush has got the War running on all cylinders. We're being asked to stand behind a candidate that is guaranteed to stoke its fires even more.

Enough.

[leftofcool]

342. And she will

[BainsBane]

348. I expect so

I've never seen her say anything to suggest otherwise.

[Marr]

358. Voting for military action against ISIS wouldn't be comparable to the AUMF in Iraq.

Bush's case was openly fraudulent, and the authorization open-ended. Voting for that was a real betrayal of the public's trust-- not to mention a shirking of duty by the Congress, imho. They seemed to think they could have their cake and eat it, too, by seemingly handing the decision off to the Bush Administration-- even though the Bush Administration's intentions were crystal clear.

While I can't say I'd necessarily be in favor of military action against ISIS, the prospect of it-- particularly something like airstrikes-- doesn't strike me as being nearly so foul as Bush's fraud of a war.

[BainsBane]

366. It starts already

Actually I agree with you. But the fact remains that people project a lot onto Warren that she hasn't said she stands for, not unlike they did for Obama.

[MannyGoldstein]

369. I'm not sure that logic should be your go-to weapon in this battle. nt

[L0oniX]

338. This might piss off all the "right" people.

[marym625]

376. +1

[BeanMusical]

377. +2

[stonecutter357]

393. Why do you want to piss off all the "right" people?

Interacting with friendly, like-minded people;
Sharing news and information, free from the corporate media filter;
Participating in lively, thought-provoking discussions;
Helping elect more Democrats to political office at all levels of American government; and
Having fun!

[L0oniX]

407. You're welcome to cozy up to the oligarchy to win elections...

but I wouldn't call that being a Dem ...oh wait

[stonecutter357]

411. You are so pure.

[Octafish]

403. +3

[totodeinhere]

346. I suspect that Hillary herself regrets that vote whether she will actually say so

or not. No candidate is perfect. Hillary made a mistake with that vote as several other leading Democrats did. And Senator Warren used to be a Republican. Please point me to the politician who has never made a mistake.

[JDPriestly]

357. We are paying for those votes now.

[Rex]

367. Fish or chicken?

[greenman3610]

399. "Because there's not a dime's worth of difference between Al Gore and George Bush"

eom

[Octafish]

402. 1984 works.

War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Douchebags are Democrats.

[Jeff Rosenzweig]

412. Yes, how shocking it must be for you,

having apparently slept through the election of 2004 and all...

[pintobean]

415. I hear that some duck

has been quacking about this thread.

[m-lekktor]

416. this thread caused two DUers to have posting privileges suspended.

they reached the 5 posts hidden limit on this thread (Wyldwolf and NanceGreggs). Folks are all wound up.

[pintobean]

417. I read some of it early on

but I haven't returned to it until just now. Thanks for the info.

[m-lekktor]

418. i just happened to look at their profiles when i saw the hides

I generally don't follow things that closely here.

[pintobean]

423. The primary wars started early this cycle.

I think a lot of people will spend a lot of time in time out before election day.

At least the folks in this thread have the guts to come here, rather starting new gutless, poo flinging threads that they pretend are about something else.

[Rex]

425. So THAT is what the current meltdown is over!

Thanks for the 411.

[m-lekktor]

427. Hillary supporters are lashing out at her critics!

and the critics are lashing back at the supporters! same thing as every day!

[Rex]

428. I dunno...this new attack by center-right wingers smacks of total desperation.

But hell, if they want to play these concern troll games, I'm all in. I think they are at the breaking point, if they had to "go there."

[QC]

437. I wonder if their other eight hidden posts had anything to do with it? n/t

[Township75]

419. I'm with you. I actually enjoy watching these types of threads because it shows how people always

get behind "a winner".

No one ever excuses a Republican that voted "for the treat of force" or whatever BS line is used to excuse people like Kerry or Clinton. But, as election season rolls around, and the repub contenders start showing their faces, many Dems and so called progressives start begin trying to justify voting for whomever our candidate will be regardless of their support for war or any other issue (free trade, protecting 1% era, etc).

This thread is just that stuff in motion.

Good for you if you stick to your principles all the way through the election. Most here won't.

[Rex]

434. I guess I better rec this thread, otherwise I get a red check mark in crayon by the gatekeeper!

[Blue_Tires]

439. I never, ever thought I'd see the day

when people who call themselves progressive Democrats get so binary in their emoprog dudebro anti-imperialist thinking that they start defending the likes of Assad, Putin, Gaddafi, and al-Awlaki -- And yes, I've seen high-profile DUers defend all four in the past month...

It beggars belief...

Sorry, I don't see support of these madmen as a gray area....

Thank you and good night...

[One of the 99]

452. I never, ever thought I'd see the day

when people who call themselves Democrats spend all their time bashing other Dems and none bashing the GOP.

Astounding.

Sorry, I don't see this as a gray area. It was nothing but staggering stupidity or staggering malevolence, and neither is acceptable to me, nor should it be acceptable to you.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

453. Oh, come on Manny! After all,

it was only one vote!

(That left more than a million Iraqis dead, their critical national infrastructure destroyed, their country in chaos, radioactive waste littering their landscape, and a brutal murderous band of jihadis roaming at will around their country murdering, raping, and destroying historical artifacts....)

(That killed thousands of young Americans and left tens of thousands maimed physical, far more with psychological wounds, and strained our VA system to the breaking point, so that even when they came home, they couldn't depend upon what they were promised by those who sent them to kill, to die, to lose limbs and health....)

(That wasted trillions of taxpayer dollars that could have lowered the poverty rates, rather than raising them, fixed crumbling bridges that keep collapsing, fed hungry children, fixed decaying schools, kept firefighters employed....)

(That supported and benefited the Republican Party by telling voters that war hawks were right, that the party that always claims the mantle of 'Defense' was right, that they needed to vote for 'people who would keep them safe'....)