Sanders Campaign Manager: Hillary's Foreign Policy Caused ISIS

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

9 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

She's always been on the wrong side of history until she wants to run for something. Either her judgement is terrible, or she's intentionally picking her votes. Both make out for terrible decisions.

Always? We're talking about one or two issues here. That's not always. That's some of the times.

Also she's been in politics for 40 years. She's always been running for something. 

And let's be clear. No matter what her decision regarding the current issue at hand, she was going to get the blame. Unless of course you believe that LACK of intervention after George Bush's ****ups would have been a good idea?

I assure you. An ISIS was coming no matter what. Attempting to assuage the situation before **** hit the fan is not bad initiative. It backfired, as is often the case whenever dealing with something in the Middle East.

[AyaKara 2,282]

8 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Thank you. Sorry about that.

Don't apologize! Sorry I came so late to the party you're very welcome, I just don't want to see you (or any OP!) being argued with over a misunderstood title

[Rabbit Heart 619]

That bitch is as evil as her husband... Even he as a president caused civil wars in ex Yugoslavia, which resulted in many dead people, genocides and exiles. That family is a money ***** hungry for power! 

[Bt1 5,213]

75% of votes went for the Iraq war. Even if she would have voted otherwise, nothing would have changed, but she is the guilty one? And pls inform yourself what George W Bush was supposed to do after the vote and didnt do.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

1 hour ago, Florin said:

75% of votes went for the Iraq war. Even if she would have voted otherwise, nothing would have changed, but she is the guilty one? And pls inform yourself what George W Bush was supposed to do after the vote and didnt do.

Since I'm on GGD, I wasn't trying to go all out on politics but after last night I felt a little misinformed so I did some more research.

I'm going to make another thread about this topic soon.

[Whispering 18,865]

8 hours ago, Florin said:

75% of votes went for the Iraq war. Even if she would have voted otherwise, nothing would have changed, but she is the guilty one? And pls inform yourself what George W Bush was supposed to do after the vote and didnt do.

This is correct. In fact, Joe Biden voted for the war. 

John Kerry voted for the war and Bernie endorsed him as a presidential candidate. Funny how John Kerry was "qualified" to be president, even though he voted for the Iran War, but it made Hillary "unqualified"...isn't it? 

Another flip flop for Bernie. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

10 minutes ago, Whispering said:

This is correct. In fact, Joe Biden voted for the war. 

John Kerry voted for the war and Bernie endorsed him as a presidential candidate. Funny how John Kerry was "qualified" to be president, even though he voted for the Iran War, but it made Hillary "unqualified"...isn't it? 

Another flip flop for Bernie. 

The thread I mentioned in that comment.

 

[Ziggy 14,045]

On 4/7/2016 at 6:49 PM, LG said:

wait when did sanders campaign turn into this mess? I was rooting for him

When Clinton's campaign said he caused Sandy Hook hahaha the mess

[DiscoHeaven23 35,007]

That's a reach.

[Ziggy 14,045]

12 hours ago, Florin said:

75% of votes went for the Iraq war. Even if she would have voted otherwise, nothing would have changed, but she is the guilty one? And pls inform yourself what George W Bush was supposed to do after the vote and didnt do.

It's about principle and foresight and the bravery to make an unpopular decision. Don't think I'm saying Clinton didn't do any of those things, but that is where the argument is. It isn't about stopping the war, it is about standing on the right side of history (to Sanders). I mean, was it popular to stand for Civil Rights back in the 40s and 50s? No, but the people that did were "on the right side of history." That's his argument.

My two cents is that Clinton's record in public office when it comes to big important decisions, has been wrongfully conservative a number of times and has caused her to change positions. She's surely more ideal than literally any Republican candidate in this election, but as president you don't have the luxury of being able to make decisions and go back on them later without serious repercussions. Everything you do matters immensely. To that end, it seems a little short-sighted to say she has so much experience in office when her most high-profile votes and actions are marred in controversy. I mean, whatever happened in Benghazi, Libya (there's a million and one stories and I doubt any of them are without a political bend) and the email business has scarred her time as Secretary of State. As a senator, she voted for Iraq and with Wall-Street on a number of issues which is so opposite the Democratic Party now. Even as first lady, she stumped for a ton of things that are unpopular now.

I think she's incredibly intelligent, and has definitely been under more scrutiny than most other candidates. With that said, though, I just think that as president, you need a better track record of "being on the right side of history" so to speak. That, and she's so steeped in the political system that it gives me the heeby-jeebies.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

 

[Bt1 5,213]

7 hours ago, Ziggy said:

It's about principle and foresight and the bravery to make an unpopular decision. Don't think I'm saying Clinton didn't do any of those things, but that is where the argument is. It isn't about stopping the war, it is about standing on the right side of history (to Sanders). I mean, was it popular to stand for Civil Rights back in the 40s and 50s? No, but the people that did were "on the right side of history." That's his argument.

My two cents is that Clinton's record in public office when it comes to big important decisions, has been wrongfully conservative a number of times and has caused her to change positions. She's surely more ideal than literally any Republican candidate in this election, but as president you don't have the luxury of being able to make decisions and go back on them later without serious repercussions. Everything you do matters immensely. To that end, it seems a little short-sighted to say she has so much experience in office when her most high-profile votes and actions are marred in controversy. I mean, whatever happened in Benghazi, Libya (there's a million and one stories and I doubt any of them are without a political bend) and the email business has scarred her time as Secretary of State. As a senator, she voted for Iraq and with Wall-Street on a number of issues which is so opposite the Democratic Party now. Even as first lady, she stumped for a ton of things that are unpopular now.

I think she's incredibly intelligent, and has definitely been under more scrutiny than most other candidates. With that said, though, I just think that as president, you need a better track record of "being on the right side of history" so to speak. That, and she's so steeped in the political system that it gives me the heeby-jeebies.

Learn what Bush should have done after the vote, before invading Iraq. Remmember she was a New York senator. Things arent so simple.

Read this great contribution from LebaneseDude :

And here is another article :

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-marburggoodman/five-myths-about-hillary-iraq-war-vote_b_9177420.html

 

 

[Ziggy 14,045]

4 hours ago, Florin said:

Learn what Bush should have done after the vote, before invading Iraq. Remmember she was a New York senator. Things arent so simple.

Read this great contribution from LebaneseDude :

And here is another article :

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-marburggoodman/five-myths-about-hillary-iraq-war-vote_b_9177420.html

 

 

I'm aware that she was a senator for New York, but again, it isn't about the power she had. The argument that Sanders is making is a moral one. Obviously I think the brunt of Iraq rests on the Bush administration. I don't think anyone would dispute that. Sanders' campaign not mentioning Bush is because I think that is a given at this point lol The Bush administration policy of flexing masculinity and reinstating tired gender norms in the country set the U.S. back a ways socially and it led to, as Sanders calls it, "the worst foreign policy blunder" in recent history. Of course he is the one, along with his administration, with a lot more fault in this. Sanders isn't arguing Hillary's vote as if she could have stopped the war. Someone else said it, what power would she have had with everyone else voting for it? It's a moral issue that Sanders is citing here. Personally, I think it's a valid one because a president needs to have foresight and clarity even amidst the most harrowing of times (like post-9/11 America). Again, Hillary Clinton is a remarkable woman in her own right, I just don't think that she fits what I would want for President of the United States.

Look, it is definitely a complicated issue. That would be ridiculous to assume otherwise, but the fact of the matter is that Sanders is accusing Clinton of supporting the Iraq War which she did. It isn't a false claim. It has been dramatized, sure, but what isn't in politics? She said he didn't support women just because he made a statement, regarding all candidates, that there needed to be less shouting. That's a reach if I ever heard one, and it's politics. Oh well. Yes, she regretted her decision, but that doesn't change that it happened. A murderer can regret murdering someone but the victim is still dead. That's a very hyperbolic metaphor, but the core of it is valid in this case. Sanders is claiming that she is not as qualified as he is to be president because she voted for the Iraq War and then regretted it later whereas he was always against it. That is the argument. It isn't about whether she could have stopped anything, or even a great deal of the details since it is well-known that she supported the war. She won't even deny it, for goodness sake. Her motivations for supporting it, putting faith in W and not knowing how neoconservative they were doesn't help her case much here. The bottom line is that Sanders is making the base argument that she was in favor of the Iraq War at one point and he was not. That is all and that is entirely true. There's a reason she hasn't rejected the claim as a lie and instead has spun it as her learning from experience. It doesn't negate what Sanders is saying, but it spins it in a better light.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

2 hours ago, Ziggy said:

I'm aware that she was a senator for New York, but again, it isn't about the power she had. The argument that Sanders is making is a moral one. Obviously I think the brunt of Iraq rests on the Bush administration. I don't think anyone would dispute that. Sanders' campaign not mentioning Bush is because I think that is a given at this point lol The Bush administration policy of flexing masculinity and reinstating tired gender norms in the country set the U.S. back a ways socially and it led to, as Sanders calls it, "the worst foreign policy blunder" in recent history. Of course he is the one, along with his administration, with a lot more fault in this. Sanders isn't arguing Hillary's vote as if she could have stopped the war. Someone else said it, what power would she have had with everyone else voting for it? It's a moral issue that Sanders is citing here. Personally, I think it's a valid one because a president needs to have foresight and clarity even amidst the most harrowing of times (like post-9/11 America). Again, Hillary Clinton is a remarkable woman in her own right, I just don't think that she fits what I would want for President of the United States.

Look, it is definitely a complicated issue. That would be ridiculous to assume otherwise, but the fact of the matter is that Sanders is accusing Clinton of supporting the Iraq War which she did. It isn't a false claim. It has been dramatized, sure, but what isn't in politics? She said he didn't support women just because he made a statement, regarding all candidates, that there needed to be less shouting. That's a reach if I ever heard one, and it's politics. Oh well. Yes, she regretted her decision, but that doesn't change that it happened. A murderer can regret murdering someone but the victim is still dead. That's a very hyperbolic metaphor, but the core of it is valid in this case. Sanders is claiming that she is not as qualified as he is to be president because she voted for the Iraq War and then regretted it later whereas he was always against it. That is the argument. It isn't about whether she could have stopped anything, or even a great deal of the details since it is well-known that she supported the war. She won't even deny it, for goodness sake. Her motivations for supporting it, putting faith in W and not knowing how neoconservative they were doesn't help her case much here. The bottom line is that Sanders is making the base argument that she was in favor of the Iraq War at one point and he was not. That is all and that is entirely true. There's a reason she hasn't rejected the claim as a lie and instead has spun it as her learning from experience. It doesn't negate what Sanders is saying, but it spins it in a better light.

It's so nice to see someone actually write out their opinion properly. Is this fantasy? 

Well the first point I have to say is that the grand majority (83%) thought the war had moral grounds, so there's no point in attempting to make it such that the Iraq war was an immoral choice (at the time). 

It is incorrect to say that she supported the events of the war. She supported the president making the right decision for investigating the presence of WMDs, with the blessing of the United Nations, that were a threat to the USA after the 9/11 attacks. 

As a senator of New York, she would have been torn to shreds if she had opposed this investigation. It would be the literal equivalent of telling New Yorkers that she doesn't care if another attack happened. A military intervention was all but required of her.

Furthermore, you can't contribute the blunder of the wars on the legislative passing. The executive decisions are to blame. That's the root of the argument. The Sanders camp was trying to pin it on her as if it was her foreign policy that caused it. It wasn't. If you can't see the blatant misdirection in this, then I don't know what to say. I've said more than enough in the thread Florin quoted. 

It also doesn't matter if he voted no for it. He ended up supporting it as well. He could have stuck to his moral principles, but he decided that his principles regarding the soldiers were more important (One assumes. One can easily make the deduction that he did it to save his own hide). Ultimately, isn't that what you're trying to do here? Tell her that she should not have superseded her own principles? There are always exceptions. This was one.

She won't deny her involvement in what happened, because ultimately she did vote for the authorization. She did it for the right reasons, but it had the bad effect.

One wonders why you place such a high weight on this particular incident that had barely anything to do with her, and everything to do with the American people in general.

You're almost blaming her for representing the American people. Isn't that a politician's job in the end? One can easily say that Bernie only supports Bernie's dream. Considering his political career, that's not a stretch by any means. What makes someone like that qualified to be president? 

[Ziggy 14,045]

4 hours ago, LebaneseDude said:

It's so nice to see someone actually write out their opinion properly. Is this fantasy? 

Well the first point I have to say is that the grand majority (83%) thought the war had moral grounds, so there's no point in attempting to make it such that the Iraq war was an immoral choice (at the time). 

It is incorrect to say that she supported the events of the war. She supported the president making the right decision for investigating the presence of WMDs, with the blessing of the United Nations, that were a threat to the USA after the 9/11 attacks. 

As a senator of New York, she would have been torn to shreds if she had opposed this investigation. It would be the literal equivalent of telling New Yorkers that she doesn't care if another attack happened. A military intervention was all but required of her.

Furthermore, you can't contribute the blunder of the wars on the legislative passing. The executive decisions are to blame. That's the root of the argument. The Sanders camp was trying to pin it on her as if it was her foreign policy that caused it. It wasn't. If you can't see the blatant misdirection in this, then I don't know what to say. I've said more than enough in the thread Florin quoted. 

It also doesn't matter if he voted no for it. He ended up supporting it as well. He could have stuck to his moral principles, but he decided that his principles regarding the soldiers were more important (One assumes. One can easily make the deduction that he did it to save his own hide). Ultimately, isn't that what you're trying to do here? Tell her that she should not have superseded her own principles? There are always exceptions. This was one.

She won't deny her involvement in what happened, because ultimately she did vote for the authorization. She did it for the right reasons, but it had the bad effect.

One wonders why you place such a high weight on this particular incident that had barely anything to do with her, and everything to do with the American people in general.

You're almost blaming her for representing the American people. Isn't that a politician's job in the end? One can easily say that Bernie only supports Bernie's dream. Considering his political career, that's not a stretch by any means. What makes someone like that qualified to be president? 

I'm not blaming her nor am I putting a lot of weight on it. I am just explaining the argument that the Sanders campaign has against her about how it isn't about whether her vote put it over the edge or not, but like we established, the "moral principle" of it all. I think this may have been muddled in what I replied before, but I totally and completely think that the executive branch should be bearing the brunt of the blame when it comes to the Iraq War. That much is a given to me because they handled it terribly and that's not exactly an unknown or obscure opinion.

I do see your point about her being a senator of New York, and I agree she would have, but again, I think the Sanders argument is that she should have had more foresight (whether this was possible or not) and stuck to her guns about this. Like you say at the end there, if the Sanders campaign is all about his dream for America, then this position makes sense. He is essentially critiquing her through his vision for the country. Valid or otherwise, it makes sense where the critique comes from with that in mind.

Yes, America was overwhelmingly in support on going overseas, but the Sanders argument is that she should have withstood the criticism just because her opinion would not have been popular if she voted against the investigation. Yes, it was her supporting her president, but I think the argument doesn't put that into account and is instead saying that patriotism should not be getting in the way of what is a morally just decision (from the Sanders point of view, to be sure).

Her voting for the right reasons is the crux of the Sanders argument, though. He's essentially trying to discredit her by questioning her judgement in a position of power and authority. He's saying, "if she voted for this and thought it was right, IMAGINE WHAT ELSE SHE'LL DO!" Is that totally fair? I don't think so, but it's politics and they're both playing ball this election cycle. I mean, her campaign said his voting led to Sandy Hook. That's a little exploitative of a tragedy and spinning of the facts as well. They're both playing this game, it isn't fair to either of the candidates (or to Americans as it assumes their stupidity), but it does force us to dig a little deeper to learn the facts and decide for ourselves who we prefer as a candidate as you have done so well here.

My responses here, by and large, are just clarifying the Sanders argument and where it comes from. I don't entirely agree with it myself, and I would readily support either candidate in the general. This is just his argument and I'm trying to explain where it comes from.

About my own reasons for not liking her judgement, that is because she has had many high profile gaffs historically (some that the Sanders campaign has publicized, others not). Personally, her record for big important decisions leaves me concerned, that's all. Certainly not as much as any Republicans decisions, but they do. It's not a deal breaker, but if I'm going to consider a candidate for running a branch of government, I want to feel secure in the fact that their values line up with mine and that they are of sound principle. Don't take that as me supporting Sanders, either, as I think he also has a fair bit of flaws. I just didn't mention them earlier as they weren't entirely relevant. My point, though, is that as a voter, you need to carry core values to yourself and look at every candidate critically. It sounds sad to say that you are "voting for the lesser of two evils", but that is life. Very very rarely do you agree with an entire person's self so you make your peace with what you don't agree with and put your faith in someone that lines up with the majority of your views. This isn't some new phenomenon since Congress became a **** show, it's the basis of human interaction.

To sum up, Clinton's record with big decisions has long been too conservative for me and her later regret of those decisions could indicate a lack of pristine foresight. On that same token, Sanders' ability to get much of his desired actions done is of concern to me, but I appreciate the mindset and think that injecting some of his principles into the executive branch could be good for the U.S. In the end, what candidate is "ideal"? It isn't like they are yourself or your perfect picture, how could they be? You just have to pick and choose what traits are most valuable to you and support those and hope for the best.

So just know that I 100% agree with what you're saying, I was just trying to explain where Sanders was coming from, not that I agree with it. Thank you for articulating your argument in a well-researched and cogent manner