Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Thursday, December 14, 2017

The only topic that preoccupies Bernie Sanders more than income inequality is his vote against authorization of war in Iraq, which he mentions at every debate and whenever anyone questions his foreign policy credentials. Fair enough: Sanders turned out to be right on that vote and Hillary Clinton has admitted that she was wrong to trust George W. Bush.

But the socialist Vermont senator is under fresh scrutiny today on the (further) left, where his support for intervention in Bosnia and Afghanistan has raised sharp questions. In Counter-Punch, the online magazine founded by the late Alexander Cockburn, his longtime collaborator Jeffrey St. Clair complains that even on Iraq, Sanders is a “hypocrite” who was never as consistently anti-intervention as advertised:

In 1998 Sanders voted in favor of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which said: “It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.”

Later that same year, Sanders also backed a resolution that stated: “Congress reaffirms that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic  government to replace that regime.”

According to St. Clair, Sanders has dismissed those votes as “almost unanimous,” but that implies an absurdly elastic definition of the term. Looking up the actual vote, St. Clair found that 38 members of varying ideology and party affiliation voted no. To him, this means Sanders should be held responsible for the bombing campaign that followed, as well as the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children who allegedly perished as a result of US sanctions (which seems to absolve the late dictator of any culpability for the sanctions regime, but never mind).

Certainly it is fair to ask Sanders — who strives to distance himself from his rival on foreign and security policy – why he cast those fateful votes to support Bill Clinton’s Iraq policy in 1998.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2016 The National Memo

158 Responses to Vetting Bernie: He Never Voted For Intervention In Iraq — Except Twice

      • I know exactly what a carpetbagger is and Bernie fits the description. You don’t have to agree, but you won’t change my mind, either.

        • Nope, I don’t have to agree and neither do you have to change your mind. It simply gives us insight in to who you are and what things you believe and prejudices you hold.

          • It most certainly does. Of course, the glaring difference is that I didn’t actually use that word. But feel free to continue to try make up pretend assertions.

          • Sanders caucused with Democrats to try to own some legitimacy. He did not support Democratic Party legislation on gun control or immigration reform. He actively works for the US taxpayer to give more and more of our tax dollars to Israel. He tried to have the taxpayers reimburse Israel for every bomb, missile, depleted uranium shell and white phosphorus shell and every bullet used in the savage attack on Gaza. He’s a tool of the NRA and AIPAC. He had two paid AIPAC people on his staff until the press found out about it. He’s a fraud and a hypocrite.

          • He is Jewish and supports Israel.
            Democrats felt he had positions similar enough to theirs to give him commitee assignments.

          • Funny!!
            What you forget is Obama said he would “change the culture” at VA and get to the bottom of the problem and fix it with Shinseki. Go see how many meetings he had with Shinseki n his 5 years. If Obama was so interested he would have been on top of it, but that’s not his style.
            When Shinseki resigned he mentioned the lack of “integrity” at the leadership level, claiming he wasn’t receiving accurate information. There is a corrupt environment at VA.

          • More of your lies!! It’s the GOP that is trying to destroy the VA:

            From Reuters (2/27/14):

            Veterans organizations are not happy with U.S. Senate Republicans today, after a bill to expand health care and education programs for veterans failed to gain enough support to move forward, Reuters reports.

            And that’s just one of numerous recent killings of VA supportive legislation attributed to Republican obstructionism!!!!! Including voting against the extension of unemployment benefits for hundreds of thousands of veterans!!!

          • LOL!!
            Typical emotional response.Funny.
            We have a failing VA with incompetence, corruption and a total lack of integrity(Shinseki’s words) and you on the left want to throw more money at it with little to no reform.

            Republicans also raised budget concerns, forcing another key procedural vote that ended up killing the bill. By a vote of 56-41, the Senate failed to waive budget rules that would have allowed the bill to proceed. Sixty votes were needed and 41 of the chamber’s 45 Republicans voted against the waiver.

            Referring to recent budget deals that aim to bring down federal deficits, Republican Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama said: “This bill would spend more than we agreed to spend. The ink is hardly dry and here we have another bill to raise that spending again.”

            As I remember the VA did get a budget increase but this idea of a failing VA dems want more wasted money.

          • You don’t want to go there. It was Bernie who sponsored and brokered the VA bill last year that passed which was the largest VA bill ever and has begun to provide the resources necessary to get our vets the care they need. What has Hillary done for our vets other than sending our boys over to Iraq to die?Unforgivable!

          • Why would you send me this? This is a very positive piece for Bernie. It talks about how hard he worked on legislation to fix the VA prior to the Phoenix fiasco although it failed. It then goes on to say how he was able to work with Republicans to get billions in funding for VA after the Phoenix fiasco when public opinion turned on the Republicans blocking the funding. He has been part of the fix not the problem. What has Hillary done other than create dead vets?

          • But yet Democratic leadership because of political expediency made him a part of their caucus and leadership. Which one is the carpetbagger by your definition.

          • You’re not a very good troll. You aren’t original at all, you just parrot other not very good trolls.

            It must really suck to be you right about now.

          • You need ask the democratic leadership why they gave him so much leadership position if he is bad mouthing the party he caucused with.

          • Perhaps you would prefer he ran as in independent. He said he did not want to do that because it would split the progressive vote and guarantee that GOP would take the WH. Is that you want? Are you a GOP troll?

          • I’d prefer he didn’t run at all because if he somehow wins the nomination, the White House goes to the GOP. Maybe the thrill of seeing Bernie win the nomination will be worth it to you – I hope so – because after that it’s Republicans all the way down. It’s a sure thing.

            In answer to your question, I am not a GOP troll, I take this election very seriously. The GOPS is handing us the White House on a silver platter with their complete dysfunction, the only thing that will halt their destruction is a Sanders presidency. Now is NOT the time to experiment with an unknown quantity.

            I will hold Bernie and everyone who votes for him responsible when the unthinkable becomes a reality. Maybe you think I’m overly dramatic, but this ain’t my first rodeo. Nader is the reason we got Bush. Just remember that.

      • He is not a member of the Democratic Party. He has consistently voted against Democratic Party legislation to strengthen gun control (the NRA put Bernie in office) and immigration reform. He actually sought someone in the Democratic Party to challenge President Obama’s reelection. He’s a carpetbagger, a fraud, and a unicorn salesman.

          • Is he a Democrat? Because he said along he’s an Independent. Then he registered as a Democrat out of convenience so he could mooch off the Democratic infrastructure, then he wasn’t a Democrat, he’s really a Socialist, no, make that a Democratic Socialist, wait he’s a Progressive, more progressive than any progressive has ever been and now he’s the final arbiter of who gets to be Progressive.

            He called for a Obama to be primaried from the left in 2012. He’s worked against Democats as much as for them. He’s been on the wrong side of guns, immigration and environmental justice. That’s just for starters.

            The more you know, the worse he gets.

          • Yeah!! Right-wingers are too clueless to realize a lot of Wiki articles are written by right-wing biased authors and so you therefore need to check to be sure what they quote as facts are facts!!!

            We already see right-wing organizations trying to bias the primaries by having the NBC/WSJ poll publish some totally bogus poll numbers: That suddenly Cruz is leading Trump in a national poll by 2 percentage points 28/26%; while at the same time a nonpartisan polling group is still showing Trump with an 18 point lead.

          • “Yeah!! Right-wingers are too clueless to realize a lot of Wiki articles are written by right-wing biased authors and so you therefore need to check to be sure what they quote as facts are facts!!!” What BS, you are becoming more delusional every posts.
            NOT SURPRISED.

          • Look, he is your problem and could care less. Why Wikipedia? It shows his history of political parties.
            He is running a scam and your side has made a decision to allow him to run in your party for president. What you should be concerned, he has pulled even in Nevada, waiting polls in SC.

          • So you really are a GOP troll. When I’m right, I’m right, and I’m always right.

            I don’t worry about polls, especially in Nevada where there aren’t any.

            I’d offer you sympathy on the demise of your GOP, but that would make me a hypocrite, so I’ll just tell you to suck harder.

          • Go look at realclearpolitic and Nevada polling by CNN/ORC, they are tied.
            Lets see what happens in SC. She is untrustworthy and he is scamming the country. What a combination.

          • Truth hurts doesn’t it?
            Did you say “especially in Nevada where there aren’t any”?
            Thanks for the laugh!

  1. Well with all due respect, Joe Conason is in the tank for Hillary. He has been the staunchest defender of the Clintons for two decades.

  2. This article offers no perspective behind those votes. Were they votes on a bill to which such things were attached? Were they stand alone votes on the issue? The reader needs some perspective here.

  3. Fascinating!! Normally the Clintonians are berating Sanders supporters for their “ideological purity,” an idea they have both created and used to justify Clinton’s very real right wing tendencies. But today, we have Sanders is not ideologically pure enough. Or is it that Sanders forfeits any criticism of Clinton because he is not ideologically perfect? Now we expect all Sanders supporters to abandon him because as so many journalists have informed us Sanders supporters only accept ideological purity. Right?

    • The National — don’t vote for Bernie Sanders — Memo website might want to pay some attention to their own article on journalistic fraud that they’re presently running.

  4. Some new polls for the National — don’t vote for Bernie Sanders — Memo website. Hillary’s lead in Nevada has now dropped to 1%. 48% Hillary, 47% Bernie. According to CNN/ORC.

    Her lead nationally has now dropped to 2%. 44% Hillary, 42% Bernie, with 11% undecided.

    Notice no matter how big her leads are, they keep evaporating?

  5. Voting to start a war with a country is not the same thing as supporting those who would overthrow their oppressor. If the people of Iraq wanted to overthrow their dictator, he thought the U.S. should support them. Just as he says today we should support the Middle East in its efforts to defeat ISIS. We attacked Iraq ourselves, to “liberate” them. Not at all the same thing.

    • Actually, the US got involved in Iraq long before G W Bush was president. Bernie did, in fact, vote for military build-up in the Persian Gulf, he voted for sanctions against Iraq that some argue lead to the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children, and he repeatedly voted in support of the US policy of regime change in Iraq, which, again, was the official policy of the US long before it became the policy of the Bush (43) regime. Moreover, Bernie voted for every military intervention during the Clinton presidency, including Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Liberia, Zaire (Congo), Albania, Sudan, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, nttawwt.
      http://www.libertyunionparty.org/?page_id=363

  6. False. He did not vote for an authorization to use military force in Iraq. That’s precisely what Hillary gave to George Bush and Dick Cheney.

    It’s false to claim he wanted to vote for or allow an invasion and occupation of Iraq. That is not what those resolutions say.

  7. Sanders is a total fraud. In 1990 he said he would be a hypocrite if he ran on the Democratic Party ticket. In 2015 he said he was running on the Democratic Party ticket.

  8. Bernie has amnesia. I don’t blame him much because this comes with time when goesby. He will say today: “I never carried any negative campaign”, the following day he comes with attacks on Hillary. One has to wonder whether some of what he says stick in his head and some just disappear without his knowledge.

    • What negative attacks? Reminding people that he voted against the Iraq war and that he refuses to be influenced by corporate money and special interests are positive attributes with most democratic voters. What are you talking about?

  9. what I find most interesting, no matter which of these two suit one’s agenda, is the agenda of this “progressive”? site..look at the disparity in headlines::Where’s the descriptor for Clinton? If Sanders get’s Socialist, where is corporate or moderate for Clinton?

    Hillary Clinton, In Push For Black Support, Promises To Tackle Racial Disparities

    Vetting Bernie: He Never Voted For Intervention In Iraq — Except Twice
    The socialist Vermont senator is under fresh scrutiny today on the (further) left, where his support for inter

    • Yes the corporate media hates Bernie and the feeling is mutual. Bernie will never get a fair shake from them because they fear him and the movement he is creating. He has called them out as being complicit and big part of a political system that is corrupt with corporate and dark money. The corporate media is a big part of this rigged economy as well. Joe Conason is a great example of one of these hacks who will write anything (no journalist integrity) to keep himself firmly implanted in this corrupt system. Follow the money and understand who butters Joe’s bread. It is absolutely amazing what Bernie is accomplishing. He is taking on the most powerful political machine (Clinton)ever assembled, the corporate media, without millions of dollars from special interest groups and is now tied in the polls. The establishment is very scared and should be. Amazing how a little sunshine is such a wonderful disinfectant. Conason has been exposed as the corporate shill that he is.

      • You must be joking. Bernie has been their darling because they want him to beat Hillary. They know she can beat the Republicans. GOP has been found to be manipulating the polls to make Hillary look weak. Everyone with a brain has seen how the media has trashed Hillary time and time again -covering bullsh*t GOP allegations that have proven to be false. Yes, Sanders is afraid (anyone in politics and living off of taxpayer dollars would be considered “establishment” except when it comes to Sanders who get a pass by his fanatics.

        • We are concerned about an economy that is rigged in favor of the wealthy in which new income and wealth goes only to the top 1%. We are concerned with the establishment political system where the über wealthy can pour unlimited amounts of money into the system and in essence decide who our representives are. We do not think that Hillary is credible on either issue, she is part of this system and benefits from it.

        • Yep.
          They are spreading rumors that she is going to jail, she is under investigation, she is black, her uncle is silver back gorilla, her husband (he is not running) is a schemer w/foundation money (he supports every poor country and educate children, travel the world while their GOD Bush the idiot took up painting and ghost writing ), she will be worst President that ever US had, (Bush the idiot WAS- YES). I would vote for the Iraq war if the facts were true. She wasn’t the one only voting, therefore most Republican’s votes and they own it. So it’s on Bush the Idiot, Cheney the Bad Heart, Rice and Collin Power. Collin Power, Rice also should be under investigations about their emails (they admitted) – wait – they are
          Repukes and it’s Ok, they don’t run for President, so …
          Collin at least have enough guts to resign and not to be involved in anymore killings and invasions ISIS is BUSH and Repukes creation. Ahhh the desire for power and stupidity, naivete , hate .and gullibility of American voter

  10. Republicans have kept Bernie Sanders pending, continuing gathering information like what is in this article. Incase he is the nominee, they will hit him so hard no one has ever seen before.

    • This information is woefully benign if that is their intent. The republican closet has much dirtier laundry, not the least of which are the fathers of at least 3 of their candidates, followed by the wives. Fair? Indeed not, but it will get filthy even before talking issues.

      • Bernie had a child with a woman he was having an affair with when he was married to his wife. Do you really think they won’t make that a talking point if he gets the nomination?

        • first of all, who cares, next facts please, and finally even if true it has no effect in the populace at large unless ones life is so dull that someone’s affair is of paramount importance.

    • Exactly. Whether there is nothing to these types of things or not, it’s better to hear about them now. I will personally vote for either one to keep the repubs out of the WH.

  11. This constant sniping between Hillary and Bernie supporters is going to put trump in the white house. I am a Hillary supporter but if Bernie is the nominee I will vote for him. I will expect him to lose but I will vote for him. I want to hear the same from you Bernie supporters. Yes vote for him in the primary if you want but vote for whomever is the nominee in the general. Bernie supporters seem to be less apt to vote for anyone but and I worry about what that will do to our country.

    • Almost all Bernie supporters will vote for whoever the Dem candidate is. Although Hillary is not our first choice we would never allow the GOP to win the WH. Bernie would destroy any GOP candidate that comes up against him. Check the polls he already does much better than Hillary in any of the hypo match ups. His message of a rigged economy and a corrupt political system resonates everywhere even with many Republicans.

      • Then you essentially cast a vote for the GOP candidate. Thanks a lot. I will hold you responsible for the Republican White House and demise of America.

      • I see this statement a lot, “I’ll vote for Warren”. It makes no sense. Warren was a Republican until 1996. So, while Hillary was writing a Universal Health Care Bill for all, Warren was voting Republican. Clearly, your vote for Warren could not be about healthcare. Currently, Warren gave the nod of approval to Hillary’s Wall Street plan, so it can’t be about Wall Street. ….this is not about principles, but keep telling yourself that….

  12. So, Bernie Sanders has a history too. No one is perfect when it comes to Iraq. I am more interested in what either Clinton or Sanders would do with the messes (ISIS, Russia in Syria and Ukraine, China) the next President will inherit.

    • Hilliary would follow president Obamas position ,but things are always boiling over there in a state of flux ,beanie said he would make peace with isis buy talking to them usmc vet 57 /63

  13. This is a political hack job. Nobody ever disagreed in principle (except the Liberterians in congress) that Saddam had to be removed for a more democratic Iraq. That does not translate into invading the country under false pretense.

    • Bernie took one of his several honeymoons to the USSR during the Cold War when the Soviets were threatening to annihilate the US. His Burlington office had portraits of Lenin, Marx and Debs on the wall alongside a huge USSR flag. There is a video of Sanders heaping praise and adoration on Fidel Castro for bringing the glories of Communism to the people of Cuba. The GOP will demolish Sanders with negative ads.

  14. Nowhere in this slanted article does it quote Sanders stating that the US should “intervene in a military manner” in Iraq. The writer of this hit piece is really stretching his own credibility by attempting to claim supporting regime change, which the US has attempted other times, though economic sanctions and embargoes without the use of military force was a vote for military action. Certainly the writer can do better than that.

    This is nothing but a bald attempt to support the other candidate though innuendo and misdirection, like the old 25 cent magic show at a carnival side show, nothing more.

  15. Usually socialist are non interventionist I worked as a Roughneck for the Croatia and Bosnia conflict. A communist would see the need for intervention to promote communism and open up trade and promote production so the rest of the world can benefit from the common heritage of the earth. We do have a world confederacy as some people argue. I would argue we have a world court and a Anarcho Syndication in the world. I think Bernie was doing right protecting world citizens.

    • Put own the bong and read some history. Before imploding, Communism killed over 100 million people in the 20th century, half due to starvation.

      • Bill 1 billion people starved in 2009, when the capitalist system was supposed to provide for the people. I guess capitalism did not give freedom to these people so they could take care of themselves. So I realize the 18th Century Genocide of the Native Americans done by the Party of Lincoln in the west. The Americans Capitalist destroyed the food and sold the Buffalo pelts. I understand socialism was the problem.

        • If those 1 billion people got a job instead of sitting around waiting for a Socialist to feed them, they wouldn’t need SJWs like you to exploit them.

          • The loyalty of the industrial and capitalist leaders is not their. People just do not give jobs to people. There are a lot of reasons why a billion people cannot create their own country and work to survive. I think the latest cool capitalist saying is ” He’s a leftist, Just not right. Or I do not like him, or it cost to much money to hire people. The people have the right to benefit from the resources of the land, the problem each capitalist wants a monopoly with automation.

          • The loyalty of all leaders is power. You are naive if you think socialists leaders are any different in this respect

        • The only starvation that occurred happened in nations with dictatorships who starved out ethnic groups they didn’t like. It’s not an economic issue.

          • So depravation of food is a method to Genocide ethnic group. Capitalism does not promise access of food. Just says you have to work get access to food. So food is not right but a privilege after corporation. The human rights discourse states to a person has the right to benefit from the resources of the land, but the capitalist argue the economic practices outweigh the law. It is like in Galt Ca in the 1980s a group of mobsters poisoned all the food in the town. These people were capitalist promoters, they did not respect property rights. So genocide is calculated and systematic it has nothing to do with market failure?

          • Genocide calculated to destroy an ethnic group has nothing to do with market failure. The only example I can think of where market failure was a cause would be Mao’s China which starved out 3 million because their economic policies were so inept.

      • You’re lumping in the Soviet Union with East Asian communists who had far less concern for human life. From the inception of the Soviet Union until WW2, around 4 million people died or were killed, but in the process they achieved nearly the same amount of industrial development, in only 40 years, that took the US 150 years of tariffs and protectionism to accomplish.

        This is a terrible tragedy that should never be repeated, but it’s something of an impressive tragedy. But to lump in these deaths with Chiang Kai-shek and Mao, or even Stalin post WW2, is just intellectually dishonest. But you know you’re being dishonest, which is why you include “half due to starvation”.

      • U.S military was known to use terrorist tactics. Sherman did scorch earth and my greater grandfather Jebidiah Smith a Confederate General could have sack New York but did due to international pressures. Do you know what he filmed, Unionist soldiers were cooking human beings, and the Prussian army were putting on Unionist uniforms it was a silent invasion. No one talks about this. I understand Stalin and Hitler had a pack. Did you know the after Stalin died, the new Soviet leaders apologized and told the Soviet citizens they are sorry for Stalin rule. We can get into the genocide and starvation of the American Indians and Mexicans in the West. Although my great grandfathers with the Russian and Austrian army kick the crap out of the Unionist Western Army. This conflict lasted until 1928 when my great grandfather praxis the U.S.A with Russia to demand reforms that were communistic. It was the Red Faction Army of America. My point Stalin was a fascist like the Unionist. The Unionist genocide native American My family moved many native families to Russia, and Siberia through the train. The U.S government leaders have chose to genocide minorities before. It had nothing to do with communism with Stalin it had to with power.

      • The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 neither authorizes nor requires the invasion which occurred under neocon leadership in 2003.

        If an invasion were required to “satisfy the mandate of the ILA”, it would have been so stated, and Clinton and the GOP congress which passed the measure also would have launched preparations for that invasion.

        Clearly, they did not. Instead, Clinton’s signing statement stressed his intention to work with the UN to promote a “transition to democracy”.

        By contrast, your own comment, “Obviously, the invasion was required in order to satisfy the mandate of the ILA” is the kind of mendacious opportunism that led Bush and Cheney to plan for military action before even September 11, 2001.

        • As long as Syria and Russia were on the UN Security Council and considering how hopelessly corrupted the UN was due to the “Oil for Food” scam, there was no indication that the UN would be willing to enforce its own sanctions. These sanctions allowed for any member of the original 1992 coalition to enforce UN sanctions. That’s what we did. We enforced the UN sanctions.

          • Impertinent deflection. The Iraqi Liberation Act still does not authorize the use of the US Military. Does it authorize materiel support for actors who were opposed to Saddam, via the DOD and State Dept? Yes it does. That’s not the same as committing the US military to intervention.

          • You might recall that the U.S. was already in a state of war with Iraq since 1990. The authorization to use force in Iraq (2002) was based on those UN resolutions that authorized coalition partners to resume hostilities if Iraq failed to abide by the terms of the ceasefire.

    • Did you read this part of the article:

      “To him, this means Sanders should be held responsible for the bombing campaign that followed, as well as the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children who allegedly perished as a result of US sanctions (which seems to absolve the late dictator of any culpability for the sanctions regime, but never mind).”

      • The Counterpunch fusillade fizzles, attempting to hang a label on Sanders for his support of sanctions against Saddam. Sanctions were the only major non-military weapon available, and the deaths of Iraqi children were actually the result of Saddams misallocation of his own (diminished) resources.

        By the same token, anyone who supported measures short of invasion should get the same criticism from Counterpunch, but we note the publication devotes most of its vehemence to Sanders, not Hillary (as First Lady and vocal opponent of Saddam) or Bill Clinton.

  16. Sanders is an old kook. Even if elected, he would never get his la-la-land pipe dreams past the Republican-controlled House. In the very best case he would be a one-term gridlock prez.

    • By your reasoning, any non-GOP president would face the same problem, including Clinton.

      Which is kooky and inconsistent logic, if applied to Sanders, alone..

      Noting your Confederate “stars and bars”, is your solution to vote GOP, and get everything “:over with”?

  17. the communist socialist ,didn’t vote for most any war like actions ,he didn’t want to upset his commrads in Russia ,or cuba

  18. It’s over for Sanders. Even his campaign knows that. He’s just embarrassed by the NY Daily News editorial board interview and his inability to answer a single question or show any knowledge of how government works. He clearly showed he does not even understand Dodd Frank. He just limply fell back on his “destroy big banks” but couldn’t say how and provide socialism to the masses but he couldn’t show how he intended to fund it. The editorial board commented that he demonstrated a “profound ignorance”e on issues and was “totally without substance”. That’s Bernie. It’s over for him.

    • Mort Zuckerman pays New York Daily News editors to reason his way, or find work elsewhere, so their decision against Sanders is hardly the product of an independent, fair-minded and objective analysis.

      In particular, their appraisal of Sanders criticisms of the financial system reveals their bias in all its servile, abject dishonesty. They prefer to ignore that many other reputable critics of the financial sector (Reich and Stiglitz among them) support and agree with Sanders on reform agenda– http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/03/02/stiglitz-anger-over-failed-economy-shaping-us-election

      Very few editorial boards go out of their way to become so partisan, so early, and with such windy, mendacious hyperbole. With the notable exception of in-house columnist Sean King, who disagreed with “every word” of the editorial his editors wrote, and detailed his critique very effectively– http://www.nydailynews.com/news/election/king-disagree-news-endorsing-hillary-clinton-article-1.2599208

      But the explanation for the editorial board is beyond obvious. Publisher Zuckerman happens to have declared for Clinton, and wants his newspaper to become his sounding board in much the same way both Loeb and Hearst newspapers attacked reformers in their day.

  19. I know I’m a bit late to the party on this article, but when did he ever say anything other than the very specific claim, that he voted against the 2002 resolution that authorized US military force in Iraq?

    The Iraqi Liberation Act says that the United States will support efforts to remove Saddam Hussein from power. It does not authorize the use of the US military in doing so.

    One is a general statement of foreign policy, while the other is an actual commitment to use the US military in removing Saddam. One basically gives the State Department and the DOD permission to support actors who were opposed to Saddam, while the other is an actual commitment to use our military.

Leave a reply