Type to search

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

Editor's Blog Featured Post Politics White House

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

Share
bernie iraq war

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.

Tags:
Joe Conason

A highly experienced journalist, author and editor, Joe Conason is the editor-in-chief of The National Memo, founded in July 2011. He was formerly the executive editor of the New York Observer, where he wrote a popular political column for many years. His columns are distributed by Creators Syndicate and his reporting and writing have appeared in many publications around the world, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, The New Yorker, The New Republic, The Nation, and Harpers.

Since November 2006, he has served as editor of The Investigative Fund, a nonprofit journalism center, where he has assigned and edited dozens of award-winning articles and broadcasts. He is also the author of two New York Times bestselling books, The Hunting of the President (St. Martins Press, 2000) and Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth (St. Martins Press, 2003).

Currently he is working on a new book about former President Bill Clinton's life and work since leaving the White House in 2001. He is a frequent guest on radio and television, including MSNBC's Morning Joe, and lives in New York City with his wife and two children.

  • 1

159 Comments

  1. Paragryne February 17, 2016

    Bernie is a carpetbagger who needs to be sent home.

    Reply
    1. RED February 17, 2016

      A carpetbagger?? Perhaps you don’t actually know what that means? Sadly, I expect you do know the term and use ot anyway.

      1. Paragryne February 17, 2016

        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.

        1. RED February 17, 2016

          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.

          1. Paragryne February 17, 2016

            That works both ways.

          2. RED February 17, 2016

            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.

          3. Paragryne February 17, 2016

            When exactly did Bernie become a Democrat?

            https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/carpetbagger

            Tell me I’m wrong again.

          4. mike February 17, 2016

            The day he decided to caucus with the Democrats and turning Democrat in 2015.

          5. yabbed February 18, 2016

            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.

          6. mike February 18, 2016

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

          7. Paragryne February 18, 2016

            And he failed the VA.

          8. mike February 18, 2016

            Bernie all my himself failed VA.
            The one who is failing VA is Obama.

          9. Paragryne February 18, 2016

            I don’t think so.

            http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/07/us/politics/faith-in-agency-clouded-bernie-sanderss-va-response.html?_r=0

            I think you’re a GOP troll. Only the GOP would blame Obama for something someone else was responsible for.

          10. Independent1 February 18, 2016

            You sure got that right. He takes GOP money for all his fallacious posts all the way to the bank!!!!!!

          11. mike February 18, 2016

            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.

          12. Paragryne February 18, 2016

            I blame George Bush. Two unfunded wars and nary a thought about the troops.

          13. mike February 18, 2016

            You keep regurgitating Obama blaming Bush.
            You have given me another very good chuckle.

          14. Independent1 February 18, 2016

            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!!!

          15. mike February 18, 2016

            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.

          16. A_Real_Einstein February 18, 2016

            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!

          17. Paragryne February 18, 2016
          18. A_Real_Einstein February 18, 2016

            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?

          19. Paragryne February 18, 2016

            It also says he lets his ideology get in the way of reality. That’s not a positive. Yes, he fixed it, but he also let it get worse.

            https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/veterans/

            You really should do your own research.

          20. Paragryne February 18, 2016

            That would be the very definition of Carpetbagger. Thanks for validating my assessment.

          21. mike February 18, 2016

            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.

          22. Paragryne February 18, 2016

            Sure, pal. Whatever you say.

          23. mike February 18, 2016

            LOL!
            It is not what I have said, it is the real world facts of like.

          24. Paragryne February 18, 2016

            Suck harder.

          25. mike February 18, 2016

            LOL!
            Now keep putting your head further under the sand.

          26. Paragryne February 18, 2016

            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.

          27. mike February 18, 2016

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

          28. A_Real_Einstein February 18, 2016

            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?

          29. Paragryne February 18, 2016

            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.

      2. yabbed February 18, 2016

        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.

        1. mike February 18, 2016

          Oh but he is a democrat as of 2015. Do your research.
          He is Jewish and therefore supports Israel.

          1. Paragryne February 18, 2016

            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.

          2. mike February 18, 2016

            Check out Wiki and see for yourself.
            Try this site it gives you his record on numberous topics.
            https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders
            I think most of your info is wrong.

          3. Paragryne February 18, 2016

            Wiki? Try the Congressional Record.

          4. Independent1 February 18, 2016

            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.

          5. mike February 18, 2016

            “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.

          6. mike February 18, 2016

            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.

          7. Paragryne February 18, 2016

            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.

          8. mike February 18, 2016

            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.

          9. Paragryne February 18, 2016

            Spoken like a true loser.

          10. mike February 18, 2016

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

        2. mike February 18, 2016

          Wrong again!
          https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders/37/guns
          You can see his voting record on guns and immigration, ect.

  2. angryspittle February 17, 2016

    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.

    Reply
    1. nanorich February 17, 2016

      With all due respect, smart people don’t reject factually based criticism which is documented and backed up with citation because of the perceived bias of the journalist who presents it.

      Shooting the messenger because you don’t like the news is a heck of way to promote your candidate.

      1. angryspittle February 17, 2016

        Perspective is all I want. What exactly were the bills that Bernie voted for? Were the egregious sections attached to other legislation? I want some dam perspective. When I see something from an obviously biased source I want fucking perspective.

        1. dtgraham February 17, 2016

          Excellent points, and I understand your anger.

        2. JPHALL February 17, 2016

          So look them up, then comment!

    2. JPHALL February 17, 2016

      So what?

  3. angryspittle February 17, 2016

    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.

    Reply
    1. WiselinePRT February 17, 2016

      It’s also dishonest to conflate Iraq (Republicans attacking wrong Muslim country) and Bosnia (Clinton and W Europe intervening to protect Muslims from genocide).

      1. dtgraham February 17, 2016

        Good points from both of you. Exactly.

        1. bpnjensen February 17, 2016

          Wholeheartedly agree. Every congressperson has voted for or against things that he or she would like to have voted the OTHER way on, because RIDERS.

      2. Otto Greif February 17, 2016

        The Clinton’s Bosnia intervention was strategically and morally wrong, and there wasn’t any genocide.

        1. bpnjensen February 17, 2016

          It was not a full-throated genocide, no, but it was the start of one, with ethnic cleansing actually happening.
          .

          http://www.history.com/topics/bosnian-genocide

          1. Otto Greif February 17, 2016

            That’s what happens in wars.

        2. WiselinePRT March 1, 2016

          S-r-e-b-r-e-n-i-c-a

  4. RED February 17, 2016

    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?

    Reply
    1. dtgraham February 17, 2016

      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.

    2. Bee Nice February 18, 2016

      Look up Feel the Fraud if you want to know see some real vetting of Sanders.

  5. dtgraham February 17, 2016

    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?

    Reply
    1. @HawaiianTater February 17, 2016

      Bernie outperformed the polls in both Iowa and NH. If that pattern holds true, Nevada is looking good.

    2. nanorich February 17, 2016

      Well you might want to look at the aggregate surrounding those National Poll before you pick out your dress for the inaugural ball..

  6. phanya2012 February 17, 2016

    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.

    Reply
    1. PostSurgeOperative February 17, 2016

      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

  7. Kevan Moran Aponte February 18, 2016

    This man is such a total fraud. Nothing about him is the myth he has been selling.

    Reply
    1. Böcker February 18, 2016

      Bullshit, he didn’t vote to invade Iraq but Hillary did.

  8. Andy Olsen February 18, 2016

    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.

    Reply
  9. yabbed February 18, 2016

    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.

    Reply
    1. Alain Vercammen-Grandjean February 18, 2016

      In 25 years things happen to change Yabbed; even in America… Ya bet…

    2. Böcker February 18, 2016

      Why do you care?? Are you going to vote democrat? No

      1. yabbed April 10, 2016

        I’m going to vote for Hillary Clinton. I always vote Democratic.

  10. FT66 February 18, 2016

    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.

    Reply
    1. A_Real_Einstein February 18, 2016

      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?

  11. church bennington February 18, 2016

    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

    Reply
    1. A_Real_Einstein February 18, 2016

      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.

      1. Bee Nice February 18, 2016

        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.

        1. A_Real_Einstein February 18, 2016

          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.

        2. Polana February 27, 2016

          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

    2. Jinmichigan February 18, 2016

      You have not seen nothing yet. Thin skin will not survive this process.

      1. church bennington February 19, 2016

        not certain it’s a thin skin issue, but folks with hypertension certainly are at a risk.

  12. FT66 February 18, 2016

    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.

    Reply
    1. A_Real_Einstein February 18, 2016

      I fear no evil. I certainly do not fear the GOP. Grow a pair.

    2. church bennington February 18, 2016

      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.

      1. Bee Nice February 18, 2016

        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?

        1. church bennington February 19, 2016

          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.

        2. yabbed April 10, 2016

          And did he pay child support for that son or were his unemployment benefits not enough to go around?

    3. nana4gj February 18, 2016

      And Bernie does not seem to do well when challenged on an issue, becoming befuddled.

    4. Jinmichigan February 18, 2016

      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.

  13. plc97477 February 18, 2016

    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.

    Reply
    1. A_Real_Einstein February 18, 2016

      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.

      1. Paragryne February 18, 2016

        If you do not believe Republicans are behind a lot of Bernie’s numbers and money, I have a bridge in New Jersey to sell you.

        1. Warrior KM February 18, 2016

          It matters not what the GOP wants. Most of them are batshit crazy, anyway. What do you want from Bernie? To extinguish them into extinction, for playing those type of petty games?

          1. Bee Nice February 18, 2016

            How can you say that with all the red states? What reality are you living in?

          2. Paragryne February 18, 2016

            Wut?

    2. baxtus February 19, 2016

      Sorry, I can’t vote for her (If it were someone else, like Warren, then yeah, but Not Hillary)

      1. Paragryne February 20, 2016

        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.

        1. baxtus February 21, 2016

          Demise of America is coming either way (Hillary or GOP)

          1. Paragryne February 21, 2016

            Only if you enable it.

          2. baxtus February 21, 2016

            I agree, that’s why I’m voting for Bernie, and not for Hillary or the GOP

          3. Paragryne February 21, 2016

            You’ll have to write him in because he won’t be on the ballot. And if he did win, the demise would come sooner.

          4. baxtus February 21, 2016

            Nope, if he did win, we’d have someone like FDR in the WH, we’d enter a new great age for America.

            As for writing him in, that’s probably what I will have to do

          5. Paragryne February 21, 2016

            That is your prerogative.

            You just voted for Trump.

          6. baxtus February 21, 2016

            Trump or Hillary, two sides of the same evil coin

        2. Issac Abrams April 1, 2016

          …..he’ll also be responsible for giving republicans the dream of appointing of 3 supreme ct judges, like Scalia, to finishing gutting the Voting Rts Act and LGBT marriages

      2. Paul Larkin April 1, 2016

        so your not a patriot by any stretch of the imagination , putting your ego before our country

        1. baxtus April 1, 2016

          No putting my principles and ideals first.

          It’s about my Dharma, my Sanskar

          1. yabbed April 10, 2016

            It’s about your Republicanism. 🙂

          2. baxtus April 10, 2016

            Except I’m a Dem, like most Asians

      3. leggink April 13, 2016

        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….

        1. baxtus April 14, 2016

          HRC was a Goldwater girl, so if we’re talking her record, she was a racist and a crazed conservative.

  14. Böcker February 18, 2016

    But did he vote to invade Iraq? No

    Reply
  15. LCR78 February 18, 2016

    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.

    Reply
    1. Paul Larkin April 1, 2016

      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

  16. disqus_iYiaP9Pa9C February 18, 2016

    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.

    Reply
  17. Jinmichigan February 18, 2016

    Without vetting such as this in the Dem primary, can you imagine the crap repugs will throw at Sanders.

    Reply
    1. baxtus February 19, 2016

      Trump will have far more to worry about than Bernie

    2. yabbed April 10, 2016

      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.

      1. Jinmichigan April 11, 2016

        First I’ve heard of such. Where is anything about this published?

  18. atc333 February 18, 2016

    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.

    Reply
    1. Humility February 19, 2016

      He voted for direct military intervention.

      1. atc333 February 19, 2016

        Document your claim, time place and date.

      2. baxtus February 19, 2016

        In Iraq? Please show us

      3. Paul Larkin April 1, 2016

        I don’t think he did ,his comrades in Russia ,and Cuba would be upset and as the Marxist social he is ,he wouldn’t vote against his commie comrades

  19. Louis Allen February 18, 2016

    Where is Lenora Whitaker when we need her (… to say something real dumb)??

    Reply
  20. Robert Silva February 19, 2016

    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.

    Reply
    1. Wild Bill Kinda February 19, 2016

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

      1. Robert Silva February 19, 2016

        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.

        1. Wild Bill Kinda February 19, 2016

          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.

          1. Robert Silva February 19, 2016

            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.

          2. rjschwarz February 21, 2016

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

        2. rjschwarz February 21, 2016

          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.

          1. Robert Silva February 21, 2016

            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?

          2. rjschwarz February 21, 2016

            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.

        3. rjschwarz September 25, 2016

          I believe it was Andrew Jackson (Democrat) who started the Indian Wars. Not the party of Lincoln.

      2. Omnis Odium September 25, 2016

        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”.

        1. Wild Bill Kinda September 25, 2016

          Idiot. Show us where it worked.

      3. Robert Silva September 25, 2016

        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.

  21. baxtus February 19, 2016

    Neither involved sending US troops into Iraq

    So not hypocrisy

    Reply
    1. Prospector February 21, 2016

      Your excuses suck. Obviously, the invasion was required in order to satisfy the mandate of the ILA.

      1. alphaa10 April 14, 2016

        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.

        1. Prospector April 14, 2016

          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.

          1. Omnis Odium September 25, 2016

            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.

          2. Prospector September 25, 2016

            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.

    2. Proud Liberal February 22, 2016

      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).”

      1. baxtus February 22, 2016

        So he has an opinion, so what?

      2. alphaa10 April 14, 2016

        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.

  22. ConfederateJake February 28, 2016

    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.

    Reply
    1. alphaa10 April 14, 2016

      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”?

  23. Paul Larkin April 1, 2016

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

    Reply
  24. yabbed April 10, 2016

    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.

    Reply
    1. alphaa10 April 14, 2016

      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.

  25. Omnis Odium September 25, 2016

    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.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.