Since Hillary supporters appear to be quite confident right now, perhaps I could finally get

[Fast Walker 52]

an answer to a question I've been asking for months:

How do you rationalize away her war-mongering?

It's not one or two bad decisions. It's a clear pattern of militancy throughout her career in office.

As far as I can tell, the woman has never met a US war or intervention she didn't like, often with disastrous results. She's basically a Republican in terms of foreign policy.

Honestly, in terms of domestic politics, I don't have any major problems with Hillary. But her foreign policy sickens me.

[djean111]

1. All I can think is, because it is other peoples' children and families who get killed.

Or it is just children and women and men overseas, where ya don't have to see them. And, when it happens, just laugh merrily and say Oopsie!

[Baobab]

171. I dont rationalize it away and neither do my friends.

I think most Hillarians simply don't know these things are happening or they choose to tune it out.

just like they choose to believe that Hillary cares about them when all the evidence is she doesnt. She's whispering sweet nothings to them to lull them into approving her and a theft of democratic rule of law via multiple predatory trade deals- Having fast track for five years, an infinite amount of damage can be done- with TiSA , TTIP and its friends - locking down the entire future for the foreseeable future, maybe many generations in a way that virtually nothing, certainly not future elected politicians could ever change.

See what I mean in here:

[Thinkingabout]

2. In the same manner you rationalize Sanders war mongering.

[bigtree]

3. +1000

...thread killer.

[dchill]

82. Wow! You really believe that, don't you?

[brooklynite]

103. Last time I checked, Sanders wasn't an isolationist.

[Vattel]

135. I'm not an isolationist, but I am not a hawk either. These are not mutually exclusive.

[Kip Humphrey]

130. people must rationalize the abhorrent, irrational, and self-deception to maintain self-respect.

[seabeyond]

140. So, why do people do that with Sanders military votes and record?

[dchill]

161. You really need some work on your snappy rejoinders.

Weak sauce.

[seabeyond]

163. Asking you to acknowledge Sanders military record as you all pretend it doesn't exist is weak? Lol

[libdem4life]

184. He voted to support troops that were sent for the war he voted against.

There's nothing devious about that.

Before long we'll be hearing again about his "gun problem" and the NRA and his D- rating.

Complex issues are just that. Not just up or down, except for those lacking the ability to understand distinctions and weigh several measures at the same time.

[seabeyond]

185. He also voted a slow withdrawal. Voted for the start of Bush plan.

[libdem4life]

188. ...and ...

Like I said, complex issues don't reduce easily into one liners or up/down.

[seabeyond]

189. No fuckin' shit. I get that. You do not.

[pnwmom]

4. LOL.

[Human101948]

8. What war mongering was that?

Last edited Mon May 2, 2016, 10:03 AM - Edit history (1)

Because he voted for some MIC jobs for his state? Not quite the same as going whole hog for invading and destroying other coutnries.

[tk2kewl]

23. they have nothing

that post is the evidence

[puffy socks]

71. Try Somalia, Libya, Yuogoslavia, Kosovo

Voted to remove Sadaam in 98 Liberation of Iraq.
Voted for 1.8 billion in military aid and assistance for Israel

[tk2kewl]

73. No matter how hard you try you cannot equate Bernie's attitude regarding war and peace to this:

[Silver_Witch]

77. Ohhhh snap!

Such complete disregard for life and civility!

[puffy socks]

78. Just because nothing can burst your bubble doesnt make Bernie not more hawkish than Hilllary.

His voting record speaks volumes but is, as expected , ignored by his ardent supporters who turn a blind eye when ever Bernie's votes get people killed. What else is new?

[JaneyVee]

175. HE VOTED FOR AFGHANISTAN WAR AND HJ RES 64 TOO

[workinclasszero]

81. WTH do you think they are building those F-35's for????

Damn! The hypocrisy is so f**king funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Firebrand Gary]

12. Boom.

+100

[Marr]

122. "Boom"? That was nonsensical. /nt

[libdem4life]

186. It's about all they have...I've noticed and commented on the trend. n/t

[azurnoir]

165. yep that was the last sound 10's of thousands of Iraqi children heard after she voted

for that to be possible- but then she blink at the half a million Iraqi children that perished as a result of the the no fly zone and oil for food programs her husband initiated when she was co-presidenting with him

[seabeyond]

187. This bullshit.

[Dawgs]

18. Which is what?

[lagomorph777]

55. You know: "+1000", "Boom", and "LOL"

Those are the cogent arguments the Hill Shills make that Bernie supports wars.

Lots of evidence there.

[Octafish]

68. Nailed it.

[Ned_Devine]

179. Exactamundo

[stone space]

59. "Mom, he's doing it, too!"

[seabeyond]

70. There difference is, using it as an attack on another, declaring he is not doing it too. You have

to hit your head with your hand, because people expect a smidgen of honesty in the argument?

[stone space]

79. I would have preferred if post #2 had at least linked to the rationalization in question.

Instead, we were left to simply guess at to the nature of the rationalization that post #2 is expressing agreement with.

[seabeyond]

101. Kosovo War, Afghanistan, Sanders supported only a gradual withdrawal from Iraq

Kosovo War, Afghanistan, Sanders supported only a gradual withdrawal from Iraq. Sanders supported the resolution that gave support to George W. Bush in both Iraq and in the larger war against terrorism. Sanders has supported Israel’s aggressive Middle East policies against Palestinian statehood. Sanders supported HR 282, the Iran Freedom Support Act, which was similar to the resolutions leading to the Iraq War. And Sanders has stated that he too would use drones.

This is Sanders record which is sittin right next to the rest of the Democrats, as he presents himself as a pacifist, though that simply is not true. Using it as a weapon and tool to attack Clinton. Though, his supporters ignore the fact that he is as hawkish except all but one vote.

[stone space]

107. That's all fine and dandy, but it still doesn't tell me...

...which specific rationalization is being supported in post #2.

[seabeyond]

114. This is the point. Sanders military vote is right with the rest. As you all continue to pound us

iwth daring to support Clinton because of her military positions, WE are aware of Sanders military positions being consistent with the rest of them, yet you all ignore it and use to as a tool or weapon to vilify Clinton.

My question is, what is so challenging for you to process this, demanding more of an explanation?

[stone space]

119. Where have I done this?

As you all continue to pound us

iwth daring to support Clinton because of her military positions, WE are aware of Sanders military positions being consistent with the rest of them, yet you all ignore it and use to as a tool or weapon to vilify Clinton.

I did say that I am likely to disagree with whatever rationalization is being supported, but I can't be certain, since I don't know what it is.

Your other accusations seem a bit off base to me.

I haven't even mentioned Clinton.

I just asked what rationalization is being supported in post #2, that's all.

I don't understand why it is such a big secret, and why I am being accused here of saying things that I haven't said.

[seabeyond]

128. You have been giving the information on his military voting, why continue in this vain?

Why not actually address getting your answer, instead of continually asking the same question.

[stone space]

139. Nobody seems willing to answer.

Nor even the author of post #2.

[seabeyond]

143. What? You have been answered different ways different times and STILL ignore the answers you receive

[stone space]

145. I've gotten only repeated refusals to answer.

What? You have been answered different ways different times and STILL ignore the answers you receive

I don't understand what the secrecy is all about.

[seabeyond]

147. I am done. You had others research the votes and the reasoning and you continue. Has to be a game

[puffy socks]

72. Funny! Especially when hawkishness is given as the reason a person won't support a candidate

and then it is shown your candidate has more votes and is as hawkish as Dick Cheney!

[stone space]

83. I don't even know what rationalization post #2 is expressing agreement with.

There was no rationalization given, and no link to a specific rationalization.

Are we expected to make guesses?

[Aerows]

155. Bernie Sanders is as hawkish as Dick Cheney.

Yes, folks, this statement was actually made as a serious opinion.

[font size=4 color=darkred]Bernie Sanders is as hawkish as Dick Cheney.[/font]

Let that sink in. Yes, a Hillary Clinton supporter *really* said that.

I have to wonder how it is possible to have a reasonable conversation at this point. What do you say to such an assertion? I can only see that headed in the direction of "No, he isn't because (list of reasons backed up by evidence, links, etc.)" "YES HE IS! (no citation)."

This is the time when I urge all of you to not beat your head against the brick wall. That's exactly what the goal is, to waste your time making intelligent arguments while they run off and say such things in other threads to frustrate and in effect silence other people.

I'll leave it to the guy who says it best:

[puffy socks]

156. Here's your back up. A Liberal site.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-sanders-troubling-history-supporting-us-military-violence-abroad

[Aerows]

159. No.

I'm not going to bother with someone that makes the statement that Bernie Sanders is as hawkish as Dick Cheney. I'd put you on ignore, but you are absolutely hilarious.

[seabeyond]

69. Exactly. One time he didn't vote for. Otherwise, leading up, after and every other military, he has

voted for. Sitting on tv stating he too would continue drone. The man is no different but we have him as a pacifist.

So, One group recognizes, the other group ignores and uses as a tool and weapon to attack another.

I agree.

[Thinkingabout]

138. Yes and they try to paint Hillary as a war monger, she has lots to catch up to pass him on

his record. He doesn't have anything, his agenda has been rejected, his over and over speeches are tired, and now he has moved the goal post further by demanding Hillary get the required number of delegates without the SD's. I hope the end results has her over the required count by pledged delegates, probably will be another move of the goal post, probably delete the Southern states and then on to only counting the states he won.

[seabeyond]

162. He will always be moving the goal post, while using issues as weapons that he is just as much a

participant. Hypocrisy at best. Ridiculous in argument. They go every which way so they do not have to acknowledge the fact Sanders voted to that one vote, and voted all others after that vote, including a slow withdrawal from Iraq.

[stone space]

80. Do you have a link to the specific rationalization that you are agreeing with, here?

In the same manner you rationalize Sanders war mongering.

[Thinkingabout]

92. Are you familiar with Sanders record?

[stone space]

94. I haven't been following his day-to-day activities over the years.

Are you familiar with Sanders record?

But my question wasn't really about the record of any specific candidate for office.

My question was about which specific rationalization you were expressing agreement with in post #2.

I'm quite likely to disagree with whatever your specific rationalization is, by the way.

But I can't say for sure unless you tell me what your specific rationalization is.

It's not a secret, is it?

[Thinkingabout]

95. Maybe you could do some research and then will know the person you are willing to defend.

I have not heard Sanders "rationalize" his voting to expand the troops in Afghanistan, he may not have a good reason.

[stone space]

97. Who have I defended?

Maybe you could do some research and then will know the person you are willing to defend.

All I have done is to ask what specific rationalization you are expressing agreement with in post #2.

As I said, I am likely to disagree with it, whatever it is, but unless you are willing to divulge the rationalization you are supporting, I have no real way of knowing.

Is there a reason why you don't want to tell me?

[Thinkingabout]

99. OK, don't defend Sanders, if you want to know how Sanders rationalized going into Afghanistan then

you can research this, I don't care what he used to rationalize his war mongering.

[stone space]

100. I want to know how YOU rationalize it in your post #2.

OK, don't defend Sanders, if you want to know how Sanders rationalized going into Afghanistan then

you can research this, I don't care what he used to rationalize his war mongering.

Bernie isn't here to give his own rationalizations, and even if he were, how would I know which ones you are agreeing with in your post #2 and which ones you might not agree with.

Is it a secret?

Is there some reason why you refuse to tell me?

If you don't want your own rationalization known, then why did you even bring it up?

I don't understand your desire for secrecy here.

[seabeyond]

104. All one needs do is google Sanders military vote and positions.

[stone space]

105. Bernie didn't write post #2, and I'm sure that he doesn't speak for the author.

All one needs do is google Sanders military vote and positions.

[Thinkingabout]

109. Did you ask the poster in the OP what their rationalization meant?

Oh, BTW your quote was not in my post #2

Here is my post in #2

In the same manner you rationalize Sanders war mongering.

can you rationalize why you quoted the wrong post?

[stone space]

125. No, I did not.

Did you ask the poster in the OP what their rationalization meant?

Does the author of the OP speak for you?

Oh, BTW your quote was not in my post #2

Without clicking back, I'm guessing that I quoted from the post I was replying to, just like I am doing here with your post.

Here is my post in #2


In the same manner you rationalize Sanders war mongering.


can you rationalize why you quoted the wrong post?

Your own post and your own rationalizations is the one I am asking you about.

What makes you think that I quoted from the wrong post?

I can't click back to be sure with the edit screen open. Did I not quote from the post I was replying to?

It's possible. Sometimes I make mistakes.

[seabeyond]

116. Your point, your gotcha, whatever, makes no sense.

[stone space]

121. There is no "gotcha". I just asked what rationalization is being supported.

Your point, your gotcha, whatever, makes no sense.

[seabeyond]

127. Creating Sanders of the opposite of Clinton on military despite his own record would be the

Rationalization, you think?

[Thinkingabout]

108. What needs to be rationalized about this post?

In the same manner you rationalize Sanders war mongering.

Go back and ask the OP what did the poster intend to rationalize and you will have your answer. It is simple, however, I would not post an OP asking for rationalizing Hillary's "warmongering" without rationalizing Sanders "warmongering".

[stone space]

126. Does the author of the OP speak for you?

Go back and ask the OP what did the poster intend to rationalize and you will have your answer.

Is there some reason why you don't want to speak for yourself, here?

The author of the OP could put any words into your mouth that he or she wants to.

Is that what you want?

[seabeyond]

129. Is there some reason you continue with this obtuseness instead of actually address the answers you

have been given in this subthread, repeatedly?

[stone space]

137. Nobody has given an answer.

It appears to be a rather closely held secret.

[seabeyond]

144. Too odd. This is too over the top odd for me.

[Vattel]

132. lol, talk about a false equivalency

[seabeyond]

146. No. It is not. Sanders sits witht he rest in ALL votes and support except one. He voted

along with the rest leading up to, and all after. And supports every military spending, continuing to build the wasteful F35, will continue with the drone program.

ALL right along with the other Dems.

[Vattel]

153. Seriously? Couldn't you have at least left out the nonsense about the F-35?

It would be crazy to stop production of the F-35 just as it is being completed. Only a loon like Trump would (and has) proposed that.

[seabeyond]

157. Seriously? They have known for years. You ignored the rest about Sanders record on Military vote.

I get the man is a politician, and I get why he has voted as he does. And still I would support the man. I am not the one trying to make a pacifist of the man, or suggesting he is anything but a politician, giving money to his state thru Lockheed/Martins failed F35, known for years of its failure. Not simply now that it is near completion. So, this would be you rationalizing, right?

[Vattel]

160. Where to begin?

First, the F-35 was already a done deal when he supported bringing some of its contracts to Vermont. Second, it is not failed. It will be our next generation fighter. Third, I am not trying to represent Sanders as a pacifist. I am suggesting that his record and his positions are way less hawkish than Clinton's. That should be obvious.

[seabeyond]

164. Less hawkish? That is a stretch and only because of one vote. Take the votes Clinton didn't make

in the 90's and Sanders is ahead of Clinton.

But for it to merely be "less" hawkish and then watch months of this board of Sanders supporters use it as a weapon to bash Clinton and her supporters, also repeatedly tell us we are into women and children being killed is highly offensive. Not a vote has gone by he didn't vote for, but one. He voted the one leading up to that vote and everything after that one vote. He has the blood on his hands too. Hypocrisy at its worst.

[Vattel]

167. It goes way beyond one vote.

She supported Bush's invasion as indicated by her response to code pink prior to the war and her endorsement of Bush's ultimatum to Hussein on the eve of the war. She also aped all of his talking points about weapons of mass destruction, nuclear programs, harboring Al Qaeda. Sanders forcefully argued against invading and correctly predicted the bad consequences of doing so. Clinton also pushed hard for violent regime change in Libya, and she seems to have no objection to Obama's unconstitutional use of American force there. She even called it smart power at its best! Unlike Sanders, she refuses to call the Israeli bombing of Gaza disproportionate or to criticize Israel at all for policies that fail to respect the rights of innocent bystanders in war. She also sought to arm rebels in Syria and has supported violent regime change there. She has also fought to preserve cluster bombs. She also wants a no fly zone in Syria even though she cannot say how that can be done without risking confrontation with Russia. Her saber-rattling pertaining to Iran also does not bode well for peace.

Anyone who thinks Clinton isn't far more hawkish than Clinton is, well, obviously wrong.

[seabeyond]

169. Clinton supported a possibility if certain actions were met first. Why not say it the way it is?

Sanders, being a politician, was able to sit in safety of his seat. All the rest is suppositions. I will wait for her to make decisions before frying her on them.

And no, not so obvious, per Sanders votes, he is right there with her, in actual votes.

[Vattel]

172. Clinton authorized Bush

to go to war if he believed Iraq posed a threat to the US. And her support for the ultimatum to Hussein suggested she was wanted an invasion because there was no way Hussein was going to abdicate power. Sanders voted for wars that were quite arguably justified--at least at the outset. Clinton also supported those wars of course. And please don't make me add the obvious points about his votes for funding. Check out his website on that point please.

[seabeyond]

173. Sanders authorized in a greater way, just prior. But then, I get the nuance and am not an ass

to pretend otherwise.

[Vattel]

176. Anyone who thinks the ILA authorized an invasion is an ass or perhaps just ignorant.

The ILA explicitly stated that it was not an authorization for the use of American military force.

[seabeyond]

166. Politician all the way....

Josh: "...You work on limiting the influence of money in politics, yet at the same time you continue to support wasteful contracts from companies such as Lockheed Martin with the F-35 for instance. So what steps are you willing to take to limit the influence of companies in politics, not only on campaigns, but in policy making as well?”

Senator Sanders: "What part of the F-35? What are my options as a Senator? …if I said no to the F-35 coming to Burlington, for Vermont National Guard where would it go?... South Carolina?

My choice as a Senator, this is not a debate 20 years ago when we saw the F-35, which was very, very costly and is a huge cost overall. It’s the debate that the F-35 is here, it goes to South Carolina, or Florida, or in the state of Vermont. And I wanted it to come to the state of Vermont. Now in terms of the military spending in general, that’s another broader issue. Are we spending too much? Yes, we are. Have there been, more…well back up for a minute…we are spending too much, we should cut it.

The F-35, you have to in politics, it’s not and people do this I don’t mean to be critical, but you gotta look at where somebody is at the moment. If the debate is if somebody comes to you and says “Look, I’m thinking about building this super plane deal, it’s gonna cost huge sums of money, what do you think?” That’s, and maybe say no, no I think that’s a good idea, maybe we’ll go with the F-16. So then I responded. Are you about to say something?”

Josh: "No."

Sen. Sanders continues: “That’s where, in the real world, if the plan is built, and it is the plan that the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Air Force and of NATO, and if the choice is if that goes to Vermont, North Carolina-not North Carolina, South Carolina, or Florida, what is your choice as a United States Senator? Do you want it to go to South Carolina? You’re not saving anybody any money. So you have to look at these things in a, and it becomes complicated, and good friends can disagree on that. But my view is that given the reality of the damn plane, I’d rather it come to Vermont than to South Carolina. And that’s what the Vermont National Guard wants, and that means hundreds of jobs in my city. That’s it.”

http://gui.afsc.org/birddog/bernie-sanders-lockheed-martin-f-35-jets-vermont

[Vattel]

168. No, just someone with common sense

[seabeyond]

170. Ha hahaha. Lol. That actually got an out loud laugh. You guys are an hoot. Politician, all the way.

[Vattel]

174. Okay genius, explain why he shouldn't get the F35 built in Vermont

given that it was going to be built anyway. And explain why it wouldn't have been crazy not to finish building it. I guess you agree with Trump that we should spend billions on it and then cancel the program right as it was ready to go into production. I am glad neither Clinton nor Sanders is that dumb.

[seabeyond]

178. Because, he thinks it is wrong. OOOOoooops, except when he is being a politician, genius.

Why should he not run in the Democratic Party? Because he knows it makes him an hypocrite, (per his own words) until it benefits him as a politician. Super Pacs, sure.... but really not the same as Clinton's Super Pacs. Donation from fracking and oil, lets pretend it isn't happening. Wall Street, Bankers and Corps? Again, just pretend he isn't getting the money.

Hey, the reality? I do not care. I do care about lying and attacking when doing exactly the damn same. Maybe smaller scale, because well... fuck, Vermont is much much smaller. So that scale is way smaller. But Lockheed/Martin, same shit another day. I just do not pretend otherwise.

[Vattel]

180. No, he thinks it is right to finish it. He thinks it was wrong to start it.

[seabeyond]

183. He was in a safe position a month prior to 2002 vote. That is all. He is a politician.

[FarPoint]

5. The world is a hotbed for hate and violence.

Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State negotiated away from war. She kept us safe.

[B Calm]

6. Look no further than her role model Henry Kissenger who said

'Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.'

[Thinkingabout]

11. It would be an advantage to Sanders to have Kissenger advise him on

Foreign policy, currently he does not have a foreign policy.

[B Calm]

19. I prefer no foreign policy experience to anything Henry Kissenger

has to say.

[Thinkingabout]

25. He is running for president not mayor of Burlington, he apparently thinks he can pick and

Choose the parts of the position, failed on his foreign policy, wrong office to seek.

[fun n serious]

27. One day years from now someone will pull that video of Obama and Boehner...

Of Saturday night roasting and people will start posting crazy theories about Obama being a closet repuke. This is what has happened to Hillary and there is plenty of material there since she has been in the national public eye for decades and targeted by republicans. I just shake my head at y'all..

[B Calm]

32. LOL

[fun n serious]

34. There you go..

See how it works? Shameful

[B Calm]

42. Tell Hillary you're ashamed.

[fun n serious]

47. Calm down.

I'm testing love trumps hate today and I have no tolerance for your poking.

[B Calm]

53. Hillary loves Kissenger so

you win!

[fun n serious]

54. Hillary loves YOU too, nt

[B Calm]

56. She would love my vote, that's about it.

[Darb]

45. Shark Jump alert!!!

Role model?

[pdsimdars]

85. I don't think that was the actual term, maybe mentor?

[Scuba]

7. It's basically only poor people who serve in the US military.

None donate to her campaign.

[peace13]

37. I know many young people who serve in the military.

They were all raised in Middle class families.

[Scuba]

49. The plural of "anectdote" isn't "data."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7492231

The AP analysis found that nearly three quarters of those killed in Iraq came from towns where the per capita income was below the national average. More than half came from towns where the percentage of people living in poverty topped the national average.

If you wish to be pedantic and focus on my use of the word "only" I'll plead hyperbole. My point stands.




.

[Buzz Clik]

9. She is not a war monger. That is your invention.

Now that Skinner abandoned the 5-hide vacation rule, we can finally push back against the endless bullshit.

[Dustlawyer]

13. I think you misunderstand about hides.

You can always make a political arguement, just not be ugly or disrespectful doing it.

It is not really disputed that Hillary is Hawkish, just the extent.

[Buzz Clik]

16. Explain to me about the hides.

Are you saying that 5 hides will send me on vacation? That was my obvious and clearly stated point.

[Dustlawyer]

21. I am saying that you could always respond to posts, you just don't have to be ugly about it.

I just served on a jury where some Hillary supporter was even being a little snarky calling Bernie supporters "delusional," but they had an arguement on the issue at hand. The point of their post was not to be ugly, but a political point. We voted 1-6 the "leave it," including me.

[Thinkingabout]

26. Ugly like this OP?

[Darb]

46. By ugly you mean pointing out nose-cuttery?

That got many a Clinton voter sent on vacation, me included, more than once.

[Lil Missy]

22. No, YOU don't understand. Bernie fans hide facts and opinions they don't like.

There are many more Bernie folk than Hillary supporters, thus the bias that causes so many bullshit hides. Then, they approve clear violations from their own. It's blatant naked politics, and that's why the Admins saw the need to write a new alert system that is not so easily abused. I can't wait for it to get here.

[Duckhunter935]

67. You could always push back, no one stopped you

You could not insult without consequences. Yes, it is so much more civil now from your side now, lol

[eridani]

194. She not only voted for the Iraq war--she proseletyzed for it

Note that the majority of Congressional Dems voted against it.

[gollygee]

10. The US as a whole is very militant

Look at our defense budget.

I don't think Hillary is a warmonger. She's just part of the US government, and this is what the US is. Democrats and Republicans are both militant in the US.

[Thinkingabout]

15. Especially the F-35 program, big cost over runs, currently over a trillion

And Sanders continues to fund Lockheed Martin. He like the production of drones also,

[randome]

65. Yet this is the most peaceful era in modern history. Odd, isn't it?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[Xithras]

96. By what standard?

It's only been a peaceful era if you swallow the "it's not really war if it's only guided bombs and cruise missiles" lie.

The United States has been actively involved in combat operations, somewhere in the world, every year since 1991. None of us can guess how people living a century from now will judge us, but it's hard to believe that the long eye of history will agree with any claims that this has been a "peaceful era".

[pdsimdars]

86. Bernie has been more of a part of the US government longer than Hillary has and yet, his

words and actions are just the opposite so you can't really use that as an excuse for her. There has never been a war she doesn't like. It's HER not the government.

[gollygee]

89. The government in general

You're right, there are a few people in the government who aren't as militant, and Bernie is certainly less so than Hillary, but this is still the average for the US rather than an outlying position. She's the norm. We are the ones who are outside the norm. (I voted for Bernie in my primary so I include myself.)

I don't understand calling the average position "warmonger." That word seems like it would be for an *unusually* hawkish position, but her position is the norm in the US. It's more accurate to say that Bernie is unusually anti-militant rather than that Hillary is a warmonger. Our country is a mess as far as this issue goes IMO.

[pdsimdars]

120. When you have supported EVERY war. . . .welll, that kind of makes you a warmonger.

Just because most others are the same, doesn't make the word have a different meaning.
Like saying every one of them eats meat except one guy. Since all the others eat meat,. meat eating is the "norm" as you said. By your logic you'd say that you can't call them meat eaters, because meat eating is the norm. Makes no sense.

[gollygee]

142. We have a different perspective on this

I can't say yours is wrong because I like your logic, but to let you know my perspective, I'll share my version of your scenario. Instead of comparing it to "meat eater" I'd compare it to "ethical eater." Some people think you have to be a vegan to be an ethical eater, but others feel like you can eat meat and dairy in some circumstances and be an ethical eater. Others think that any eating of animal products regardless of how they're raised or slaughtered is ethical.

Almost everyone would agree with some specific war, depending on the circumstances. Very few people would agree with any war at all, no matter the circumstances or specifics - and it's those people I would call "Warmongers." Hillary is more hawkish than Bernie, no doubt there, but I don't think she would agree with any war, no matter the circumstances.

I don't see it as being as black and white. When I think of my voting history, I've always voted from among the people practically available, so pretty much everyone has been more hawkish than I am. I remember when my senator, Debbie Stabenow, voted for the torture bill. That night, her campaign called and asked me for another contribution to her campaign, and I said no, and I explained why I wouldn't give her any more money. I stopped giving her money at that point, but I realize that I've voted for a great number of people who are more hawkish than I am. Maybe every single person I've ever voted for (except Bernie and one or two others in local elections.) What do I do with that? All of a sudden decide I won't vote for Hillary over Trump because she is more hawkish than I am? I can label everyone a "warmonger" to make myself feel like it's a more obvious decision, but it's much more complicated than that. I voted for Bernie in the Michigan primary, and this is one of the reasons, but it doesn't look like he'll be going on to the general election. My choice will be between two people who are to the right of me, but one who is just to the right of me, and really no more to the right than a great number of the people I've voted for in my adult life, and one who is a fascist and way to the right. And who would love to go to war with the entire Islamic world and God knows who else.

[pdsimdars]

148. This isn't a philosophical nuance to me. . .

Here's the definition

a person who advocates, endorses, or tries to precipitate war.

That is what Hillary does for EVERY war. That makes her a warmonger.
The definition has nothing to do with anything else or anyone else. It is about WAR and ADVOCATING for war. That is Hillary.

[gollygee]

150. She was opposed to going to war in Iran in 2007

She's agreed with a majority of people when she did agree with wars, and so she's agreed with the wars we've entered. But she doesn't always vote for war.

[Lil Missy]

14. She's not a war monger. You extrapolate facts to a ridiculous exponential. Might as well

pull something outta your ass and present that as fact too.

[Buzz Clik]

17. +1

[Surya Gayatri]

24. Lil Missy, I like your way with words...LOL!

[notadmblnd]

35. Anyone who plays scrabble can put together the double point words.

Easily impressed with the big words are you... how silly is that?

[Surya Gayatri]

48. Ah, scrabble is one thing...and then there's urban poetry like this:

Might as well pull something outta your butt and present that as fact too.

Definitely has a cadence and rhythm--pleasing to the ear! LOL!

[notadmblnd]

61. An old cliche is poetry?

I just love pretentious people.

[JoePhilly]

41. Perfectly stated. nt

[redstateblues]

43. K&R

[kgnu_fan]

20. Kissinger girl

[Thinkingabout]

28. You can say this, Sanders without a foreign policy would be well served to be a

Kissenger boy.

[fun n serious]

29. Castro boy.

[kgnu_fan]

30. Some cheap responses/comments here show ignorance of history... sigh

[pdsimdars]

87. They work so hard NOT to know who they want as their candidate. It makes NO SENSE!!!

Well, at least it makes no sense to a rational mind.

[kgnu_fan]

154. That is why I tend to suspect them as "intruders" who spread propaganda.

[leftofcool]

31. How do you rationalize Sanders vote against the Brady Bill?

[peace13]

40. What was the portion of the bill that he disagreed with?

Can you tell me?

[aikoaiko]

50. He said the states can handle the state level data which is probably true

The Federal level NICS check depends on state level databases to begin with.

If you claim the states can't handle it, then you saying the Feds can't either.

[pdsimdars]

88. There are many who strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.

[BernieforPres2016]

33. You don't have any problem with Hillary saying we will "never, ever" have single payer healthcare?

Or with the fact that she will do nothing about campaign finance reform? I have major problems with her on both foreign and domestic policy.

[dreamnightwind]

76. +1

Many other domestic issues too. Fracking and other fossil fuel interests, the drug war and mass incarceration, not supporting U.S. workers but favoring outsourcing and H1-B insourcing, on and on.

[liberal_at_heart]

36. The Democrats stance on foreign policy directly affects their domestic policy.

It is because of the trillions of dollars we spend on war that the Democrats cave on cuts to social services and won't fight for things like Medicare for All or tuition free college.

[hereforthevoting]

38. I wonder if the silence is due to my huge ignore list

Oh, nothing of circumstance cited anyway?

[BernieforPres2016]

39. Best ways I can think of to stop war mongering

1. Reinstitute the draft. No deferments for college students or rich kids. You get drafted, you serve. Make the military look more like the rest of the country.

2. Do a 180 on the policy of not showing flag draped coffins. Mandatory government press release on every U.S. soldier killed in action, including a picture and biography.

[djean111]

62. That would only work - I assume you think the country would rise up against war - if our government

cared what we think, any more. They really do not. Demonstrations? The police have been systematically militarized. I believe you will see military-grade things used on protesters at the conventions. And I believe they are looking forward to using them.

A draft, for this government, the MIC, and Wall Street? More expendable bodies to throw at more things, more money to be made.
LOTS more dead bodies. That's all that would happen. Remember when the Vietnam protests stopped us from more and more killing? No, because it didn't.

[BernieforPres2016]

64. If people rising up against the government in mass doesn't get us anything

Then we're even further gone than I think we are. I don't discount the possibility that you're right. My point about the draft is to put some kids of limousine liberals and politicians in the military and perhaps they would quit viewing them as expendable.

Protests eventually got us out of Vietnam, though not nearly quickly enough.

[djean111]

66. And we got right back in, in other places.

Also - the children of the rich and connected will always be safe. Jobs in offices, officers safely removed from actual battle situations.

I am not trying to shoot down your idea so much as saying that - I am 70. I have seen this roll out before. The rich always get richer, the poor get poorer, and the rich and connected are insulated. And the poor people die.

I think we are pretty far gone, really. Partly because this country is so big, so many people are disconnected from other people, and the media makes sure we are uninformed. And the MIC is giving weapons and training to police departments for a reason. Right now, a lot of police seem to think it is okay to shoot and kill at will.

[BernieforPres2016]

75. I think we're probably too far gone

What little hope I held that we could dig out of this mess is pretty much gone with Bernie's candidacy. I'm almost 59, and am about to head back into tuning out politics like I have since the middle of 2009 or so when I realized Obama was more of the same.

My post on reinstating the draft and publicizing U.S. soldiers who lose their lives at war was just a comment, not a serious proposal. I know it will never happen and even if it did the well connected would keep their kids out of harm's way while sending others in their place.

If the people most harmed by our two party corrupt corporate system won't go to the polls and vote their own interest then we're going to keep getting the status quo.

[pdsimdars]

90. I heard we once had a law or FDR wanted a law or something

Make it ILLEGAL to profit off of war and the wars would stop!

[stone space]

158. What's next? Vote for Trump to stop war mongering?

Best ways I can think of to stop war mongering

1. Reinstitute the draft. No deferments for college students or rich kids. You get drafted, you serve. Make the military look more like the rest of the country.

[JoePhilly]

44. Nothing to rationalize. She's not a war-monger.

You guys build strawmen, knock them over, and then declare victory.

If Hillary, or Obama, were war-mongers, we'd have at least 300k-400k troops on the ground all over the middle east engaged in direct invasion and occupation.

The mistake you guys make (over and over) is to believe that any use of our military, regardless of the size, duration, or purpose, equals war.

btw ... Bernie plans to continue Obama's drone program. I find it interesting that Bernie supporters continue to rationalize that fact.

[randome]

57. Well said. And yes, the drone use is never mentioned by Sanders supporters.

It used to be the main cudgel to use against Obama but not against Sanders.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[JoePhilly]

58. I've heard a few of them say ...

"Bernie will do it better."

What ever that means.

[Fast Walker 52]

111. Isn't it how you define "war-monger"?

She's clearly a hawk on military policy, for instance, calling for no-fly zones in Syria is very hawkish and bound to lead us into conflict with Russia. She wants to put new sanctions on Iran. She seems happy to promote regime change and upheaval in other countries. She's pro-oppression, she's pro-Netanyahu, for god's sake.

No, she's not Hitler. But she's clearly pro-war. I've never heard her talk about the true cost of war or calling for reining in our completely bloated military.

In my book, war-monger is a reasonable charge.

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/2016/04/21/new-york-time-magazine-looks-at-how-hillary-clinton-became-a-warmonger/

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/04/hillary-clinton-really-loves-military-intervention

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/13/as_reckless_as_george_w_bush_hillary_clinton_helped_create_disorder_in_iraq_libya_syria_and_scarier_doesnt_seem_to_understand_how/?source=newsletter

She's clearly a WARHAWK, and even worse, she's an unapologetic one, who seems to have learned nothing from the past 15 years.

[JoePhilly]

152. A warmonger would be calling for boots on the ground all over the ME.

I've spent the last 7 or so years listening to the same folks who call Obama that term now saying it of Hillary.

Its the same folks who thought Obama promised to pull troops out of Afghanistan when he actually ran on increasing the number of troops there.

[CrowCityDem]

51. Bernie voted multiple times to say Saddam needed to be overthrown...

yet no one calls him a warmonger, because he opposed the one war we all agree was a terrible idea. The fact of the matter is that we're expected to intervene in places where no one else can. Right or wrong, that's the way the world works right now. Pulling back and letting the world go to rot doesn't serve our interests either.

[Squinch]

182. Also, those here who are not trolls all voted for Kerry. And they never questioned his vote.

Buncha hypocrites.

[eridani]

195. I fucking well did question his vote, and voted for hime because Bush was much worse. n/t

[Squinch]

196. Yup. And how many posts did you write in which you called him a murderer during his candidacy?

[eridani]

197. More of a coward than a murderer. Actually, the same goes for Clinton

She knew that the "justifications" were bullshit all along.

[Squinch]

198. I'll take that to mean that you wrote zero such posts.

[aikoaiko]

52. Because she said, "Whoopsie. My bad." when it was no longer politically convenient to be in Iraq.

[Bettie]

60. It is profitable to her

and her chosen constituents.

Why should she have to explain that? It is all economics, she and those she works for profit.

Who cares if some of the peons die? They don't matter anyway.

[fun n serious]

74. Prove it

Prove she has profited from war

[beachbum bob]

63. I rather have some one in the WH NOT hestitant to use force...and why a paficist won't be...

....mistakes will be made...but that is better than doing nothing at times

[bjo59]

84. You can't rationalize it away, you can only accept it, even support it.

[pdsimdars]

91. Or an answer to the question below. . . No one has ever given a measured resaponse.

.

[LuvLoogie]

93. Jeffery Sachs calls her a warmonger. I don't.

So I don't know if that answers your push poll?

[Fast Walker 52]

112. well, lots of other people call her that too. It's not a rare view of her.

And it's one that really bothers me.

[tonyt53]

98. She voted for the war in Iraq. A lot of people did

Can you rationalize the war here at home. You know, the war with thousands dying every year from gun violence and the gun manufacturers cannot be sued over their involvement. Seven time more people die by gun violence here in the US each year than the US troop lives lost in Iraq totaled. Bernie chose to side with the gun manufacturers.

Oh, the Secretary of State does not set US policy. That is the job of the President and the Secretary of State has to act on the wishes of their employer. How can you not know that?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

102. Erect scary bogeymen, wave flag, cheer the troops, call it "defense" = Hillary's diplomacy.

Patriots always talk of dying for their country but never of killing for their country. Bertrand Russell

[JTFrog]

106. The same way most of the posters who just can't forgive "her", managed to forgive or excuse

Edwards and Kerry. 7 out of 10 long time DU posters who say that Clinton's vote is the absolute one reason they cannot support her, can be found rationalizing Edwards' or Kerry's vote back in the day.

[apnu]

110. I don't. I'm for Bernie but I will support Hillary in the GE.

She's not whom I would like for President, but she has my support because Trump, Cruz, Kasich is worse.

While I am a Progressive, I am not a single issue voter. I know she's willing to use America's military might as a part of foreign policy. But I also know Hillary's liberal bona fides are solid despite her support of Barry Goldwater before I was born (I'm 42, btw). I know people can and do change over time and I don't have a problem with candidates who change positions. I do have a problem if their positions change for the worse, but I don't object to change because its change.

Also Hillary will not put a conservative on the SCotUS, she will not continue the war on women either. Those are very important points for me and so I will sleep well voting for Hillary Clinton if we can achieve progress for women.

There is more to the Presidency and more to Hillary Clinton than her handful of war votes. As for her being SoS, the bucks stops with Obama, not Hillary Clinton.

[Tarc]

113. "ow do you rationalize away her war-mongering"

Have you stopped beating your spouse?

[Fast Walker 52]

117. I see you're in denial too

oh well

[Tarc]

118. I'm not the one asking loaded questions, bro

Sometimes war is necessary. I'd prefer a president who recognizes that reality over a pacifist any day.

[Fast Walker 52]

123. The problem is she thinks war is necessary a lot more than other people do.

I and millions of other people have had enough of US wars, thank you very much.

[Tarc]

124. Not nearly enough millions to, y'know, win an election though, eh?

[Fast Walker 52]

115. OK, so basically the responses I see are: either she's not really a war-monger,

or that Bernie supports war too. Or that Bernie supports guns, so he's just as bad.

I guess, these positions are to be expected, but it would be nice to see a Hillary supporter really come to terms with her truly awful foreign policy record.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

133. Both candidates support intervention, the new word for war.

Your problem and that of the others here is regardless of Bernie's position, you put Hillary next to him and if she doesnt measure up, and she often doesnt, you then say there is NO voting for her, that Hillary must be like Bernie or you will stay home or vote 3rd party.

I dont know if you personally have made that promise, but many have.

Politics doesnt work that way.

[deathrind]

134. Not only...

"How do you rationalize away her war-mongering?"

That but also her support for:

Fracking / Off shore / Artic drilling.
Patriot Act + its reauthorization
TPP
Death Penalty
TARP
Leaving the SS cap in place.
SOPA
Private Prisons
Keystone (switched in 2013)

Her opposition to:

A Carbon Tax
Reinstating Glass-Steagall
Gay Marriage (switched in 2010)
Universal Healthcare

[Vattel]

136. Fast Walker, the replies to your post are not surprising.

They fall into two basic categories:

1. Sanders is a warmonger too.

2. Clinton is not a warmonger.

The first is an absurdly false equivalency. The second clearly contradicts the record.

[Maedhros]

141. We're asking members of a personality cult to objectively assess the personality herself.

That will not happen.

[Vattel]

151. yep

[The Second Stone]

149. What war-mongering? What wars has she been the leading voice for

can you name any?

Or are you suggesting that supporting any war is war mongering?

She has in fact supported wars that were supported by 98% plus of the government. But she was hardly the one leading the way.

If only people who are against all wars are qualified in your view, then I'd suggest that your candidates are not going to be sufficient to protect us and our allies.

[orpupilofnature57]

177. The same way you use casuistry's to justify other abhorrent actions .

[NanceGreggs]

181. Choosing to ignore ...

... your assessment that HRC is a "warmonger", which she's not, I would say that while you may disagree with her foreign policy, at least she has one.

Bernie, on the other hand, has sputtered and stuttered every time he's been asked about foreign affairs - he clearly doesn't have a clue.

When asked how he would deal with foreign leaders like Putin, Bernie's response was that when he was mayor of Burlington, he dealt with all kinds of people. Yeah, that's what you want in a president - someone who thinks dealing with the local zoning commission is exactly like dealing with international heads of state.

[silvershadow]

190. I can't rationalize voting for a candidate under current FBI Investigations. nt

[jack_krass]

191. I don't think shes a warmonger

I think she's a go-alonger. She seems to go with the prevailing opinion and/or corporate driven agenda, whichever she calculates will help her most.

I dont believe she has any true principles, just money and power.

If peace was popular in the US, and there was profit in it, she'd be a dove, not a doubt in my mind.

[Fast Walker 52]

192. well, I can see that... she's basically amoral, in other words

Too bad there's so many in the Federal govt who love war.

[jack_krass]

200. Same on the gun and other issues...

eg, I don't think she's particularly pro-gun or anti-gun. She's whatever she needs to be for the moment, as evidenced by her anti gun stance this year, and "Annie Oakley" in 2008, and her reputation for "evolving".

[stevenleser]

193. When did you stop beating your spouse?

Same kind of question. And you will get the same answer you would give.

We disagree with your frame. We don't think she is a warmonger.

[EndElectoral]

199. Equating Sanders votes to fund existing troops in the field with HRC's carte blanche to GW is absurd

HRC's vote flied in the face of UN recommendations to the contrary about WMD's. Her vote allowed GW to make up his mind about when and if to attack. Her vote was a part of the initiation of the war.

Sanders votes were to fund existing troops already deployed in the field. Would you have not funded the troops already over there leaving them defenseless?

It baffles me that people don't see the difference.