It is time sanders drops out.

[kage69]

That is an extremely twisted version of how the Iraq vote went down. Bush asked Congress for authorization with the promise that it would be used as a negotiation tool and only used as a last resort. Then when he got it he laughed and said just kidding, we aren't really going to negotiate, we gonna fuck Saddam up!

Exactly.

Congress said "wear this hand cannon, but don't shoot anyone unless it's absolutely necessary," and Bush appeased his handlers by immediately drawing and firing - blasting off a chunk of foot and several toes.

I want a principled CiC that asks questions when it comes to going to war, one who utilizes brains instead of balls and won't be suckered with sales speak or money. Bernie is the only choice here.

 

[Mursilis]

I've said before that the GOP hasn't really had any national-level candidates who actually inspired anyone to vote for them (vs. just as a vote against some Dem. they've managed to demonize) for many years, probably since Reagan. Cruz, Gingrich, Romney, McConnell, etc. have all had charisma deficits as compared to Dems like Bill Clinton and Obama, who could actually inspire people. The only reason they're as powerful as they still are is because they've managed to run against various Dems well enough to win various races.

That being said, I wonder which Dem, Bernie or Hillary, is going to serve the GOP's purposes of drumming up some backlash support in 2018 and 2020? I'd bet the GOP establish is going to be much happier running against Hillary in '18 and '20 than they would've been against Bernie. I guess we'll soon see.

 

[chess9]

Who expects the President to fucking lie to Congress about something like this? Let's also not forget the political cost at the time for speaking out against our "fight against evildoers."

You are missing an important element here. Senator Byrd, then Representative Sanders, and many others went and read the full NIE (National Intelligence Estimate, which was in the basement of the OEOB, I believe.) Senator Byrd returned to the Senate floor and in an impassioned speech said, essentially, the NIE does not support an invasion of Iraq. Hillary's statement that the Bush Administration lied to her is a lie because she could also have read the NIE. I believe only about 5 or 6 or our "esteemed" Senators read the full NIE. So, Bush fooled Hillary and not Byrd and Sanders? If you believe that I have a bridge to nowhere for you. Hillary voted for it because the entire NY delegation, especially Schumer, felt they were politically obligated to do it because of the post-9/11 climate. This argument by Hillary, that she was lied to, is yet another example of why she cannot be trusted. She now says it was a mistake, but she couldn't sound any more insincere, and her Libya and Syria stances simply reinforce the obvious: she is a neocon cross-dressing as a progressive. God help us if she is elected. I think, on war, she would be much worse than Trump. Nonetheless, I won't vote for Trump. If Dr. Jill Stein runs again, she will get my vote as she did in 2012.

 

[swamplizard]

Sanders has an easier path forward than Cruz or Kasich and despite his age has more charisma than anyone left in the presidential race.

 

[BoberFett]

You are missing an important element here. Senator Byrd, then Representative Sanders, and many others went and read the full NIE (National Intelligence Estimate, which was in the basement of the OEOB, I believe.) Senator Byrd returned to the Senate floor and in an impassioned speech said, essentially, the NIE does not support an invasion of Iraq. Hillary's statement that the Bush Administration lied to her is a lie because she could also have read the NIE. I believe only about 5 or 6 or our "esteemed" Senators read the full NIE. So, Bush fooled Hillary and not Byrd and Sanders? If you believe that I have a bridge to nowhere for you. Hillary voted for it because the entire NY delegation, especially Schumer, felt they were politically obligated to do it because of the post-9/11 climate. This argument by Hillary, that she was lied to, is yet another example of why she cannot be trusted. She now says it was a mistake, but she couldn't sound any more insincere, and her Libya and Syria stances simply reinforce the obvious: she is a neocon cross-dressing as a progressive. God help us if she is elected. I think, on war, she would be much worse than Trump. Nonetheless, I won't vote for Trump. If Dr. Jill Stein runs again, she will get my vote as she did in 2012.

:thumbsup:

 

[Victorian Gray]

So what other story is there? You imply he has gone on some extended rant against Hillary, which isn't true. Simply citing the story I cited is hardly evidence to support your position.

I'm speaking about history. I'm very much old enough to remember the Clinton presidency and I full well remember the ragging on the Clintons from a lot of the major media including Greenfield. And, to a large degree, it has never really stopped.

If you don't wish to accept that, I don't really care and will not debate the issue with you.

 

[Victorian Gray]

What does this mean, specifically?



I agree this is shitty!



Clinton's drug policy is actually quite good. She's for decreased enforcement and drastic increases in drug treatment. I have no idea why that would be 'shitty' just because she didn't call for marijuana legalization.



Sanders has a D- rating from the NRA.



So as best as I can tell we have a nebulous statement on the middle east, NSA surveillence, a complaint that her good drug policy is somehow shitty because it doesn't include marijuana legalization, and a complaint that she would be for gun control slightly more than the guy you are supporting who got a D-.

This is not a very compelling case to say the least.

It's the dividend from 25 years of slime throwing. I'm not a Clinton fan but the hysteria that some people exhibit over her is almost awe inspiring.

 

[MagickMan]

"Invade Libya? WTF? I thought they said labia!" - Hillary Clinton

 

[MagickMan]

You are missing an important element here. Senator Byrd, then Representative Sanders, and many others went and read the full NIE (National Intelligence Estimate, which was in the basement of the OEOB, I believe.) Senator Byrd returned to the Senate floor and in an impassioned speech said, essentially, the NIE does not support an invasion of Iraq. Hillary's statement that the Bush Administration lied to her is a lie because she could also have read the NIE. I believe only about 5 or 6 or our "esteemed" Senators read the full NIE. So, Bush fooled Hillary and not Byrd and Sanders? If you believe that I have a bridge to nowhere for you. Hillary voted for it because the entire NY delegation, especially Schumer, felt they were politically obligated to do it because of the post-9/11 climate. This argument by Hillary, that she was lied to, is yet another example of why she cannot be trusted. She now says it was a mistake, but she couldn't sound any more insincere, and her Libya and Syria stances simply reinforce the obvious: she is a neocon cross-dressing as a progressive. God help us if she is elected. I think, on war, she would be much worse than Trump. Nonetheless, I won't vote for Trump. If Dr. Jill Stein runs again, she will get my vote as she did in 2012.

Headshot. :thumbsup:

 

[fskimospy]

Headshot. :thumbsup:

Yeah except he's pretty much dead wrong on what the NIE said. The NIE claimed that Iraq had a robust bioweapons program actively running at the time, it had extended range missiles and was developing even better ones, and was actively pursuing nuclear weapons that it could have in as little as a few months.

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB129/nie.pdf

This NIE is notorious for having been catastrophically wrong and what makes it even worse is that the Bush administration never even requested an NIE before going to war. That being said, I would love to know what they read in this that would have changed someone from a war supporter to a war opponent.

Him saying this makes me sincerely wonder if chess9 has ever read the NIE, haha.

 

[chess9]

Yeah except he's pretty much dead wrong on what the NIE said. The NIE claimed that Iraq had a robust bioweapons program actively running at the time, it had extended range missiles and was developing even better ones, and was actively pursuing nuclear weapons that it could have in as little as a few months.

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB129/nie.pdf

This NIE is notorious for having been catastrophically wrong and what makes it even worse is that the Bush administration never even requested an NIE before going to war. That being said, I would love to know what they read in this that would have changed someone from a war supporter to a war opponent.

Him saying this makes me sincerely wonder if chess9 has ever read the NIE, haha.

None of US have read the NIE. What you posted is a heavily redacted version of what purports to be the NIE. My Top Secret clearance expired about 40 years ago, so I haven't read it. Maybe you could fill in the blanks so the rest of us will know what is missing?

Anyway, wasn't the burden on the Bush administration and its intelligence agencies to offer evidence the invasion was justified? Furthermore, as I understand the NIE, the footnotes in the Appendix, which doesn't appear to be attached, heavily qualified most of the comments in the NIE. But, even without the Appendix the NIE is full of qualifying language, of the well maybe they do (or don't) have this or that capability. Regardless, subsequent post-invasion events indicate that this NIE is terminally faulty and was at the time.
Senator Byrd was on the Homeland Security and Defense Sub-Committees as well as Appropriations, so he would have had extensive knowledge of the subject matter. When he came out against the Iraq War (having supported the Vietnam War) I was certain the grounds for the invasion were highly suspect.
In addition, numerous articles in the Washington Post and NY Times questioned the accuracy of the NIE and many commentators felt the NIE had been politicized, though no evidence was ever adduced in that regard. There was a lot of groupthink among the intelligence agencies and that may have greatly influenced the result.
Finally, note that about 39 sitting Democratic Senators voted against the Iraq War Resolution. This suggests that in that conservative, august body, Hillary Clinton was among the most rabidly pro-war. She should just join the Republican Party instead of continuing this charade of being a Progressive.

 

[BoberFett]

Yeah except he's pretty much dead wrong on what the NIE said. The NIE claimed that Iraq had a robust bioweapons program actively running at the time, it had extended range missiles and was developing even better ones, and was actively pursuing nuclear weapons that it could have in as little as a few months.

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB129/nie.pdf

This NIE is notorious for having been catastrophically wrong and what makes it even worse is that the Bush administration never even requested an NIE before going to war. That being said, I would love to know what they read in this that would have changed someone from a war supporter to a war opponent.

Him saying this makes me sincerely wonder if chess9 has ever read the NIE, haha.

Then in your mind, even though they were right in hindsight, were those lawmakers who were against an Iraq invasion actually wrong? And that they should have supported the war due to the the compelling evidence that "fooled" Hillary?

 

[chess9]

I'm speaking about history. I'm very much old enough to remember the Clinton presidency and I full well remember the ragging on the Clintons from a lot of the major media including Greenfield. And, to a large degree, it has never really stopped.

If you don't wish to accept that, I don't really care and will not debate the issue with you.

I'll be happy to accept your point of view if you present any evidence in that regard.

 

[fskimospy]

None of US have read the NIE. What you posted is a heavily redacted version of what purports to be the NIE. My Top Secret clearance expired about 40 years ago, so I haven't read it. Maybe you could fill in the blanks so the rest of us will know what is missing?

Of course a lot of it is redacted, but the key findings are intact.

Anyway, wasn't the burden on the Bush administration and its intelligence agencies to offer evidence the invasion was justified? Furthermore, as I understand the NIE, the footnotes in the Appendix, which doesn't appear to be attached, heavily qualified most of the comments in the NIE. But, even without the Appendix the NIE is full of qualifying language, of the well maybe they do (or don't) have this or that capability. Regardless, subsequent post-invasion events indicate that this NIE is terminally faulty and was at the time.

All intelligence products have qualifications attached. None of that changes that many of the findings were categorized as having high confidence.

Senator Byrd was on the Homeland Security and Defense Sub-Committees as well as Appropriations, so he would have had extensive knowledge of the subject matter. When he came out against the Iraq War (having supported the Vietnam War) I was certain the grounds for the invasion were highly suspect.
In addition, numerous articles in the Washington Post and NY Times questioned the accuracy of the NIE and many commentators felt the NIE had been politicized, though no evidence was ever adduced in that regard. There was a lot of groupthink among the intelligence agencies and that may have greatly influenced the result.
Finally, note that about 39 sitting Democratic Senators voted against the Iraq War Resolution. This suggests that in that conservative, august body, Hillary Clinton was among the most rabidly pro-war. She should just join the Republican Party instead of continuing this charade of being a Progressive.

I have always been against the war, and the NIE was most certainly faulty. That is neither here nor there though, as you claimed people who read this NIE then came to the conclusion war could not be justified based on its contents. Considering its actual contents this is highly unlikely.

Posts like this continue the disturbing trend of Sanders supporters acting more like Republicans. Hillary is most certainly progressive, and attempts to cast people out for various ideological offenses is silly.

 

[fskimospy]

Then in your mind, even though they were right in hindsight, were those lawmakers who were against an Iraq invasion actually wrong? And that they should have supported the war due to the the compelling evidence that "fooled" Hillary?

I don't think they should have supported the war because even if he was making those weapons that's not enough reason to invade somewhere. None of that changes the fundamental falsehood of chess9's post about the NIE.

Sanders was going to oppose the war no matter what was in the NIE. Acting like it came as the result of reading that is ridiculous. I mean does anyone actually believe that?

 

[Victorian Gray]

I'll be happy to accept your point of view if you present any evidence in that regard.

I repeat:

"If you don't wish to accept that, I don't really care and will not debate the issue with you."

 

[chess9]

Of course a lot of it is redacted, but the key findings are intact.



All intelligence products have qualifications attached. None of that changes that many of the findings were categorized as having high confidence.



I have always been against the war, and the NIE was most certainly faulty. That is neither here nor there though, as you claimed people who read this NIE then came to the conclusion war could not be justified based on its contents. Considering its actual contents this is highly unlikely.

Posts like this continue the disturbing trend of Sanders supporters acting more like Republicans. Hillary is most certainly progressive, and attempts to cast people out for various ideological offenses is silly.

You can't possibly form any opinion on the NIE based on what you've read. How would you know it's findings are intact? It's well known that the NIE Summary, distributed to Congress and it's staff, was wholly a wax job on Congress. But, the NIE was not only full of qualifying language, the Appendix, which you wish to ignore in part because you haven't read it, basically says in the footnotes something like "The assessment of chemical WMD mobile vans is based on satellite photos which don't provide conclusory evidence of their existence." So, despite saying Saddam has WMD in the NIE, the Appendix takes all that away. You are dealing with the spooks here and they are experts at double talk. Senator Byrd sussed out all of that and actually read all of the NIE, unlike you, me, or most of the Senate. Senator Byrd had a lot of faults but he never lacked diligence or intelligence. Bottom line, most of the Senate, including Senator Clinton, did not do its job. So, now, Hillary wants to blame Bush for her vote. How pathetic....

Your definition of a progressive is not the definition most progressives use. Hillary is, at best, a moderate. She described herself that way many times until this election, and in 2008 she sounded like the neo-con she is. Go read some of her speeches in opposition to Obama back in 2008. That approach didn't go well, so she tacked left and stole almost every one of Bernie's ideas. I'm sorry you are so deluded about Hillary, but that KoolAid is really bad for you.

 

[MagickMan]

Yeah except he's pretty much dead wrong on what the NIE said.

Nope.

 

[VRAMdemon]

Take it to the convention. Why not? He has a platform, people are listening to him, maybe he has an influence, and who knows..Hillary might get hit by a bus or something.

One of Sanders' original purpose was to get his message out to people not knowing he could actually get nominated. He can still do that. He can stay in the race, even knowing he will not win it, and as long as people are listening he's accomplishing something.

 

[ivwshane]

Nope.

Compelling!

 

[MagickMan]

Compelling!

Yep.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

I'll be happy to accept your point of view if you present any evidence in that regard.

Well his argument is quite simple... It's a simple case of the boy who cried wolf.

Hillary is the wolf.
The media, and society in general to a lesser extent, is the boy.
The villagers are the Democrats and independents.

The media has slung so much mud at the wolf, ohh I mean Hillary, that now nothing sticks to it. It's gotten so bad, that the villagers are now apathetic to the Hillary, ohh I mean the wolf. Even legitimate criticism are casually dismissed as another fraudulent smear campaign.

He is just one of the villagers.

 

[fskimospy]

You can't possibly form any opinion on the NIE based on what you've read. How would you know it's findings are intact? It's well known that the NIE Summary, distributed to Congress and it's staff, was wholly a wax job on Congress. But, the NIE was not only full of qualifying language, the Appendix, which you wish to ignore in part because you haven't read it, basically says in the footnotes something like "The assessment of chemical WMD mobile vans is based on satellite photos which don't provide conclusory evidence of their existence." So, despite saying Saddam has WMD in the NIE, the Appendix takes all that away. You are dealing with the spooks here and they are experts at double talk. Senator Byrd sussed out all of that and actually read all of the NIE, unlike you, me, or most of the Senate. Senator Byrd had a lot of faults but he never lacked diligence or intelligence. Bottom line, most of the Senate, including Senator Clinton, did not do its job. So, now, Hillary wants to blame Bush for her vote. How pathetic....

This is all made up bullshit, which clearly comes from you not understanding what an NIE is. 'High confidence' doesn't mean 'certain', and this is the way that all intelligence products are written. The fact that it is caveated is in fact a feature, not a bug.

Let me just say that your contention that the entire US intelligence community, all 16 agencies of it, were involved in a massive conspiracy to mislead Congress is an extraordinary claim for which you provide exactly zero evidence. Instead you say that a senator read the appendix and told you he didn't support the war. Ridiculous.

EDIT: I also just realized that you are simultaneously trying to claim that the NIE was an attempt to mislead congress AND that the NIE didn't support going to war. Lolwut.

Your definition of a progressive is not the definition most progressives use. Hillary is, at best, a moderate. She described herself that way many times until this election, and in 2008 she sounded like the neo-con she is. Go read some of her speeches in opposition to Obama back in 2008. That approach didn't go well, so she tacked left and stole almost every one of Bernie's ideas. I'm sorry you are so deluded about Hillary, but that KoolAid is really bad for you.

So now you are speaking for what 'most progressives' define as progressive. That seems credible.

Why don't you go look at her actual voting record in the Senate? Her first order DW-NOMINATE score made her one of the most liberal senators. Oh wait though, that would actually be an objective evaluation of her record and not some gut feeling bullshit.

 

[chess9]

This is all made up bullshit, which clearly comes from you not understanding what an NIE is. 'High confidence' doesn't mean 'certain', and this is the way that all intelligence products are written. The fact that it is caveated is in fact a feature, not a bug.

Let me just say that your contention that the entire US intelligence community, all 16 agencies of it, were involved in a massive conspiracy to mislead Congress is an extraordinary claim for which you provide exactly zero evidence. Instead you say that a senator read the appendix and told you he didn't support the war. Ridiculous.

EDIT: I also just realized that you are simultaneously trying to claim that the NIE was an attempt to mislead congress AND that the NIE didn't support going to war. Lolwut.



So now you are speaking for what 'most progressives' define as progressive. That seems credible.

Why don't you go look at her actual voting record in the Senate? Her first order DW-NOMINATE score made her one of the most liberal senators. Oh wait though, that would actually be an objective evaluation of her record and not some gut feeling bullshit.

Groupthink is not a conspiracy. (I see you misinterpret everything.) However, Cheney worked the CIA pretty hard during the reporting phase, so I would suggest that the spooks knew in advance what result they had to reach. Which probably explains why the NIE was clearly an attempt to mislead Congress and was such a bone-headed result. That NIE does not suggest "intelligence", but the exact opposite. And what to make of the vast difference between the Summary and the actual full NIE? Like many, I'm not so sure the spooks aren't subject to strong political pressures.
Hillary wasn't in the Senate long enough to establish any significant voting record, and her legislative accomplishments aren't much different than Sanders'.
If you don't value honesty and trustworthiness in a presidential candidate then Hillary is your man, er, woman.

 

[ivwshane]

Groupthink is not a conspiracy. (I see you misinterpret everything.) However, Cheney worked the CIA pretty hard during the reporting phase, so I would suggest that the spooks knew in advance what result they had to reach. Which probably explains why the NIE was clearly an attempt to mislead Congress and was such a bone-headed result. That NIE does not suggest "intelligence", but the exact opposite. And what to make of the vast difference between the Summary and the actual full NIE? Like many, I'm not so sure the spooks aren't subject to strong political pressures.
Hillary wasn't in the Senate long enough to establish any significant voting record, and her legislative accomplishments aren't much different than Sanders'.
If you don't value honesty and trustworthiness in a presidential candidate then Hillary is your man, er, woman.

Quite the contrary really:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-candidate-was-the-most-effective-legislator/