She's doubling down on it, apparently. I don't need a dog in this fight, to see that it's a completely desperate move by Warren. It's pathetic, and I'd love to see Bernie smash the shit of her if it ever gets brought up on the debate stage. I 100% believe Bernie said something that could be interpreted as such by the idiotic Twitter crowd Warren is desperately trying to court, but will easily be defended by a direct confrontation. I want to see that stupid bitch shake and stutter, when she's asked on live TV to endorse this bullshit.
She's doubling down on it, apparently. I don't need a dog in this fight, to see that it's a completely desperate move by Warren. It's pathetic, and I'd love to see Bernie smash the shit of her if it ever gets brought up on the debate stage. I 100% believe Bernie said something that could be interpreted as such by the idiotic Twitter crowd Warren is desperately trying to court, but will easily be defended by a direct confrontation. I want to see that stupid bitch shake and stutter, when she's asked on live TV to endorse this bullshit.
Amazing stuff from July 2003, two months after the US invaded Iraq, around the time when many people started to realize the war effort would not be a smooth one.
Joseph Biden, Jr. reiterated his support for the war and stated that preventing Iraq from acquiring WMD would have been sufficient justification to attack Iraq and overthrow the Saddam Hussein regime. He says the Bush administration should have used this justification to launch the war instead of "preemption".
Preemption demands, in my view, a high standard of proof that can stand up to world scrutiny. This new standard, articulated before our committee and by others in our administration, that all intelligence is murky and we have to act on murky intelligence does not meet that standard, in my view. Instead of a preemption doctrine, what we need is a prevention doctrine that defuses problems long before they explode in our face. For now, suffice it to say that the administration is wrong to make this about preemption but is right to confront the challenge posed by Saddam thumbing his nose at the world and refusing to alter his conduct.
Contrary to what some in my party might think, Iraq was a problem that had to be dealt with sooner rather than later. I commend the president. He was right to enforce the solemn commitments made by Saddam. If they were not enforced, what good would they be and what value those institutions would have? For me, the issue is never whether we had to deal with Saddam but when and how we dealt with Saddam. It's precisely the 'when' and the 'how' that this administration got wrong. We went to war too soon. We went to war with too few troops. We went to war without the world when we could have had many with us and we're paying the price for it now.
I will be very amused if Democrats are dumb enough to nominate this guy.
With all this hoopla over Warren/Sanders, it's worth remembering that it was kicked off with a remarkably fantastical article by Politico.
Title: Bernie campaign slams Warren as candidate of the elite
Link address: Bernie quietly goes negative on Warren
The source? A call transcript not approved by the Sanders campaign (with other reports that I haven't verified being that it's fake) that is so ludicrously deferential that it's cartoonish:
“I like Elizabeth Warren. [optional],” the script begins, according to Politico. “In fact, she’s my second choice. But here’s my concern about her.” The script then questions Warren’s ability to get elected based on her base’s demographics, reading, “People who support her are highly educated, more affluent people who are going to show up and vote Democratic no matter what” and “She's bringing no new bases into the Democratic Party.”
“We need to turn out disaffected working-class voters if we’re going to beat Trump,” the script’s section on Warren concludes.
This is the liberal media manufacturing in-fighting.
1. Sanders. Consistency, leadership, courage. He has emerged as not just a great senator, but a presidential man with only a few relatively bad but not deal-breaking ethics problems, like the failure to account for the nastiness of many of his supporters and the scandal around transparency in the hiring of Sirota. His major drawback is that he is a socialist, and this is untested in the modern American electorate. This should not be understated as a liability with swing voters. On the other side of that coin, his major strength is working class solidarity, which is an asset with that same set of people. It is very difficult to predict with any confidence how that will wash out, as it increases the variance of the vote. But all in all, the man has had his heart in the right place for the longest time, and most importantly, his least-realistic positions are also the ones the POTUS has the least control over. On positions where the POTUS has a lot of say, he's solid.
2. Buttigieg
3. Biden
4. Warren
And I'll be happy enough with any of them. I'm too tired to write why Buttigieg and Biden are 2/3, but it's basically that I prefer the moderate approach from the center, their strength in the Trump matchup, and they are both plenty left enough imo. Some drawbacks include inevitable compromise where lots of liberals don't want compromise, but strengths include realism and the potential for bipartisanship should Republicans ever decide to engage in reciprocal altruism ever again. Warren is somebody I've lost a lot of confidence in for a number of reasons related to the weakness of her character. But she's a million times the man Donald Trump is, regardless, so I keep my criticism in perspective.
1. Sanders. Consistency, leadership, courage. He has emerged as not just a great senator, but a presidential man with only a few relatively bad but not deal-breaking ethics problems, like the failure to account for the nastiness of many of his supporters and the scandal around transparency in the hiring of Sirota. His major drawback is that he is a socialist, and this is untested in the modern American electorate. This should not be understated as a liability with swing voters. On the other side of that coin, his major strength is working class solidarity, which is an asset with that same set of people. It is very difficult to predict with any confidence how that will wash out, as it increases the variance of the vote. But all in all, the man has had his heart in the right place for the longest time, and most importantly, his least-realistic positions are also the ones the POTUS has the least control over. On positions where the POTUS has a lot of say, he's solid.
2. Buttigieg
3. Biden
4. Warren
And I'll be happy enough with any of them. I'm too tired to write why Buttigieg and Biden are 2/3, but it's basically that I prefer the moderate approach from the center, their strength in the Trump matchup, and they are both plenty left enough imo. Some drawbacks include inevitable compromise where lots of liberals don't want compromise, but strengths include realism and the potential for bipartisanship should Republicans ever decide to engage in reciprocal altruism ever again. Warren is somebody I've lost a lot of confidence in for a number of reasons related to the weakness of her character. But she's a million times the man Donald Trump is, regardless, so I keep my criticism in perspective.
Too late to go backwards on how you guys handled Trotsky, lol. Sanders is still not even eligible to win the nomination as well. Butt ahead of Biden is also a pipe dream.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think any Member of this body disagrees that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant, a murderer, and a man who has started two wars. He is clearly someone who cannot be trusted or believed. The question, Mr. Speaker, is not whether we like Saddam Hussein or not. The question is whether he represents an imminent threat to the American people and whether a unilateral invasion of Iraq will do more harm than good.
Mr. Speaker, the front page of The Washington Post today reported that all relevant U.S. intelligence agencies now say despite what we have heard from the White House that ``Saddam Hussein is unlikely to initiate a chemical or biological attack against the United States.'' Even more importantly, our intelligence agencies say that should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he might at that point launch a chemical or biological counterattack. In other words, there is more danger of an attack on the United States if we launch a precipitous invasion.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the President feels, despite what our intelligence agencies are saying, that it is so important to pass a resolution of this magnitude this week and why it is necessary to go forward without the support of the United Nations and our major allies including those who are fighting side by side with us in the war on terrorism.
...
Mr. Speaker, in the brief time I have, let me give five reasons why I am opposed to giving the President a blank check to launch a unilateral invasion and occupation of Iraq and why I will vote against this resolution. One, I have not heard any estimates of how many young American men and women might die in such a war or how many tens of thousands of women and children in Iraq might also be killed. As a caring Nation, we should do everything we can to prevent the horrible suffering that a war will cause. War must be the last recourse in international relations, not the first. Second, I am deeply concerned about the precedent that a unilateral invasion of Iraq could establish in terms of international law and the role of the United Nations. If President Bush believes that the U.S. can go to war at any time against any nation, what moral or legal objection could our government raise if another country chose to do the same thing?
Third, the United States is now involved in a very difficult war against international terrorism as we learned tragically on September 11. We are opposed by Osama bin Laden and religious fanatics who are prepared to engage in a kind of warfare that we have never experienced before. I agree with Brent Scowcroft, Republican former National Security Advisor for President George Bush, Sr., who stated, ``An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken.''
Fourth, at a time when this country has a $6 trillion national debt and a growing deficit, we should be clear that a war and a long-term American occupation of Iraq could be extremely expensive.
Fifth, I am concerned about the problems of so-called unintended consequences. Who will govern Iraq when Saddam Hussein is removed and what role will the U.S. play in ensuing a civil war that could develop in that country? Will moderate governments in the region who have large Islamic fundamentalist populations be overthrown and replaced by extremists? Will the bloody conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Authority be exacerbated? And these are just a few of the questions that remain unanswered.
If a unilateral American invasion of Iraq is not the best approach, what should we do? In my view, the U.S. must work with the United Nations to make certain within clearly defined timelines that the U.N. inspectors are allowed to do their jobs. These inspectors should undertake an unfettered search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and destroy them when found, pursuant to past U.N. resolutions. If Iraq resists inspection and elimination of stockpiled weapons, we should stand ready to assist the U.N. in forcing compliance.
Is anyone else considering switching parties to vote for Yang?
You could legit never work another day in your life and just train muay thai and MMA in SE Asia and chill on South American and SE Asian beaches forever on a $1000 a month UBI. I'm against UBI in principle, but man that sounds too good to pass up. Consider my vote bought.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think any Member of this body disagrees that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant, a murderer, and a man who has started two wars. He is clearly someone who cannot be trusted or believed. The question, Mr. Speaker, is not whether we like Saddam Hussein or not. The question is whether he represents an imminent threat to the American people and whether a unilateral invasion of Iraq will do more harm than good.
Mr. Speaker, the front page of The Washington Post today reported that all relevant U.S. intelligence agencies now say despite what we have heard from the White House that ``Saddam Hussein is unlikely to initiate a chemical or biological attack against the United States.'' Even more importantly, our intelligence agencies say that should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he might at that point launch a chemical or biological counterattack. In other words, there is more danger of an attack on the United States if we launch a precipitous invasion.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the President feels, despite what our intelligence agencies are saying, that it is so important to pass a resolution of this magnitude this week and why it is necessary to go forward without the support of the United Nations and our major allies including those who are fighting side by side with us in the war on terrorism.
...
Mr. Speaker, in the brief time I have, let me give five reasons why I am opposed to giving the President a blank check to launch a unilateral invasion and occupation of Iraq and why I will vote against this resolution. One, I have not heard any estimates of how many young American men and women might die in such a war or how many tens of thousands of women and children in Iraq might also be killed. As a caring Nation, we should do everything we can to prevent the horrible suffering that a war will cause. War must be the last recourse in international relations, not the first. Second, I am deeply concerned about the precedent that a unilateral invasion of Iraq could establish in terms of international law and the role of the United Nations. If President Bush believes that the U.S. can go to war at any time against any nation, what moral or legal objection could our government raise if another country chose to do the same thing?
Third, the United States is now involved in a very difficult war against international terrorism as we learned tragically on September 11. We are opposed by Osama bin Laden and religious fanatics who are prepared to engage in a kind of warfare that we have never experienced before. I agree with Brent Scowcroft, Republican former National Security Advisor for President George Bush, Sr., who stated, ``An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken.''
Fourth, at a time when this country has a $6 trillion national debt and a growing deficit, we should be clear that a war and a long-term American occupation of Iraq could be extremely expensive.
Fifth, I am concerned about the problems of so-called unintended consequences. Who will govern Iraq when Saddam Hussein is removed and what role will the U.S. play in ensuing a civil war that could develop in that country? Will moderate governments in the region who have large Islamic fundamentalist populations be overthrown and replaced by extremists? Will the bloody conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Authority be exacerbated? And these are just a few of the questions that remain unanswered.
If a unilateral American invasion of Iraq is not the best approach, what should we do? In my view, the U.S. must work with the United Nations to make certain within clearly defined timelines that the U.N. inspectors are allowed to do their jobs. These inspectors should undertake an unfettered search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and destroy them when found, pursuant to past U.N. resolutions. If Iraq resists inspection and elimination of stockpiled weapons, we should stand ready to assist the U.N. in forcing compliance.
Interview with panel of 11 Pennsylvania Obama->Trump swing voters. All of them are familiar with Biden and know the town Biden grew up in. 11 of 11 say they feel no warmth or affinity toward Biden. They say they don't care that he was born in Scranton, PA because he left PA at a young age. One of them says Biden creeps him out.
I have been very skeptical of US foreign policy since I was a boy.
With Trump's assassination of Soleimani, the urgency of a re-alignment of US foreign policy became even clearer to me. I am now strongly considering supporting Bernard Sanders in both the Democratic primary and the 2020 general election. I believe that, of the major candidates, only Bernard Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard can be trusted to re-think US policy toward the Middle East. I have serious differences with Sanders on domestic policy, but most of the president's power in our current (broken) system lies in foreign policy. I could write an essay here but I'll spare you.
Too late to go backwards on how you guys handled Trotsky, lol. Sanders is still not even eligible to win the nomination as well. Butt ahead of Biden is also a pipe dream.
The fact that Sketch prefers Biden over Sanders says a lot about the real concern that Trump supporters have over Sanders in the general. Trumps recent comments about Sanders he faced a rare blowback on his Twitter.
Biden is so reviled on Twitter Trump has an easier time pointing out Bidens problems. I still wish if the opportunity comes Sanders picks Gabbard as his VP. She would be a powerful ally to take Trump to task.
Bernie is bringing' the ruckus! I love it. Say what you want about him, I was a pro Trumper type sick of the establishment, but Bernie has really stuck by his guns, kooky or not. Ive no doubt he will walk the talk and won't fill his cabinet with the same ilk that everyone from Bush to Obama and Trump have. He will actually be for the middle class, the working folk, the anti war agenda, and the only one with something to fear are the oligarchs that ha e got this country in a mess in the first place. Bernie will be the best option for 95-99% of Americans, tho Oper normal, most vote for everything except their interest - poor people voting for billionaire agendas, anti war voting for war hawks and sick broke health careless types voting for the private insurance sporting types that make health care a non human right.
This is embarrassing. Bernie has never accomplished anything of significance in Washington. A hypothetical presidential term will not change that. I can guarantee you that.
You know presidents don’t have magic wands, right?
Interview with panel of 11 Pennsylvania Obama->Trump swing voters. All of them are familiar with Biden and know the town Biden grew up in. 11 of 11 say they feel no warmth or affinity toward Biden. They say they don't care that he was born in Scranton, PA because he left PA at a young age. One of them says Biden creeps him out.
I have been very skeptical of US foreign policy since I was a boy.
With Trump's assassination of Soleimani, the urgency of a re-alignment of US foreign policy became even clearer to me. I am now strongly considering supporting Bernard Sanders in both the Democratic primary and the 2020 general election. I believe that, of the major candidates, only Bernard Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard can be trusted to re-think US policy toward the Middle East. I have serious differences with Sanders on domestic policy, but most of the president's power in our current (broken) system lies in foreign policy. I could write an essay here but I'll spare you.
Sure. The number of US military bases across the world has increased under every US president since Clinton. I will bet you that this number will be lower after 4 or 8 years of the Sanders White House than on the day that Sanders enters office.
Sure. The number of US military bases across the world has increased under every US president since Clinton. I will bet you that this number will be lower after 4 or 8 years of the Sanders White House than on the day that Sanders enters office.
From what I heard, the “commune” was during Sanders’ college days and he got kicked out because his lazy room mates wanted to sit around and talk about politics all day while he was putting in the work of organizing and meeting real people, I.e. not hippy anarkids.
Politics is war via other means, and if you show mercy to your enemies, it WILL be perceived as a sign of weakness. And Sanders has the most rabid, backwards, and reactionary enemies out of any candidate running for office in the whole country. Philistine is an understatement to describe Trump’s MAGA base, we’re talking about people who can’t be reasoned with and only respect strength. We have to learn how to fight dirty, save the Catholicism and preaching for the ‘high and mighty’ liberals who lost the white house and senate in 2016 and clearly want to do it again.
Interview with panel of 11 Pennsylvania Obama->Trump swing voters. All of them are familiar with Biden and know the town Biden grew up in. 11 of 11 say they feel no warmth or affinity toward Biden. They say they don't care that he was born in Scranton, PA because he left PA at a young age. One of them says Biden creeps him out.
I have been very skeptical of US foreign policy since I was a boy.
With Trump's assassination of Soleimani, the urgency of a re-alignment of US foreign policy became even clearer to me. I am now strongly considering supporting Bernard Sanders in both the Democratic primary and the 2020 general election. I believe that, of the major candidates, only Bernard Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard can be trusted to re-think US policy toward the Middle East. I have serious differences with Sanders on domestic policy, but most of the president's power in our current (broken) system lies in foreign policy. I could write an essay here but I'll spare you.
I'm glad to see that video, because it echoes my sentiments.
I'm a swing voter and Biden doesn't appeal to me at all. I don't understand why people are determined to believe that he is the best chance at getting independent votes. Any Independents who voted Trump over Hillary are obviously anti-establishment to some extent.
Violence/Genocide: Do not condone violence or genocide on a person or group of people. You are free to attack a person or groups ideas but you are crossing the line when calling for violence. This will be heavily enforced in threads with breaking news involving victims.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.