Bernie Sanders' Troubling History of Supporting US Military Violence Abroad

You want to keep pretending that Clinton and Sanders are largely alike re foreign policy and military intervention, have it, keep going with that fiction, but it's silly and obvious to most people, not just here at DU, but in the real world:

If Hillary Clinton wins her party's nomination, she'll be the most hawkish Democratic nominee since the Iraq War began.

If Clinton skates to victory, she will take a more aggressive approach to world politics, pulling the party in a new direction without much of a debate. And if she were to win the presidency, both the party and American foreign policy itself could change in a big way.

In mid-2009, then�Secretary of State Clinton was one of the key forces in the Obama administration advocating for a "surge" of new troops to Afghanistan. At the time, Gallup found that 62 percent of Democrats opposed sending more troops to the country.

In March 2011, she argued strongly for intervening to stop Muammar Qaddafi's slaughter of rebels in Libya. At the time, 57 percent of Democrats told Pew the US had no responsibility to stop the killing in Libya.

In 2012, Clinton and General David Petraeus presented Obama with a plan for arming the Syrian rebels fighting Bashar al-Assad's regime. Only a tiny minority of Americans � 11 percent � supported the idea, according to a June 2013 NBC/Wall Street Journal. The poll didn't disclose an exact partisan breakdown, but Democrats and Republicans broadly agreed: "whether you voted for Romney or Obama, they have the same opinion on Syria," Bill McInturff, one of the pollsters who conducted the poll, said.

have been conducted with unprecedented secrecy and explained that congressional access to the draft is so limited that the "access" congresscritters have is virtually useless. Barbara Boxer, Sherrod Brown and many others have addressed this.

There is nothing remotely tacky, dahling, about his consistency in attacking the intersection between big money and politics- and that's precisely what the Clinton Foundation illustrates. He's been addressing this issue for years and it would have been cowardly of him to pretend it doesn't exist with the Foundation. What's tacky? Dishonest and misleading bullshit like your crap about the TPP and your denial re the Clinton Foundation, big money and politics.

On June 7, a panel of federal judges ruled that international trade deals can be exempted from federal disclosure laws. This decision, coupled with the unprecedented secrecy surrounding the negotiations of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (which kicks off the 18th round of negotiations in two weeks), strips the American people of their voice and overrides the principle that public support or opposition of such agreements should guide U.S. policy.

Last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled to keep secret a document that revealed U.S. positions on international trade negotiations that impact public health and the environment. The court ruled that the document was "properly classified" in the interest of "national defense or foreign policy" and that these concerns superseded any public interest in the document. The court's decision has dangerous implications for Americans, as it means that the public loses the ability to effectively weigh in on public policy decisions with significant quality-of-life impacts.

The case dates back to 2001, when the Center for International Environmental Law, a nonprofit public interest law organization, filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) for documents related to negotiations on investment provisions in the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). FTAA was a proposed but abandoned agreement to extend NAFTA-type rules and eliminate trade barriers among all countries in the Americas except Cuba. The specific document in question includes U.S. positions on "most favored nation" and "national treatment," which grants foreign investors in countries that are parties to the agreement the same trade advantages as U.S. investors.

The unprecedented secrecy surrounding the content of these agreements has resulted in campaigns across all the Trans-Pacific countries, including the United States, to educate the public about the potential impacts of this agreement and demand that governments release the working texts of the trade agreement. In addition, advocates have asked for the release of any documents negotiating countries signed to establish the restrictive classification.

In February 2012, over 20 public interest organizations wrote to President Obama, requesting that the administration fulfill its pledge to greater transparency and release draft negotiating texts. This followed an October 2011 public interest letter to U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk, asking for the creation of a joint website with other countries that would include all documents related to the negotiations, including contact information for key negotiating personnel.

Why All the Secrecy?

No other trade agreement has been classified as top secret for National security purposes. But this is setting precedent and it's the future.

55. Please stop making stuff up. he is definitely not to the right of Clinton on Israel

Below, I PROVE your claim is FALSE. Not that I expect you to stop making stuff up.

Mitch McConnell did it, Harry Reid didn�t. Elizabeth Warren did it, Bernie Sanders didn�t. Al Franken did it, Tom Coburn didn�t.

72. I may be mistaken on Hillary but he does appear to be right of the President.

Regardless I would think any real progressive would not be so pro Isreal especially in regards to Palestine.

73. I'd say he's almost exactly where the President is

but I think that President Obama is constrained by being President. I think he can do a lot of good by speaking out more post-Presidency.

As for "real" progressives, there isn't a solitary member of congress who isn't pro-Israel. Even Ellison has frequently stated that he's pro-Israel.

Are you suggesting that every Progressive in Congress isn't a "real" Progressive because they're pro-Israel? That seems like a rather desperate stretch on your part to cast Bernie as not being a "real" progressive. I suggest you give up that approach. It just looks silly. There are things to criticize Bernie about, but this isn't a good one.

Are you suggesting that every Progressive in Congress isn't a "real" Progressive because they're pro-Israel?

Because the Kosovo bombing and invasion was a PNAC war. This is not a conspiracy theory, it is a fact.

Reminders of Kosovo
13 December 2004

Don't forget Yugoslavia
14 August 2008

The Bernie/Kosovo thing is almost a deal breaker but Bernie is THE ONLY HOPE (so far) for the working man. That's why I'm volunteering for him. No candidate is perfect- as we all are reminded of daily by supporters of other candidates. And Hillary is much more of a warmonger than Bernie. She supposedly was instrumental in getting Bill to start bombing in the first place.

And you don't "help" people by dropping bombs on Chinese Embassies, Nursing homes, Marketplaces, Bridges, Trains or TV stations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War%23Casualties

Even Henry Kissinger said the US "Provoked" the war and the Rambouillet accords (changed at the last minute) were something no nation could sign on to.

The Rambouillet text, which called on Serbia to admit NATO troops throughout Yugoslavia, was a provocation, an excuse to start bombing. Rambouillet is not a document that any Serb could have accepted. It was a terrible diplomatic document that should never have been presented in that form.
�Henry Kissinger, Daily Telegraph, June 28, 1999
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger

We all need to start treating these people like employees instead of "leaders".

WART Auto (IWR) 2016 v1.8 cracked Free Download

WART Auto (IWR) 2016 v1.8 cracked FREE DOWNLOAD