Bernie Sanders running for preznit?

[82_28]

20,000 in Key Arena and "several thousand" outside who couldn't get in going down now here in Seattle.

[82_28]

[JackRiddler]

They ought to let Washington and Oregon have more delegates!

[82_28]

Billary meanwhile was holding a fundraiser something or another across the lake in Medina. One of the most exclusive hoods in the world. It's where Bill Gates lives among others. I would imagine she is conceding she can't win here. We'll have to see.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medina,_Washington

[backtoiam]

I would imagine she is conceding she can't win here.

Shit...I dunno, maybe so, but I can assure you that they haven't even begun to eat Trump's ass up yet. This party is just getting started probably. Over the next few months they may eat his ass alive.

[82_28]

In truth, it appears it was not 20K in the arena, looks like the upper deck was closed off from pictures.

http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-sand ... crowd-yet/

I dunno. Wasn't there but it was huge.

[82_28]

Here's my unorthodox takeaway from the rally here. Sanders is like the teacher/professor that everyone wanted to take her/his classes. No matter how hard and gruelling the class, the papers you had to write. He seems to me an educator. Win or lose, I couldn't help but think that the young-uns were getting a vital civics lesson rather than a campaign speech. Very important that there is someone of his stature to demonstrate the actual force that someone can be "establishment" yet can can be good, forceful, fair and utterly disgusted at the system. In a term, he was teaching a class.

[backtoiam]

AIPAC’s Calling, But Will Bernie Sanders Answer?

Unlike Clinton, Sanders faces a dilemma: speak to AIPAC in benign platitudes which will alienate the least number of its supporters while falling far short of his own progressive values, or turn his back on the invitation and earn the enduring wrath of the Israel lobby?
By Richard Silverstein Follow @richards1052 @richards1052 | March 17, 2016



Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., speaks at a campaign rally at the Phoenix Convention Center in Phoenix, Tuesday, March 15, 2016. (AP Photo/Ricardo Arduengo)

SEATTLE — (Analysis) The annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy conference opens on March 20 in Washington, and a recent petition campaign is calling on one particular candidate to skip the event, which more or less requires candidates to kowtow to the Israel lobby — something other candidates have proven eager to do.

This event is the largest grassroots lobbying gathering of its kind in the nation, and it takes on particular importance in a presidential election year. It gives candidates an opportunity to show off their pro-Israel credentials, and it gives AIPAC an opportunity to flaunt its power by showing the most powerful politicians in the nation coming to pay their respects.

This year, the conference offers both drama and a dilemma for several candidates. It’s not surprising that Hillary Clinton has already accepted her invitation. Thanks to her most important donor, Israeli-American entertainment mogul Haim Saban, AIPAC is a command performance.

But with the other candidates it’s a bit of a crapshoot. For example, the last time Donald Trump spoke before a similar audience, the Republican Jewish Coalition at Sheldon Adelson’s Las Vegas casino, the current GOP frontrunner rattled the nerves of the pro-Israel audience. He told them that he wanted the United States to play an even-handed role in the Israel-Palestine conflict. For Zionists, whose political ear is exceedingly short on subtlety, “even-handed” means insufficiently supportive of Israel. His refusal to promise to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, one of AIPAC’s pet projects, threw pro-Israel Republicans into a quandary, since it’s unprecedented for a Republican presidential candidate to “leave the reservation” in such bold and brazen fashion.

Watch Trump to Jewish group: I’m a negotiator like you:



But Bernie Sanders faces perhaps the biggest test because his own policy on Israel-Palestine, as with his entire foreign policy platform, is so vague and undeveloped. The candidate has two major Achilles heels with his progressive audience: gun control and Israel-Palestine. Considering how bold, even radical, many of his policy provisions are, including criminal justice reform, health care, and economic inequality, it’s surprising that his views on the Middle East are so conventional and centrist.

Sanders offered this two-state pablum in a 2013 Playboy interview:
But Bernie Sanders faces perhaps the biggest test because his own policy on Israel-Palestine, as with his entire foreign policy platform, is so vague and undeveloped. The candidate has two major Achilles heels with his progressive audience: gun control and Israel-Palestine. Considering how bold, even radical, many of his policy provisions are, including criminal justice reform, health care, and economic inequality, it’s surprising that his views on the Middle East are so conventional and centrist.

Sanders offered this two-state pablum in a 2013 Playboy interview:

“The hatred, violence and loss of life that define this conflict make living an ordinary life a constant struggle for both peoples. We must work with those Israeli and Palestinian leaders who are committed to peace, security and statehood rather than to empty rhetoric and violence. A two-state solution must include compromises from both sides to achieve a fair and lasting peace in the region. The Palestinians must fulfill their responsibilities to end terrorism against Israel and recognize Israel’s right to exist. In return, the Israelis must end their policy of targeted killings, prevent further Israeli settlements on Palestinian land and prevent the destruction of Palestinian homes, businesses and infrastructure.”

This is the sort of milquetoast statement any liberal could’ve delivered in 1990, 2000, or 2010. But times have changed. The situation has grown far worse. One side has shown willingness to compromise, while the other has offered only rhetoric — and precious little of it. Yet Sanders’ rhetoric remains mired in a distant past when there was some hope that these “compromises” were possible.

Why Bernie is not progressive on Palestine

There are several important things to understand about Sanders: He is primarily interested in domestic policy, and insofar as he has a foreign policy approach, it’s a conventional liberal Democratic one — opposition to U.S. interventionism and overuse of military force.

Because the Israel-Palestine conflict is so complex, so intractable, and because it has caused many other presidents to throw up their hands in defeat, Sanders prefers not to run his campaign (or his presidency, should he be elected) aground between Scylla and Charybdis. So he mouths the standard liberal Zionist platitudes of a two-state solution and ending illegal Israeli settlements. He adds that he seeks justice for Israelis and Palestinians and an end to suffering on both sides. That and a few bucks will get you a cup of coffee.

Such vagueness and timidity drives pro-Palestine activists and scholars like Steven Salaita crazy. That’s why he wrote “I Won’t Vote for Bernie Sanders,” a piece excoriating the candidate for a foreign policy approach both out of date and out of sync with his progressive base.

Salaita argued:

“Until Sanders states an intention to defund Israel’s occupation, his proclamations about two states will continue to sound perfunctory and disingenuous, dull bromides uttered by a man who otherwise avoids them. And Palestinians will continue to exist as dispensable abstractions in American election drama.”

Sanders’ timid Middle East policy is too liberal for AIPAC

Though the pro-Israel group makes a point of claiming to be bipartisan, it tilts decidedly Republican. AIPAC also has a history of supporting Likudist governments far more effusively than Labor governments. That means that even Sanders’ timid approach of a two-state solution will be anathema to the AIPAC crowd.

To give a speech to the policy conference one must follow a checklist which includes affirming an unshakable U.S. commitment to Israel’s military superiority, expanding military-intelligence cooperation, standing tall against Islamist extremism, and supporting the people of Israel against the terrorist threat.

Even a moderate (on this issue, at least) like Sanders would choke on some of these demands. They go against every bone in his political body. So what could he say to AIPAC? Very little that would permit him to retain his self-respect and leave his audience at all satisfied.


Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., gives a thumbs-up as he finishes his address to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) Policy Conference opening plenary session in Washington, Monday, March 5, 2012. (AP Photo/Cliff Owen)

That’s why Robert Naiman’s Dear Bernie letter in Truthout seems especially naive. In his article, he urges the candidate to use AIPAC to speak truth to power:

“Bernie Sanders could use this opportunity to be a truth-teller to AIPAC. …

Bernie has called for a ‘level playing field’ in US policy towards Israel and the Palestinians, and has called for Israel to ‘end the blockade of Gaza, and cease developing settlements on Palestinian land.’

Calling for a ‘level playing field’ in US policy towards Israel and the Palestinians is a completely reasonable thing for Bernie to say.”

What is reasonable is in the eyes of the beholder. Calling for a level playing field, and an end to settlements and the Gaza siege at a Congressional press conference is one thing. Doing it before 5,000 pro-Israel red meat, true believers is quite another. Sanders would certainly be booed. Whether he would be permitted even to finish his speech is an open question. What’s for certain is that he would be dead meat as far as the Israel lobby is concerned. That means that they would attempt to sabotage his entire political agenda, as well as his Israel-Palestine agenda.


For Sanders to speak to AIPAC is lose-lose proposition

But can he refuse, as Max Blumenthal urges in a petition campaign he launched which has amassed over 4,000 signatures? Alternet further lays out the case for Sanders to turn his back on the lobby.

No doubt, refusing to attend would be the sort of bold and courageous move that Sanders is known for. He recently told the mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, he could take his endorsement of Hillary Clinton and shove it:

“‘Hillary Clinton proudly lists Mayor Rahm Emanuel as one of her leading mayoral endorsers,’ Mr. Sanders said. ‘Well let me be as clear as I can be: based on his disastrous record as mayor of the city of Chicago, I do not want Mayor Emanuel’s endorsement if I win the Democratic nomination.’”

That’s the sort of moral clarity for which his admirers love him.

Watch: Bernie Sanders town hall gives US party line when confronted re: #gaza:



But in defending Israel’s murderous incursions into Gaza, which have cost the lives of thousands of civilians, Sanders has shown little of that moral clarity. In the infamous Vermont town hall video, in which he tells one of his constituents to “shut up” when the questioning gets heated, he displays all of the false moral equivalences of typical liberal Zionist thought. Here’s how a reporter for Bustle described the interaction, in which the questioner asked Sanders about his views on Israel’s bombing of U.N. schools, which killed scores of sheltering civilians:

“… [As] Sanders explained his view — he claimed that Israel ‘overreacted’ and wrongly bombed U.N. facilities, but the country was also faced with Hamas-fired rockets shot from populated areas — he was met with an angry interruption. Before you know it, he was yelling ‘shut up,’ and a woman in the back of the room was yelling ‘F**k Israel!’ It was ugly.”

If Sanders rejects AIPAC, that would resonate with his left-wing base. In doing so, however, he could endanger his domestic policy agenda because he would alienate at least a portion of the liberal Democrats he feels he needs to advance his main priorities.

This leaves Sanders with a major dilemma: speak to AIPAC in benign platitudes which will alienate the least number of its supporters while falling far short of his own progressive values, or turn his back on the invitation and earn the enduring wrath of the Israel lobby?

In some sense, this is precisely the sort of predicament AIPAC wants him to face. The group has been pursuing its agenda for 60 years and it is nothing if not practiced in the art of putting politicians’ backs to the wall in support of Israel.

In AIPAC’s view, there is only one satisfactory posture for a U.S. politician: supplicant on bended knee. There are no compromises when it comes to Israel. You’re not with the lobby one day and permitted to vote your conscience the next. The national policy conference is meant to be the pro-Israel equivalent of the “come-to-Jesus” moment. I don’t envy Sanders the choice he will have to make: will he or won’t he?


American Jewish Leaders Increasingly Angry over Aipac’s Invitation to Trump

Aipac itself faces an increasing dilemma over its invitation to Trump to speak at the conference. He, of course, is delighted to burnish his credentials in the Jewish community, a constituency in which he has almost no friends (except for Sheldon Adelson, apparently). But an enormous conflagration has erupted among mainstream Jewish organizations which have roundly, and almost universally condemned the move. The editor of the Los Angeles Jewish Journal wrote: “By giving Trump a platform without taking a stand on outright hate speech, AIPAC is helping to fuel this discord. That’s the core moral mistake AIPAC is making.” Haaretz contributor, Peter Beinart, asked pointedly if Aipac would invite a presidential candidate who urged banning Jews from entering the U.S. While the Reform movement, the most liberal of Jewish denominations, did not condemn the invitation outright, it made its opposition clear:

“Jewish history is replete with times when political leaders, both at home and abroad, demonized the Jewish community much as Mr. Trump now demonizes Muslims, Hispanics, and African-Americans. We, the leadership of the Reform Jewish Movement, believe we must speak up against such hate speech…”


http://www.mintpressnews.com/aipacs-cal ... er/214826/

[backtoiam]

Bernie Sanders Is The Only Candidate Skipping AIPAC
Announcement follows campaign that urged Sanders to not attend meeting by group that promotes 'racist, militaristic, and anti-democratic policies'
By Andrea Germanos | Common Dreams | March 21, 2016



Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., speaks at a campaign rally at the Phoenix Convention Center in Phoenix, Tuesday, March 15, 2016. (AP Photo/Ricardo Arduengo)

Bernie Sanders will be the only 2016 presidential candidate not to address the annual conference of the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which starts Sunday in Washington, D.C..

Sanders sent a letter Friday to AIPAC President Robert Cohen saying that “the campaign schedule that we have prevents me from attending,” and, “the best that I can do is to send you a copy of the remarks that I would have given if I was able to attend.” The campaign posted the letter (pdf) in full.

All the presidential candidates were invited, and

Hillary Clinton was the first to confirm, with Donald Trump following closely behind her. Clinton has made her ardent support for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a cornerstone of her campaign – and vowed in a letter to mega-donor media mogul Haim Saban to crush the grassroots BDS movement calling for the boycott, divestment and sanctioning of Israel.

California-based human rights group Jewish Voice for Peace also stated Friday:

Many of the most alarming statements and policy proposals Donald Trump has made are already reality in Israel, and supported by AIPAC. Israel already refuses to open its doors to Syrian refugees (many of whom are of Palestinian origin), allows privileged immigration status for one religious group over others, is building highly militarized walls on all of its borders, and allows a demagogue leader to get away with using blatant racism to get votes.

Sanders’ campaign communications director Michael Briggs said an offer to address the conference via video link was rejected, according to reporting by The Intercept. The news outlet also notes that AIPAC did make that allowance for Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich during the 2012 presidential campaign.

AIPAC has been met with repeated fierce criticisms over its stances, including its efforts to derail U.S. diplomatic efforts with Iran, its push for military intervention in Syria, and itssupport for Israeli invasions and siege of Gaza.

A change.org petition started by journalist Max Blumenthal had urged Sanders to reject the conference fully. It states:

As the main arm of the pro-Israel lobby in the United States, AIPAC has sworn to promote the racist, militaristic, and anti-democratic policies of the most right-wing government in Israel’s history. Its conference this year will featureIslamophobes, anti-immigrant activists, and religious extremists. With his promise to seek a “level playing field” on Israel-Palestine, Bernie does not belong on the same stage as these figures.

And that promise, Murtaza Hussain wrote at The Intercept, “makes him an outlier in the presidential race.”

“Regardless of any spin he’s offering,” Blumenthal told Salon, “I think Sanders recognized that sharing a stage with bigots at AIPAC and apartheid lobbyists would be anathema to his hardcore base of support.”

Read the full letter by the Sanders campaign below:

March 18, 2016
President Robert Cohen
American Israel Public Affairs Committee
251 H Street NW
Washington, D

Dear Bob,

I enjoyed the opportunity to chat with you this morning.

As I mentioned, I would very much have enjoyed speaking at the AIPAC conference. Obviously, issues impacting Israel and the Middle East are of the utmost importance to me, to our country and to the world.

Unfortunately, I am going to be traveling throughout the West and the campaign schedule that we have prevents me from attending.

Since AIPAC has chosen not to permit candidates to address the conference remotely, the best that I can do is to send you a copy of the remarks that I would have given if I was able to attend. We should be able to get that speech to you on Monday. Any help that you could give us in getting those remarks out to your members would be much appreciated.

Thanks very much. Hope the conference goes well.

Sincerely,
Senator Bernie Sanders

http://www.mintpressnews.com/214916-2/214916/

[Luther Blissett]

I can't imagine this will hurt him, as some in the mainstream are implying.

[Nordic]

Yeah fuck AIPAC. The vast majority of Americans couldn't even tell you what AIPAC is, nor would they give a shit about it if you told them.

[JackRiddler]

I can't imagine this will hurt him, as some in the mainstream are implying.

Only the mainstream media, and they can hardly cover him any less as punishment.

[backtoiam]

video of speech at bottom of page

I was invited along with other presidential candidates to be at the AIPAC conference in Washington, but obviously I could not make it because we are here.

The issues that AIPAC is dealing with are very important issues and I wanted to give the same speech here as I would have given if we were at that conference.

Let me begin by saying that I think I am probably the only candidate for president who has personal ties with Israel. I spent a number of months there when I was a young man on a kibbutz, so I know a little bit about Israel.

Clearly, the United States and Israel are united by historical ties. We are united by culture. We are united by our values, including a deep commitment to democratic principles, civil rights and the rule of law.

Israel is one of America’s closest allies, and we – as a nation – are committed not just to guaranteeing Israel’s survival, but also to make sure that its people have a right to live in peace and security.

To my mind, as friends – long term friends with Israel – we are obligated to speak the truth as we see it. That is what real friendship demands, especially in difficult times.

Our disagreements will come and go, and we must weather them constructively.

But it is important among friends to be honest and truthful about differences that we may have.

America and Israel have faced great challenges together. We have supported each other, and we will continue to do just that as we face a very daunting challenge and that is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I am here to tell the American people that, if elected president, I will work tirelessly to advance the cause of peace as a partner and as a friend to Israel.

But to be successful, we have also got to be a friend not only to Israel, but to the Palestinian people, where in Gaza unemployment today is 44 percent and we have there a poverty rate which is almost as high.

So when we talk about Israel and Palestinian areas, it is important to understand that today there is a whole lot of among Palestinians and that cannot be ignored. You can’t have good policy that results in peace if you ignore one side.

The road toward peace will be difficult. Wonderful people, well-intentioned people have tried decade after decade to achieve that and it will not be easy. I cannot tell you exactly how it will look – I do not believe anyone can – but I firmly believe that the only prospect for peace is the successful negotiation of a two-state solution.

The first step in that road ahead is to set the stage for resuming the peace process through direct negotiations.

Progress is never made unless people are prepared to sit down and talk to each other. This is no small thing. It means building confidence on both sides, offering some signs of good faith, and then proceeding to talks when conditions permit them to be constructive. Again, this is not easy, but that is the direction we’ve got to go.

This will require compromises on both sides, but I believe it can be done. I believe that Israel, the Palestinians, and the international community can, must, and will rise to the ocassion and do what needs to be done to achieve a lasting peace in a region of the world that has seen so much war, so much conflict and so much suffering.

Peace will require the unconditional recognition by all people of Israel’s right to exist. It will require an end to attacks of all kinds against Israel.

Peace will require that organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah renounce their efforts to undermine the security of Israel. It will require the entire world to recognize Israel.

Peace has to mean security for every Israeli from violence and terrorism.

But peace also means security for every Palestinian. It means achieving self-determination, civil rights, and economic well-being for the Palestinian people.

Peace will mean ending what amounts to the occupation of Palestinian territory, establishing mutually agreed upon borders, and pulling back settlements in the West Bank, just as Israel did in Gaza – once considered an unthinkable move on Israel’s part.

That is why I join much of the international community, including the U.S. State Department and European Union, in voicing my concern that Israel’s recent expropriation of an additional 579 acres of land in the West Bank undermines the peace process and, ultimately, Israeli security as well.

It is absurd for elements within the Netanyahu government to suggest that building more settlements in the West Bank is the appropriate response to the most recent violence. It is also not acceptable that the Netanyahu government decided to withhold hundreds of millions of Shekels in tax revenue from the Palestinians, which it is supposed to collect on their behalf.

But, by the same token, it is also unacceptable for President Abbas to call for the abrogation of the Oslo Agreement when the goal should be the ending of violence.

Peace will also mean ending the economic blockade of Gaza. And it will mean a sustainable and equitable distribution of precious water resources so that Israel and Palestine can both thrive as neighbors.

Right now, Israel controls 80 percent of the water reserves in the West Bank. Inadequate water supply has contributed to the degradation and desertification of Palestinian land. A lasting a peace will have to recognize Palestinians are entitled to control their own lives and there is nothing human life needs more than water.

Peace will require strict adherence by both sides to the tenets of international humanitarian law. This includes Israeli ending disproportionate responses to being attacked – even though any attack on Israel is unacceptable.

We recently saw a dramatic example of just how important this concept is. In 2014, the decades-old conflict escalated once more as Israel launched a major military campaign against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. The Israeli offensive came after weeks of indiscriminate rocket fire into its territory and the kidnapping of Israeli citizens.

Of course, I strongly object to Hamas’ long held position that Israel does not have the right to exist – that is unacceptable. Of course, I strongly condemn indiscriminate rocket fire by Hamas into Israeli territory, and Hamas’ use of civilian neighborhoods to launch those attacks. I condemn the fact that Hamas diverted funds and materials for much-needed construction projects designed to improve the quality of life of the Palestinian people, and instead used those funds to construct a network of tunnels for military purposes.

However, let me also be very clear: I – along with many supporters of Israel – spoke out strongly against the Israeli counter attacks that killed nearly 1,500 civilians and wounded thousands more. I condemned the bombing of hospitals, schools and refugee camps.

Today, Gaza is still largely in ruins. The international community must come together to help Gaza recover. That doesn’t mean rebuilding factories that produce bombs and missiles – but it does mean rebuilding schools, homes and
hospitals that are vital to the future of the Palestinian people.

These are difficult subjects. They are hard to talk about both for many Americans and for Israelis. I recognize that, but it is clear to me that the path toward peace will require tapping into our shared humanity to make hard but just decisions.

Nobody can tell you when peace will be achieved between Israel and the Palestinians. No one knows the exact order that compromises will have to be made to reach a viable two-state solution. But as we undertake that work together, the United States will continue its unwavering commitment to the safety of Israeli citizens and the country of Israel.

Let me just say a word about an overall agenda for the Middle East.

Of course, beyond the Palestinian question, Israel finds itself in the midst of a region in severe upheaval.

First, the so-called Islamic State – ISIS – threatens the security of the entire region and beyond, including our own country and our allies. Secretary of State Kerry was right to say that ISIS is committing genocide, and there is no doubt in my mind that the United States must continue to participate in an international coalition to destroy this barbaric organization.

While obviously much needs to be done, so far our effort has had some important progress, as airstrikes have degraded ISIS’ military capacity, and the group has lost more than 20 percent of its territory in the past year.
So we are making some progress.

But we are entering a difficult period in the campaign against ISIS.

The government in Baghdad has yet to achieve a sustainable political order that unites Iraq’s various ethnic and sectarian factions, which has limited its ability to sustain military victories against ISIS. Unless there is a united government, it’s going to be hard to be effective in destroying ISIS.

More inclusive, stable governance in Iraq will be vital to inflict a lasting defeat on ISIS. Otherwise, ISIS could regain its influence or another, similar organization may spring up in its place.

In Syria, the challenges are even more difficult. The fractured nature of the civil war there has often diluted the fight against ISIS – exemplified by the Russian airstrikes that prioritized hitting anti-Assad fighters rather than ISIS. And, just like in Iraq, ISIS cannot be defeated until the groups that take territory from ISIS can responsibly govern the areas they take back. Ultimately, this will require a political framework for all of Syria.

The U.S. must also play a greater role disrupting the financing of ISIS and efforts on the Internet to turn disaffected youth into a new generation of terrorists.

While the U.S. has an important role to play in defeating ISIS, that struggle must be led by the Muslim countries themselves on the ground. I agree with King Abdullah of Jordan who a number of months ago that what is going on there right now is nothing less than a battle for the soul of Islam and the only people who will effectively destroy ISIS there will be Muslim troops on the ground.

So what we need is a coalition of those countries.

Now, I am not suggesting that Saudi Arabia or any other states in the region invade other countries, nor unilaterally intervene in conflicts driven in part by sectarian tensions.

What I am saying is that the major powers in the region – especially the Gulf States – have to take greater responsibility for the future of the Middle East and the defeat of ISIS.

What I am saying is that countries like Qatar – which intends to spend up to $200 billion to host the 2022 World Cup – Qatar which per capita is the wealthiest nation in the world – Qatar can do more to contribute to the fight Against ISIS. If they are prepared to spend $200 billion for a soccer tournament, then they have got to spend a lot spend a lot more against a barbaric organization.

What I am also saying is that other countries in the region – like Saudi Arabia, which has the 4th largest defense budget in the world – has to dedicate itself more fully to the destruction of ISIS, instead of other military adventures like the one it is pursuing right now in Yemen.

And keep in mind that while ISIS is obviously a dangerous and formidable enemy, ISIS has only 30,000 fighters on the ground. So when we ask the nations in the region to stand up to do more against ISIS – nations in the region which have millions of men and women under arms – we know it is surely within their capability to destroy ISIS.

Now the United States has every right in the world to insist on these points. Remember – I want everybody to remember – that not so many years ago it was the United States and our troops that reinstalled the royal family in Kuwait after Saddam Hussein’s invasion in 1990. We put these people back on the throne. Now they have the obligation to work with us and other countries to destroy ISIS.

The very wealthy – and some of these countries are extraordinarily wealthy from oil money or gas money – these very wealthy and powerful nations in the region can no longer expect the United States to do their work for them. Uncle Sam cannot and should not do it all. We are not the policeman of the world.

As we continue a strongly coordinated effort against ISIS, the United States and other western nations should be supportive of efforts to fight ISIS and al-Qaeda. But it is the countries in the region that have to stand up against these violently extremist and brutal organizations.

Now I realize that given the geopolitics of the region this is not going to be easy. I realize that there are very strong and historical disagreements between different countries in the region about how ISIS should be dealt with.

I realize different countries have different priorities. But we can help set the agenda and mobilize stronger collective action to defeat ISIS in a lasting way.

Bottom line is the countries in the region – countries which by the way are most threatened by ISIS – they’re going to have to come together, they’re going to have to work out their compromises, they are going to have to lead the effort with the support of the United States and other major powers in destroying ISIS.

Another major challenge in the region, of course, is the Syrian Civil War itself – one of the worst humanitarian disasters in recent history.

After five years of brutal conflict, the only solution in Syria will be, in my view, a negotiated political settlement. Those who advocate for stronger military involvement by the U.S. to oust Assad from power have not paid close enough attention to history. That would simply prolong the war and increase the chaos in Syria, not end it.

In other words, we all recognize that Assad is a brutal dictator. But I think that our priorities right now have got to be destroy ISIS, work out a political settlement with Russia and Iran to get Assad out of power.

I applaud Secretary Kerry and the Obama administration for negotiating a partial ceasefire between the Assad regime and most opposition forces. The ceasefire shows the value of American-led diplomacy, rather than escalating violence. It may not seem like a lot, but it is. Diplomacy in this instance has had some real success.

Let me also say what I think most Americans now understand, that for a great military power like the United States it is easy to use a war to remove a tyrant from power, but it is much more difficult to comprehend the day after that tyrant is removed from power and a political vacuum occurs.

All of us know what has occurred in Iraq. We got rid of Saddam Hussein, a brutal, brutal murderer and a tyrant. And yet we created massive instability in that region which led to the creation of ISIS. I am very proud to have been one of the members in Congress to vote against that disastrous war.

And the situation is not totally dissimilar from what has happened in Libya. We got rid of a terrible dictator there, Colonel Gaddafi, but right now chaos has erupted and ISIS now has a foothold in that area.

Bottom line is that regime change for a major power like us is not hard. But understanding what happens afterward is something that always has got to be taken into consideration.

In my view, the military option for a powerful nation like ours – the most powerful nation in the world – should always be on the table. That’s why we have the most powerful military in the world. But it should always be the last resort not the first resort.

Another major challenge in the region is Iran, which routinely destabilizes the Middle East and threatens the security of Israel.

Now, I think all of us agree that Iran must not be able to acquire a nuclear weapon. That would just destabilize the entire region and create disastrous consequences.

Where we may disagree is how to achieve that goal. I personally strongly supported the nuclear deal with the United States, France, China, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom and Iran because I believe it is the best hope to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

I want to thank the Obama administration for doing a very good job under very, very difficult circumstances.

I believe we have an obligation to pursue diplomatic solutions before resorting to military intervention.

You know it is very easy for politicians to go before the people and talk about how tough we are, and we want to wipe out everybody else. But I think if we have learned anything from history is that we pursue every diplomatic option before we resort to military intervention.

And interestingly enough, more often than not, diplomacy can achieve goals that military intervention cannot achieve. And that is why I supported the sanctions that brought Iran to the negotiating table and allowed us to reach an agreement.

But let me tell you what I firmly believe. The bottom line is this: if successfully implemented – and I think it can be – the nuclear deal will prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. And preventing Iran from getting the bomb makes the world a safer place.

Does the agreement achieve everything I would like? Of course not.

But to my mind, it is far better than the path we were on with Iran developing nuclear weapons and the potential for military intervention by the United States and Israel growing greater by the day.

I do not accept the idea that the “pro-Israel” position was to oppose the deal.
Preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon will strengthen not only the United States’ security, but Israel’s security as well.

And I am not alone in that idea. While Prime Minister Netanyahu is vocally opposed to the accord, his is hardly a consensus opinion in Israel and it’s important that everyone understand that. Dozens of former security officials, including retired Army generals and chiefs of the Shin Bet and Mossad intelligence agencies support the agreement. Netanyahu may not, but many others in Israel do.

But let me be clear: if Iran does not live up to the agreement, we should re-impose sanctions and all options are back on the table.

Moreover, the deal does not mean we let Iran’s aggressive acts go unchecked. The world must stand united in condemning Iran’s recent ballistic missile tests as well as its continued support for terrorism through groups like Hezbollah.

Going forward, I believe we need a longer-term vision for dealing with Iran that balances two important objectives.

First, we must counter the destabilizing behavior of Iran’s leaders.

But secondly we must also leave the door open to more diplomacy to encourage Iranian moderates and the segments of the Iranian people – especially the younger generations – who want a better relationship with the West. While only a small step in the right direction, I was heartened by the results of the recent parliamentary elections in which Iranian voters elected moderates in what was, in part, a referendum on the nuclear deal.

I know that some say there is just no dealing with Iran – in any way at all – for the foreseeable future. And that is the position of some. After all, Iran is in a competition with Saudi Arabia and its allies for influences over that region.

But a more balanced approach toward Iran that serves our national security interests should hardly be a radical idea. We have serious concerns about the nature of the Iranian government, but we have to honest enough, and sometimes we are not, to admit that Saudi Arabia – a repressive regime in its own right – is hardly an example of Jeffersonian democracy.

Balancing firmness with willingness to engage with diplomacy in dealing with Iran will not be easy. But it is the wisest course of action to help improve the long-term prospects of stability and peace in the Middle East – and to keep us safe.

Lastly, these are but some – not all – of the major issues where the interests of Israel intersect with those of the United States. I would address these issues and challenges as I would most issues and that is by having an honest discussion and by bringing people together.

The truth is there are good people on both sides who want peace, And the other truth is there despots and liars on both sides who benefit from continued antagonism.

I would conclude by saying there has a disturbing trend among some of the Republicans in this presidential election that take a very, very different approach. And their approach I think would be a disaster for this country. The Republican front-runner, Donald Trump, suggested limiting immigration according to religion and creating a national database based on religion – something unprecedented in our country’s history.

Now this would not only go against everything we stand for as a nation, but also – in terms of our relationship to the rest of the world – it would be a disaster.

Let me just conclude by saying this: the issues that I’ve discussed today are not going to be easily solved.

Everybody knows that. But I think the United States has the opportunity, as the the most powerful nation on earth, to play an extraordinary role in trying to bring to people together – to try to put together coalitions in the region to destroy ISIS.

And that is a responsibility that I, if elected president, would accept in a very, very serious way. We have seen too many wars, too much killing, too much suffering. And let us all together – people of good faith – do everything we can to finally, finally bring peace and stability to that region.

Thank you all very much.



https://berniesanders.com/sanders-outli ... st-policy/

[82_28]

He is returning to Seattle for a rally at Safeco field before the caucus. Twice the size of Key Arena. Billary has already said she probably won't win here.

[Project Willow]

Election Fraud in Arizona

Arizona exit polls, and predictions showing Sanders win 2-6%.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/investigate-voter-fraud-and-voter-suppression-arizona-3222016-democratic-party

https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/4blzpp/arizona_is_a_massive_fraud/

Democrat shows her voter registration was inexplicably changed in the system:
"I didn't change it."
"I know, but it was changed. I can change it back to Democrat right now."



https://electionfraud2016.wordpress.com/

http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/arizona-hillary-clintons-election-fraud-masterpiece/ri13524?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork

Arizona: Hillary Clinton’s Election Fraud Masterpiece

The Clinton machine used brazen voter suppression and election fraud to steal Arizona

She stole Iowa, Nevada and Massachusetts – but Arizona is Hillary Clinton’s election fraud masterpiece. Desperate to prevent another “Michigan upset”, Hillary found an ingenious way to guarantee victory in Arizona.

The key to Clinton’s strategy in Arizona was early voting. In Arizona, around 70% of voters cast their ballot by mail. Why is this important? Because of the 297,714 voters who have already cast their ballots—174,706 were female, 59 percent of the total early Democratic vote. The breakdown of early Democratic voters by gender and age is shown below. The early vote by women is dominated by older age groups. Voters under 30 account for only 7 percent of Democratic early voters compared to 41 percent for the over 65 crowd. The large number of women, particularly older women, who have already cast Democratic ballots, is a good sign for Hillary Clinton.

In other words, the elderly (see: Clinton supporters) make up the vast majority of early voters in Arizona.

Hillary's plan to steal Arizona was remarkably simple: Suppress voting on election day, and rely on her large lead with early voters to secure a win.

It was a perfectly executed heist. Here’s how she did it:
1. Drastically reduce the number of polling locations to make voting nearly impossible

For starters, polling places were almost non-existent:

As reported by The Arizona Republic’s Mary Jo Pitzl, Maricopa County reduced the number of polling places from more than the 200 available for the 2012 presidential election to…60.
Sixty? Are you kidding me.
The fact that a voter could go to any polling place didn’t matter much when the lines were so long that many people were forced to abandon the line.
I’ve heard from a number of those who stood outside and waited, and waited, and waited.

One of them, Todd Johnson wrote in part, “I was in one of those long lines -- from 4 p.m. to just about 6:40. As we stood, the line just got longer…I saw motivated voters, some with children, trying to fulfill their civic duties. The poll workers were exhausted. The line had been there since 5 in the a.m. and the line only grew in length. My estimate is that if someone were to join before the 7 p.m. cutoff they were looking at a four-hour wait. Call these county officials out!”

Done.
Officials apparently believed that so many of us utilize the mail-in early-voting ballots that there is less demand for in-person voting locations.
Wrong.

Yeah, why would at least 30% of eligible voters feel the need to vote? What is this, some sort of "democracy"?
So far, so good.

2. Declare Hillary the winner while people are still standing in line and less than 1% of the vote is counted

This is cute:

Yes, the media called the election for Clinton with less than 1% of the vote counted and thousands of people still waiting in line to cast their ballot. Even four hours after polling stations closed, hundreds of people were still waiting in line:

More than four hours after polling places closed, hundred of people were still in line to vote at the Salvation Army office on Third Avenue in downtown Phoenix.

Aracely Calderon, 56, was the last person to get in line in time to vote at the site.
She made it just seconds before a volunteer began enforcing the site's closing shortly after 7 p.m.
When Calderon arrived, the line spanned more than 700 people and almost 4 blocks.

And it gets worse.

3. Thousands of voters say their party affiliation was altered or undocumented, preventing them from voting

Arizona has closed primaries, which means that if you aren't registered as a democrat, you can't vote. As a local news report put it:
Arizona law already effectively disenfranchises 36 percent of registered voters.
These would be voters who are unaffiliated with any political party. Independent. The only way those individuals can vote in a primary is to re-register with a political party. And they have to do so 29 days before the election.

It’s ridiculous to think that 36 percent of Arizona voters -- can’t vote.

But many independents did change their party affiliation, and guess what happened on election day?

Leaders from the Arizona branch of the Democratic Party have confirmed that its lawyers are officially making an inquiry after multiple Democratic voters showed up to the polls only to find that they were listed as independents, Republicans, or had no party affiliation at all.

Many voters wound up having to wait in line under the hot Arizona sun only to find that they were ineligible to vote for the candidates of their choice. To add insult to injury, the polling locations have been so poorly planned that many voters had to wait in line up to four hours before finding out that their information had been improperly filed.

And just to be clear: We're not talking about a few isolated incidents. Every corner of the Internet is full of stories from people who tried to vote and were turned away:

And there's plenty of video evidence as well:

I posted earlier about my being denied my legal right to vote this morning. I went to the Pima County Recorders office and video taped the whole thing. Here's what they are doing. They are copying voter registration cards changing the date and the party preference. They can't change the original because that goes out to the party. At first she tried to say I sent in a second voter registration card (of course I didn't not) then she changes her story to its a computer glitch then states it's an error.

This "error" also benefits Clinton tremendously:

People don't fully understand just how easy it is to write a database script to modify large sets of data in a matter of seconds or less.
Search for independent voters that have recently changed to dem, randomly select a % of them to be changed to lower the delegate loss and still seem on the books so they could tout it as a resounding victory.
The most-recent official roster has 37 percent (or 1.219 million) of registered Arizona voters declared as independents; 34 percent (or 1.115 million) as Republicans; and 28 percent (or 932,722) as Democrats.
THERE ARE MORE INDEPENDENTS THAN DEMOCRATS. That scared the sh*t out of the Clinton campaign, given Sanders has trounced her with independents in every state.

We're not done yet.

4. A purely coincidental but extremely convenient bomb threat prevented voters from seeking help

As you might expect, plenty of disenfranchised Arizona voters sought assistance from local authorities who could help them clear up problems with their voter registration. Unfortunately, bomb threats prevented many voters from getting the help they needed:

Pima County says the staff at the Recorder's Office was allowed back into the Public Service Center, after it was evacuated at around 5:30 p.m.

According to officials, Tucson Police Department found an item in the garage of the building, located at 240 N. Stone Ave. Due to bomb threat reports received earlier in the day, TPD decided to send its bomb squad to the scene.

TPD said the suspicious item was later found to not be a threat. The staff was allowed back in the building at around 6:35 p.m.
Officials say the area is still closed off.
Pima County said an additional 15 staff members have been added to help the voter help line.

Oh, good. Right in time for the polling stations to close at 7:00pm.
The Clinton machine really outdid itself this time. Bravo, Hillary.