February, 05 2016, 08:15am EDT
Thousands Ask Clinton to "Stop Lying" About Iraq Vote
WASHINGTON
In the first day, nearly 10,000 people have signed a petition on RootsAction.org urging Hillary Clinton to "Stop lying about your Iraq vote." A RootsAction.org email launching the petition Thursday said:
"On Wednesday night's CNN town hall, Hillary Clinton falsely claimed that her vote for the 2003 Iraq invasion had actually been a vote for more inspections rather than war. In fact, Clinton voted against an amendment proposed by Senator Carl Levin that would have authorized war only if Iraq refused to fully cooperate with UN inspectors. 'Instead,' notes scholar Stephen Zunes, 'she voted for the Republican-sponsored resolution which gave President Bush the authority to invade and occupy Iraq at the time and circumstances of his own choosing.'
"In fact, Clinton at the time justified her vote by parroting Bush and Cheney's false claims about biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons, and Iraqi ties to al Qaeda -- war propaganda rejected at the time by many experts around the world. Clinton falsely claimed on Wednesday that top UN inspector Hans Blix supported the war resolution she voted for. He did not. And actually, just last week he said it's doubtful ISIS would exist if not for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
"Five months after Senator Clinton's vote, Bush launched the long-threatened campaign of shock and awe, and Clinton did not object. In fact she went on to vote repeatedly to fund the ongoing war that she now claims she never intended. She later became the prime mover behind an overthrow in Libya modeled on the overthrow in Iraq."
Signers of the petition have added many hundreds of comments. Here are a few samples:
Babak Sani - Berkeley, CA - This is a prime example of why so much of the electorate views you, Secretary Clinton, as untrustworthy.
Steven Wallace - Lafayette, CO - This dissembling on her vote for the 2003 Iraq invasion (and the vote itself) are my BIGGEST beef with Hillary Clinton. She claims she didn't know at the time that the Bush administration claims were bogus, but I (and many others) knew they were, just from information revealed on reputable political websites. Hillary, please ...
Sharla Dashew - San Francisco, CA - you just aren't trustworthy. if you voted for the Iraq war just be brave and admit it and then say it was the wrong choice for a vote and if it was today you would have a different vote. then maybe people would believe you
Carl Levine - WA - The truth matters. Lying about your past public actions that resulted in a destroyed region and many dead and wounded US service members means you are not trustworthy.
Raymond Mullineaux - N. Bennington, VT - The truth is in the Congressional Record. How can you change it, Hillary? Let's start telling the truth under oath for campaigns. It was a bad vote, repent it and we'll talk.
L.M. Holmes - Honolulu, HI - You have to own this, no way out.
DeNell Benner - Grand Rapids, MI - The Iraq war should never have happened. It was and remains to this day a tragedy for which no attempts to explain or justify will ever be sufficient nor will ever matter. Anyone complicit in this crime against humanity should have to answer for it.
Drew Lindhoff - Lilburn, GA - This latest distortion of the truth is why all too many of us see you as being totally disingenuous.
Bill Edwards - Midlothian , VA - There she goes, dodging Bosnian sniper bullets yet again...
Earle Spanjer - Santa Rosa, CA - Her Iraq vote is one of many reasons I will never vote for Hillary. I will never trust her.
Dennis Skalski - Tampa, FL - If you don't mind, stop ALL the lying, not just about this!
James Fuller - Minneapolis, MN - Lies, position reversals (during campaigns), anything that might trick someone into voting for Clinton. She's turning many Democrats in my area into ex-Democrats. Among my own circles, which are very broad, I can name about 10 people who have said they will not vote for Clinton under ANY circumstances, regardless of who her opponent might be.
RootsAction is dedicated to galvanizing people who are committed to economic fairness, equal rights for all, civil liberties, environmental protection -- and defunding endless wars. We mobilize on these issues no matter whether Democrats or Republicans control Washington D.C.
LATEST NEWS
Trump’s Lax Approach to Antitrust Helps Spur Banner Year for Corporate Mergers
"Trump’s new antitrust enforcers have demonstrated a willingness to facilitate dealmaking through an uptick in early terminations and settlements," said the American Economic Liberties Project.
Dec 26, 2025
Global corporate mergers surged to near-record highs in 2025, driven in part by US President Donald Trump's lax approach to antitrust enforcement.
The Financial Times reported on Friday that global dealmaking in 2025 topped $4 trillion, including 68 mergers worth $10 billion or more, highlighted by Netflix's $72 billion bid to buy Warner Bros. Discovery and a proposed $85 billion mega-merger between railway giants Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern.
The US alone accounted for $2.3 trillion worth of mergers and acquisitions, which the Financial Times said highlighted the Trump administration's role in green-lighting corporate consolidation.
"Top dealmakers said that the Trump administration’s push to loosen regulation had encouraged companies to explore tie-ups that they might otherwise have been hesitant to pursue," the Financial Times explained.
Andrew Nussbaum, co-chair of the executive committee at law firm Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, told the Financial Times that corporate leaders "see a willingness of the regulators to engage in constructive dialogue" under the second Trump administration, which has given them "a willingness to take on regulatory risk for transactions that are strategic."
The American Economic Liberties Project has also taken note of the Trump administration's role in shepherding through big mergers, and created a Trump Merger Boom tracker earlier this year to document the massive wave of corporate consolidation.
In its analysis of the administration's lax approach to antitrust enforcement, the American Economic Liberties Project said that "Trump’s new antitrust enforcers have demonstrated a willingness to facilitate dealmaking through an uptick in early terminations and settlements."
"Despite pro-enforcement rhetoric early on from Trump’s heads of the FTC and DOJ Antitrust Division," the American Economic Liberties Project added, "it’s becoming increasingly clear that agency leadership is having trouble making their decisions in a vacuum—with a quiet tide of deals granted to companies that have been friendly to the White House."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Lina Khan ‘Scouring New York City Laws’ to Help Zohran Mamdani Drive Down Prices
Khan and members of her team are reportedly "dusting off a little-used 1960s price-gouging statute" in an effort to bolster the mayor-elect's affordability push in New York City.
Dec 26, 2025
Former Federal Trade Commission chair and antitrust trailblazer Lina Khan is reportedly poring over New York City's laws to help Democratic Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani fulfill the central promise of his campaign: making the metropolis more affordable.
According to the New York Times, Khan—in her capacity as co-chair of the mayor-elect's transition team—"has spent weeks scouring New York City’s laws to find dormant or underused mayoral authority that could allow Mr. Mamdani to take action in a hurry."
Potential actions "include specific attempts to drive down apartment rental fees and utility costs and compel businesses to be more transparent about pricing," as well as "dusting off a little-used 1960s price-gouging statute and policing new protections for food delivery workers," the Times reported, citing three unnamed people familiar with internal discussions.
As head of the FTC under former President Joe Biden, Khan took groundbreaking legal action against major corporations such as Amazon and, in the words of one antitrust advocacy group, "reinvigorated enforcement of the Robinson-Patman Act, a long-dormant law designed to prevent price discrimination by big corporations, through two separate cases against PepsiCo and Southern Glazer’s—major victories for smaller and independent businesses."
Khan, according to the Times, hopes to spur similar action in New York City. Members of her team, which includes former federal regulators, have "studied a 1969 consumer protection law meant to prohibit 'unconscionable' business tactics, to potentially target hospitals and sports stadiums where consumers typically have little choice but to pay high prices for products that are cheaper elsewhere."
Additionally, the newspaper reported, "they have looked at whether food delivery companies, which wield significant power in the city, are complying with laws that protect their drivers, and whether landlords are complying with a newly enacted law barring many real estate brokers from collecting thousands of dollars in fees."
Douglas Farrar, a spokesman for Khan, told the Times that the former FTC chair and her team have "worked closely" with the Mamdani transition "to provide key research support on ideas for hitting the ground running."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Bezos-Owned Newspaper Bashes Medicare for All in Christmas Day Editorial
The Washington Post editorial predictably ignores research showing that a single-payer system would save hundreds of billions of dollars—and tens of thousands of lives—each year.
Dec 26, 2025
An editorial published on Christmas by the Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post inveighed against supporters of Medicare for All in the United States, pointing to the struggles of Britain's chronically underfunded National Health Service as a "cautionary tale" while ignoring research showing that a single-payer system would save the US hundreds of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives each year.
The editorial, headlined "Socialized medicine can’t survive the winter," laments the "religious-like devotion to the NHS" in the United Kingdom even as "hospital corridors overflow and routine procedures get canceled due to a catastrophic event commonly known as 'winter.'"
The Post editorial board, led by opinion editor Adam O'Neal, waves away expert analyses showing that the UK government is underinvesting in its healthcare system relative to other countries in Europe, resulting in the kinds of problems the Thursday editorial attributed to the supposedly inherent flaws of single-payer systems.
"This is the dark reality of single-payer and a cautionary tale for the third of Americans who mistakenly believe Medicare for All is a good idea," the editorial declared ominously.
The editorial understates Medicare for All's popularity among US voters. A recent Data for Progress survey found that even after hearing common opposing arguments, 58% of voters strongly or somewhat support improving Medicare and expanding it to cover everyone in the US.
A separate poll conducted by GQR Research found that 54% of voters nationally, and 56% in battleground districts, support Medicare for All. US Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the co-leader of the Medicare for All Act in the House, is reportedly planning to present those findings to colleagues next month as she pushes Democrats to rally behind her legislation ahead of the critical midterm elections.
Welcome to the newest co-sponsors of my Medicare for All bill in the House!
Medicare for All is not only good policy — as premiums skyrocket for millions of Americans — it is incredibly popular. Let’s keep building momentum for universal health care and get this passed! pic.twitter.com/k5sg7hEkYR
— Rep. Pramila Jayapal (@RepJayapal) December 25, 2025
The renewed push for Medicare for All comes as the corporate-dominated healthcare status quo hits Americans with massive premium hikes stemming from congressional Republicans' refusal to extend Affordable Care Act tax credits.
Predictably, the Post's editorial board—which Bezos has instructed to write "every day in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets"—neglected to mention the myriad horrors of the United States' for-profit system in its diatribe against Medicare for All.
The editorial also ignores research showing potentially massive benefits from a transition to Medicare for All, which would virtually eliminate private insurance while providing comprehensive coverage to everyone in the US for free at the point of service.
One study published in The Lancet estimated that a Medicare for All system would save more than 68,000 lives and over $450 billion in healthcare expenditures annually.
An analysis by Yale researchers calculated that "if the US had had a single-payer universal healthcare system in 2020"—which marked the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic—"nearly 212,000 American lives would have been saved that year" and "the country would have saved $105 billion in Covid-19 hospitalization expenses alone."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular