Monday, November 23, 2015

Bernie Sanders wins foreign policy debate hands down despite propaganda

The media has been presenting the Republicans and most hawkish Democrats including Hillary Clinton as being far superior on foreign policy than any one who speaks out against one war after another, who they label as "Doves" or "weak on defense," for decades.

They repeat this over and over again!

Like any good propaganda if they refuse to allow peace advocates to tell the public the full truth, at least in the mass media, this portrayal seems very credible to many people that don't check the facts.

There's just one problem with this image.

It is based on lies; and if people start to scrutinize it will fall apart quickly.

The simplest way of refuting it is to simply ask why they haven't been able to keep us out of war one time after another. Another simple point is tracking all the times our so-called allies that we have armed in the past keep turning those arms against us, although listing the details will take more time.

But Bernie Sanders began that in the most recent debate, and a closer look will easily indicate that the reason we keep winding up in one war after another is that our actions, often presented as "strong on defense" often come back to haunt us; and in many cases it hasn't had anything to do with "defense" or "defending democracy" at all.

JOHN DICKERSON: Senator Sanders, you said you wanna rid the planet of ISIS. In the previous date you said the greatest threat to national security was climate change. Do you still believe that?

BERNIE SANDERS: Absolutely. In fact, climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism. And if we do not get our act together and listen to what the scientists say you're gonna see countries all over the world-- this is what the C.I.A. says, they're gonna be struggling over limited amounts of water, limited amounts of land to grow their crops. And you're gonna see all kinds of international conflict.

But of course international terrorism is a major issue that we've got to address today. And I agree with much of what-- the secretary and-- and the governor have said. Only have one area of-- of disagreement with the secretary. I think she said something like, "The bulk of the responsibility is not ours."

Well, in fact, I would argue that the disastrous invasion of Iraq, something that I strongly opposed, has unraveled the region completely. And led to the rise of Al Qaeda-- and to-- ISIS. Now, in fact, what we have got to do-- and I think there is widespread agreement here-- 'cause the United States cannot do it alone. What we need to do is lead an international coalition which includes-- very significantly-- (UNINTEL) nations in that region are gonna have to fight and defend their way of life. ... Oh I don't think any-- I don't think any sensible person would disagree that the invasion of Iraq led to the massive level of instability we are seeing right now. ...

I think that was one of the worst foreign policy plunders in the modern history of United States. ....

BERNIE SANDERS: I think we have a disagreement. And-- the disagreement is that not only did I vote against the war in Iraq, if you look at history, John, you will find that regime change-- whether it was in the early '50s in Iran, whether it was toppling Salvador Allende in Chile or whether it was overthrowing the government Guatemala way back when-- these invasions, these-- these toppling of governments, regime changes have unintended consequences. I would say that on this issue I'm a little bit more conservative than the secretary. Complete transcript in context for Democratic Debate

Bernie Sanders listed a relatively small sample of the tyrants that the United States has supported in the past who later turned against us, one way or another; however the traditional press is very selective about the way they report them, often reporting that we previously supported tyrants only briefly and repeating that they hate us over and over again without reminding people why they hate us.

Iran is one of the most blatant examples. In the late forties or early fifties the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), now BP, negotiated a deal which served their best interests and the best interest of Iran's leadership at the time but not the best interest of the people. After Mohammad Mosaddegh with the help of the Iranian parliament they attempted to negotiate a better deal for the people but the AOIC refused to cooperate and they voted to nationalize their own oil resources then the CIA and the British Secret Intelligence Service carried out the 1953 Iranian coup d'├ętat installing the Shah who abused and tortured his own people while giving multinational oil companies a great deal. Instead of supporting democracy as U.S. propaganda often claims they were suppressing it, as they have done in many cases.

This of course eventually led to the Iranian Revolution which was backlash against the United Stated previous support of a tyrant and in the eighties they alternatively supported both Iran and Iraq during their war arming both sides at one time or another prolonging their war resulting in enormous atrocities which the traditional media rarely ever reports in this country but the Iranians will never forget.

This is standard operating procedure in one country after another. A closer review of the most reliable sources clearly indicates that the United States hasn't been fighting to defend the free world since WWII as their propaganda indicates but to prop up one tyrant after another. The Vietnamese signed a declaration of independence so they could rule their own country but when the French abandoned their efforts to suppress them the United Stated invaded; the United States armed Saddam H7ussien and Manuel Noriega before deciding they were our enemies; they armed the Mujaheddin before they became the Taliban and AL-Qaeda; and many other examples including in 2013 when they were exaggerating the atrocities committed by Assad as an excuse to arm rebels and one of the groups they armed became known as ISIS or ISIL in 2014 although that wasn't the name they chose for themselves.

Hillary Clinton was involved in this as Secretary of State and she supported the Iraq war as senator which helped create the quagmire that led to the rise of what we now call ISIS or ISIL. Hillary Clinton has been strong supporter of the traditional foreign policy practices that routinely arm one tyrant or rebel organization after another even when they routinely turn against us.

Bernie Sanders, on the other hand has begun to acknowledge that these tactics have been backfiring for a long time. His claim that Climate Change will inevitably lead to instability is also true, although if many people don't look into the details it is easy to ridicule. Environmental destruction, related to Climate Change or not, has been escalating for decades, although the mainstream media hasn't reported on the full extent of the damage unless it happens in areas where people have political clout. This creates a growing area where enormous amounts of people are disenfranchised and desperate so they can't support themselves the way they have in the past.

Just one of many examples that have been reported recently is the so-called Somali pirates that have resorted to kidnapping and are often labeled terrorists. What the media rarely ever mention is that many of the pirates are former fishermen who can no longer fish due to over fishing or pollution by multinational corporations with the support of the western world including the U.S.

Many of these so-called terrorists are doing the same thing that the United States routinely does, retaliating for atrocities committed against them, although the media rarely puts much emphasis on that. When the United States drops bombs on countries around the world it terrorizes the local population; however since they have influence with the media we don't call this terrorism.

Amazingly, at times Hillary Clinton occasionally even seems to think it is hilarious when our enemies are defeated and tortured to death like when she famously said, while laughing, "We came, we saw, he died."

Are we supposed to consider this the more rational alternative to Republican insanity?

This isn't an isolated blunder, she makes so many it is hard to keep track of them, including in 2008 when she said “I remember, particularly, a trip to Bosnia where the welcoming ceremony had to be moved inside because of sniper fire,” regarding her 1996 trip to Bosnia. She quickly claimed that it was an innocent mistake; but it is hard to imagine how she could have "mistakenly" come to that conclusion, which of course happened long before Brian Williams became famous for making stuff up.

However when people are part of the establishment like Brian Williams and Hillary Clinton they can keep coming back but those that oppose it need to gather grassroots support for decades before getting any coverage and even then the media still tries to portray them as fringe.

Hillary Clinton once said, “The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they're not.” ("60 Minutes" Interview, 1992); and of course she was right but they're also tired of the media providing more phony candidates that expose scams and lies only to participate in them once they get into power.

Hillary Clinton said this because it was good politics but since then she has an incredibly long history of lying and supporting corporate interests as bad as the people she criticized.


  1. "Bernie Sanders, on the other hand has begun to acknowledge that these tactics have been backfiring for a long time."
    He's "begun" to think that maybe, just maybe, bombing innocent children, destabilizing half the globe, producing massive refugee crises, drone strikes, and military imperialism just *might* be wrong?! That's not good enough. War us the ultimate evil and the US is a military empire. Either you admit these things or you don't. Bernie Sanders doesn't. Jill Stein does. Would you title an article, "Stalin wins genocide debate against Hitler hand's down"?

  2. Bernie Sanders is about as good as the establishment gets, and hasn't been completely part of the establishment, often challenging it on many issues including unjustified war. However there have been some instances where he has served establishment interests including when he tried to get military contracts in Vermont and at times when he supported some of the less extreme views of Israel, not enough to satisfy Zionists, who don't like him but enough to dissatisfy war and occupation opponents.

    In the long run we need Instant Run-Off elections to enable people to choose who they want without considering the lesser of two evil; and we need media reform to enable people to hear from all candidates including Jill Stein. She probably is better than Bernie Sanders but regrettably it is unlikely we can get all reform all at once.

    However even if Bernie isn't perfect the Stalin Hitler comparison isn't close and he is the best option the establishment media has covered since I can remember.

    If he's elected or even if Jill Stein somehow manages to get elected we'll still need a lot of pressure from the grassroots to keep them honest and get Congress to help them.