Bernie Sanders
Related: About this forumCharles Pierce: Sanders Said Something We Weren't Ready to Hear Last Night
It's not even a contest that I'd vote for HRC in the general election, but she doesn't get a pass on her fucking Kissinger-inspired foreign policy "realpolitik." Not from me, not ever.
It came during the most interesting passage in the debate Wednesday night between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Sanders was asked if he regretted having once supported the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua and having once paid some compliments to the Castro regime in Cuba.
Well, let me just answer that. What that was about was saying that the United States was wrong to try to invade Cuba, that the United States was wrong trying to support people to overthrow the Nicaraguan government, that the United States was wrong trying to overthrow in 1954, the governmentdemocratically elected government of Guatemala. Throughout the history of our relationship with Latin America we've operated under the so-called Monroe Doctrine, and that said the United States had the right do anything that they wanted to do in Latin America. So I actually went to Nicaragua and I very shortly opposed the Reagan administration's efforts to overthrow that government. And I strongly opposed earlier Henry Kissinger and theto overthrow the government of Salvador Allende in Chile. I think the United States should be working with governments around the world, not get involved in regime change. And all of these actions, by the way, in Latin America, brought forth a lot of very strong anti-American sentiments. That's what that was about.
A few minutes later, as an addendum to an answer about her solution to Puerto Rico's crippling economic crisis, HRC pounced and pandered.
And I just want to add one thing to the question you were asking Senator Sanders. I think in that same interview, he praised what he called the revolution of values in Cuba and talked about how people were working for the common good, not for themselves. I just couldn't disagree more. You know, if the values are that you oppress people, you disappear people, you imprison people or even kill people for expressing their opinions, for expressing freedom of speech, that is not the kind of revolution of values that I ever want to see anywhere.
OK, I wanted to yell, "What about the Saudis/Chinese?" at my TV, too, and it did occur to me that HRC might want to ask her lunch buddy Henry Kissinger about his human-rights record some time. But what most struck me is the depth of the denial still about the profound costs of U.S. intervention in the affairs of our closest neighbors, and our easiest proxies, in the various Great Games. The Monroe Doctrine might have made sense when England, France, Spain, and even Portugal still had imperial ambitions. But that was a very limited space in time. By the mid-1800's, the Monroe Doctrine, and the philosophy behind it, was an excuse for land-grabbing.
...
This is only a partial list, of course. It doesn't include the thousands of Salvadorans, Guatemalans, Nicaraguans, Hondurans, and citizens of other countries who got caught in the gears of the so-called Monroe Doctrine down through the centuries. (Hola, Vera Cruz!) The pundits are right that Sanders' statements back in the 1980s are fertile ground for conservative ratfckinglook how easy it was for HRC to turn them around on himand likely would be used to make a meal out of him in a general election. The biggest problem that Sanders has here, though, is that he told a truth that we're still not prepared to hear. That Elliott Abrams has not been fitted with a leper's bell yet is proof enough of that.
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a42903/democratic-debate-miami/
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)disasterous.
phantom power
(25,966 posts)MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)n2doc
(47,953 posts)sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)feels entitled to the presidency and will do or say whatever it takes to assume the office. I am also convinced that Sanders is the only presidential candidate from either party who is not a republican.
GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Is it really okay to call a Democratic Primary candidate a Republican , really? ..and don't give me the Golwater Girl crap...poster uses present tense , deliberately.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Mar 10, 2016, 08:10 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
disillusioned73
(2,872 posts)Truth - I still have hope for this place..
Mika
(17,751 posts)Still ongoing.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)DirkGently
(12,151 posts)Yes, Castro is an authoritarian dictator. But that was never our problem with him. The U.S. was fine with his predecessor, Batista, a mob-connected, U.S. casino-friendly dictator who carried out mass violence against the population, including torture and public executions, with the happy support of the U.S.
Yet none of the talk about the evils of Castro ever acknowledges he came into power on a wave of revulsion and rage at the arguably more savage and oppressive, U.S.-friendly regime he replaced.
Why is that?
U.S. interventionist policies were never about favoring democracy over authoritarianism. They were about promoting U.S.-friendly business practices over anything and everything else. Socialism and communism were an enemy not because they sometimes went with authoritarianism, but because they screwed WITH OUR MONEY, PERIOD.
This conflation of socialism and communism with authoritarianism and evil has gone on for decades. But all the scheming and maneuvering in Latin America and elsewhere was never about freedom and democracy vs. oppression, or even really about one economic system vs. another.
We just sided with anyone who kept the oil or the bananas or whatever else was making American business money going, conveniently telling only one side of the story. Left-wing, right-wing -- we didn't choose based on whose death squads were the dirtiest or which dictators were the cruelest. In fact, a good non-commie dictator usually suited us just fine.
I think it's as good a time as ever, especially given an avowed socialist vs. a student of Kissinger in the election, to drag all of that out into the sunshine and give it a good, hard, look, once and for all.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Especially among neocons and neolibs
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)We live in a different world now. It's a lot harder to try to slide by with ideas like Castro = commie = dictator when world history is a mouse-click away for everyone.
After Clinton got on her little high horse about not liking the "values" the Castro regime represented, it would have been pretty interesting to see her asked what she liked better about Batista. Or what she liked better about any of the other rightwing murderers her friend Kissinger enabled in Latin America.
People are easily fooled. But they are not easily fooled forever. I think the life expectancy of the idea America's regime-changing adventures were part of some righteous battle between democracy and oppression, rather than simply about American cronies making sure their money kept flowing is about up.
phantom power
(25,966 posts)Clinton's continued, voluntary, vocal support of Kissinger makes it pretty clear she won't. In fact, it makes her vote for the Iraq War seem less and less surprising.
greymouse
(872 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)It is always about the money: not freedom, not human rights, not even protecting ourselves, just money.
DhhD
(4,695 posts)North Vietnam.
http://adst.org/2013/02/nixon-goes-to-china/
There is no place on this small planet for a billion of its potentially most able people to live in angry isolation. Richard Nixon, after his election in 1968, pushed for better relations with China despite historical tensions and hostilities. In 1971, National Security Advisor and future Secretary of State Henry Kissinger took two trips to China the first made in secret to consult with Premier Zhou Enlai. After more than two decades of icy relations, Nixon embarked on a trip to China starting on February 22, 1972. Not only did this visit strengthen Chinese-American relations, but it also served to encourage progress with the USSR.
Winston Lord was a member of the National Security Councils planning staff and accompanied Nixon on his visit to China. He later became a top policy advisor on China, Ambassador to China, and Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs. In these excerpts from his oral history, Lord discusses the geopolitical rationale for the trip, working with Nixon and Kissinger, meeting Mao Zedong, and negotiating the Shanghai Communiqué over concerns regarding Taiwan.
You can read Lords account of Kissingers secret negotiations with Peking and Chas Freemans experiences as interpreter during the trip. Go here for other Moments on China.
more at link
pangaia
(24,324 posts)noretreatnosurrender
(1,890 posts)Let's shine a real bright light on this part of our history because we are still doing this shit today.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Just saying.
hedda_foil
(16,371 posts)Yes, the Drumfkoffs will hurl this at him multiple times in multiple ways. But there's time right now for Bernie and Co. to find a way to fling it right back in Trumpdedumpdee's face like a pile of moldy steaks.
So I'd like to offer my thanks to the oppo team at Camp Weathervane for their beaver caliber industriousness in digging the tape up now, when it won't have much effect on Bernie's campaign.
Job well done.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)" I think the United States should be working with governments around the world, not get involved in regime change."---Hillary Clinton
How are Libya and Iraq working our for you, Hillary?
John Poet
(2,510 posts)Hillary's role in the Honduras Killing Fields
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511466860
greymouse
(872 posts)You folks exemplify why I luv DU. Well, some folks on DU.
Camp Weathervane
MerryBlooms
(11,759 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,300 posts)Thanks for the thread, phantom power.
Auggie
(31,133 posts)highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)lame54
(35,268 posts)that doesn't mean it was effective
the right will try like hell but that doesn't mean they will land every punch
McKim
(2,412 posts)Whether the US public is ready to hear this does not matter. What matters is that a presidential candidate is repudiating our meddling
in the affairs of sovereign countries and killing their people. This is an idea that needs to be out in mainstream conversations. For too
long, it has not been part of our national discourse.
Sanders supporters really should use the anti war and anti regime change argument because that is the worst thing about Hillary, her
foreign policy experience, her support by Kissinger and her plans for further military meddling at tax payers expense. Show people where thier hard earned money is going and show them what benefits they could be getting from all that wasted war money. AND SAY IT LOUD AND CLEAR.
noretreatnosurrender
(1,890 posts)Absolutely!
Ivan Kaputski
(528 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)And I just want to add one thing to the question you were asking Senator Sanders. I think in that same interview, he praised what he called the revolution of values in Cuba and talked about how people were working for the common good, not for themselves. I just couldn't disagree more. You know, if the values are that you oppress people, you disappear people, you imprison people or even kill people for expressing their opinions, for expressing freedom of speech, that is not the kind of revolution of values that I ever want to see anywhere.
So, she is saying right after Sanders talks about people working for the common good she disagrees with that a whole lot. Then she says that the values he is holding up are oppressing and disappearing people. It is not wrong to acknowledge that some good was done. It's not wrong to say that murdering people and disappearing them is wrong. That we should encourage freedom of speech. But, she is conflating to extremely different things to paint Bernie as a supporter of brutal methods of controlling people.
Duval
(4,280 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Peace Patriot
(24,010 posts)The pundits are right that Sanders' statements back in the 1980s are fertile ground for conservative ratfckinglook how easy it was for HRC to turn them around on himand likely would be used to make a meal out of him in a general election. --from the OP
First of all, the "pundits" are not right. Our typical flabby-brained Corporate-paid political punditry is merely repeating a Clinton-Brock talking point about her "inevitability." And the polls completely bely that "inevitability." Not only does Sanders have trust favorables through the roof (while Clinton's are in the toilet), he beats Trump by twice the % that Clinton does, in national poll matchups. Put Clinton in that hothouse--the GE and GE debates--and she will crumble. She has no believability going for her--no trust, no belief in her sincerity--and she gets really pissed and raises her voice into that sharp tone that is like a nail scratch on a windowpane and talks way, way too long, when she is challenged, and especially when she is unprepared for the particular challenge.
Second, Sanders is a very, very smart fellow, and has been thinking about these things for decades. He is very quick in debates (superb debater), very assertive when he needs to be, never gets rattled, thinks on his feet extremely well, speaks briefly and to the point, and has very well-thought-out, passionate, intelligent and consistent positions on this issue and all issues.
Also, there is something about him that is not really personally ambitious. Maybe it has to do with his age--earned wisdom. He doesn't seem to care much what people think of him. He just says what he thinks, take it or leave--but DO think about it, he seems to be saying.
That's the strategy of a really good teacher--and he's done it time and time and time again, that is, gotten people to THINK about it, mull it over, and, suddenly, "democratic socialism" is okay, and, suddenly, free college tuition is okay, and, suddenly, expanding Social Security is okay. It puts these "outrageous" ideas out there, and soon everybody starts agreeing with him, OR, at least not putting up crossed fingers as to a vampire.
He has made many anathema issues RESPECTABLE. Many things that could not be talked about before are now on the agenda for public discussion.
He didn't do this alone. He is profiting from the work of thousands of people who have been working for decades on issues like "free trade" and "a living wage" and "affordable college"--and, in this case, scurrilous U.S. policy in Latin America. But it's all been black-holed by the Corporate Media and by most establishment politicians since Jimmy Carter. Now we have a PRESIDENTIAL candidate bringing up the forbidden topics! A candidate that they have been unable to bury. A candidate who might even win the White House!
Oh, I think he'll do very well, indeed, in the GE and GE debates.
One other thing: I saw the full video about a month ago. I'm no dumb partisan--I was looking for talking point snags, while I was being incredibly impressed with his humanity, his judiciousness, his sharp observation on his trip to Nicaragua, and the trouble he went to, to go see things for himself. I hope everybody sees this video! I hope it's played in full on nat't TV. It's already getting round the internet. This video will work like his other "outrageous" ideas: it will grow on people.
I heard very few talking point snags (maybe just the Cuba one--and that, too, will grow on people--maybe starting with U.S. parents who have children with lung cancer who get the Cuba-developed vaccine that extends their lives!). It IS time that people here learn the truth about Cuba, good and bad, just like we need to learn the truth about the U.S., good and bad. Cuba has the best health care system in the world, and the best educated people. How can that be bad? The extreme bias against Cuba is a false creation. And that is just the sort of thing that Sanders is really good at teaching us, here.
bernbabe
(370 posts)what video?
Peace Patriot
(24,010 posts)I found it fascinating. And it made me like and respect Sanders even more!
flamingdem
(39,308 posts)Isn't it amazing to hear these things we discuss in the Latin America Group etc. on the national stage. It was amazing, Bernie tells it straight.
myrna minx
(22,772 posts)flamingdem
(39,308 posts)that for once someone on the national stage had the guts to refer to US intervention from the Monroe Doctrine forward. Hooray for fearless Bernie.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)Is running a piece about how "honest" Clinton is today. Her supporters will just jump on that.