Americans should be very concerned about Bernie Sanders' record of opposing mass murder

[Uncle Joe]

(snip)

Historical context is important here, as it reveals beyond question the saintly motives of Reagan's foreign policy team. From 1936-1979, Nicaragua was benevolently ruled by the Somoza family, who were friendly to the U.S. and the Nicaraguan working class alike. Their government was not at all corrupt, and in no way did the Somozas accumulate a vast dragon hoard of wealth looted out of the country.

(snip)

To be fair, the Sandinistas were not actually communist. And sure, maybe they won free and fair elections in 1984. And perhaps the Contras were terrible at actually fighting, and on occasion brutally murdered a few thousand civilians. Maybe the CIA told even told them to do this as part of a deliberate strategy of terrorism. And yes, the arms sales to Iran were technically illegal, leading to several administration officials being convicted of crimes. (Luckily, President George H.W. Bush stymied this unpatriotic inquisition — into himself, among others — through his pardon power.)

(snip)

Chait is also correct to be disturbed by Sanders' cranky response to New York Times reporter Sydney Ember. It's simply outrageous for an interviewee to refuse to accept a questioner's framing of the issue. It's not as if she is a political reporter rather than a specialist in Latin America, or evinced a grotesque misunderstanding of Nicaraguan history. After all, as Chait points out, "she had just written a long New York Times story" about the issue, and therefore must have known what she was talking about. When has the New York Times ever supported imperialist war, or rated insults to American pride over the lives and liberty of poor foreigners?

If anything has plagued United States foreign policy over the last 50 years, it is being overly hesitant with the use of military force. Imagine having a commander-in-chief who says things like: "Does the government of the United States of America have the unilateral right to destroy the government of Nicaragua because the president of the United States and some members of Congress disagree with the Sandinistas?" Is the U.S. supposed to obey international law like some kind of peasant country? The very idea shocks the conscience. Bernie Sanders simply cannot be trusted with presidential power.


https://theweek.com/articles/843845/americans-should-concerned-about-bernie-sanders-record-opposing-mass-murder

[BeckyDem]

1. lol +1

That was very good.

[DownriverDem]

2. I don't

care.

[left-of-center2012]

3. This is laughable ...

From the linked article:

"From 1936-1979, Nicaragua was benevolently ruled by the Somoza family, who were friendly to the U.S. and the Nicaraguan working class alike.
Their government was not at all corrupt, and in no way did the Somozas accumulate a vast dragon hoard of wealth looted out of the country."
................................

Anastasio Somoza García assumed the presidency after luring rebel leader Augusto César Sandino to peace talks, and murdering Sandino soon afterwards.

Anastacio amended the Nicaraguan Constitution, concentrating power in his hands and installed his relatives and cronies in top government positions. Although the Somoza only held the presidency for 30 of those 43 years, they were the power behind the other presidents of the time through their control of the National Guard.

For more than four decades in power, the Somoza family accumulated wealth through corporate bribes, industrial monopolies, land grabbing, and foreign aid siphoning.

By the 1970s, the family owned 23 percent of land in Nicaragua while the family wealth reached $533 million, which already amounted to half of Nicaragua's debt and 33 percent of the country's 1979 GDP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somoza_family

[Celerity]

4. Ortega has morphed into an insane dictator as murderously totalitarian as Somoza

History has not treated Bernie's judgement well.

BOTH sides were fucked.

Sometimes dreams turn into nightmares.

[Uncle Joe]

6. If Bernie had his way, the entire time-line would be altered and

history would be different.

However it was Reagan which got his wish and the resulting civil war hardened the hearts of the Nicaraguan people and polarized the nation to such an extent that actually worked against the continuation of a democracy.

If the United States aka: "land of the free and home of the brave" not only couldn't bring itself to respect democracy in Nicaragua but actually worked against it, just as we did to Iran in 1953 why would anyone expect better from Ortega?

[Celerity]

8. I literally detest much of our government's foreign policy ever since we became an official empire

back in the 1899-1902 Philippine–American War, in which we killed off between 200,000 to as high as 1 million (estimates vary widely) civilians and soldiers. Many would probably move that date even earlier, to the Mexican-American War that resulted in the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

I still would never have wandered down to give aid and support to the brutish Sandanistas. Two evils never make for a just outcome. The true path to have helped Nicaragua (as well as a myriad number of other nations) would have been to never support monsters like Somoza and his ilk in the first place, monsters who helped give rise to other forms of monsters from the dialectical opposite side of the political spectrum. But that is not how we roll in the land of the brave.

[George II]

9. There are probably millions of Americans who, if they had their way, "history would be different".

However, at the time BS was only the mayor of a small town in Vermont about 30 miles from Canada. What business did he have in meddling in the affairs of a Central American country, especially by participating in an anti-American rally (whether it was right or wrong)?

[SouthernProgressive]

5. This seems to be one additional point of confirmation.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287130181

[Honeycombe8]

7. This is a tongue-in-cheek, sarcastic article by an activist site?

Did I get it right?

[Politicub]

11. Almost. The Week isn't an activist site or outlet

The printed publication is middle-of-the-road. My mother has received it in the mail for years, or at least she used to. I liken it to a Reader's Digest of the news but with more editorials.

The website seems to lean more to the liberal side of things, though it does have some conservative content from columnists.

This satirical article is a pretty bold thing for the Week to publish, all things being considered.

[Honeycombe8]

12. I scanned the articles. They looked far left to me. None were moderate Republican-leaning.

But maybe I missed some.

But article shoul dhave madeit clear it was tongue-in-cheek. This will be cited in far RW posts & such, I bet.

[Uncle Joe]

13. A little more information on The Week

(snip)

The Week is a weekly news magazine with editions in the United Kingdom and United States. The British publication was founded in 1995 and the American edition started in 2001; an Australian edition was published between 2008 and 2012. A children's edition, The Week Junior, has been published in the UK since 2015.

(snip)

The Week was founded in the United Kingdom by Jolyon Connell (formerly of the right-of-centre Sunday Telegraph) in 1995.[3] In April 2001, the magazine began publishing an American edition;[3][4] and an Australian edition followed in October 2008. Dennis Publishing, founded by Felix Dennis, publishes the UK edition and, until 2012, published the Australian edition. The Week Publications publishes the U.S. edition.

(snip)

The various editions of the magazine provide perspectives on the week's current events and other news, as well as editorial commentary from global media, with the intent to provide readers with multiple political viewpoints. In addition to the above, the magazine covers a broad range of topics, including science, technology, health, the media, business and the arts.

(snip)

In September 2007, the magazine's U.S. edition launched a daily website. Edited by Ben Frumin, the daily website carries the mission of the print magazine to the Internet, but also publishes original commentary from writers including David Frum, Robert Shrum, Will Wilkinson, Ryan Cooper, Daniel Larison, Ed Morrissey, and Brad DeLong. The UK website, which was first published under the name The First Post, is edited by Holden Frith.[8]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Week

[Honeycombe8]

14. +1. nt

[Politicub]

10. Ha! Good stuff.