Sunday, February 14, 2016

If You're Sick Of Unending War You Should Vote For Bernie Sanders Over Hillary Clinton

All war is a symptom of man's failure as a thinking animal ~ John Steinbeck (2/27/1902 to 12/20/1968) author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning novel The Grapes of Wrath.

Because Bernie Sanders applied for conscientious objector status during the Vietnam War some ask - how can be possibly be Commander In Chief of the US military? Me, I say that is a question that someone supportive of the MIC and unending war would ask. Apparently a Sanders spokesman confirmed that "as a college student in the 1960s he was a pacifist" but that he isn't now. Perhaps he isn't now because, even though the American people are sick of war, they still wouldn't elect a pacifist?

On the Republican side the front runner responded to (and repeated the words of) one of his supporters... who said Ted Cruz is a pussy because he said he'd bring waterboarding back (allbeit in a limited capacity). [Video]. The "you're fired" guy says we need to torture even harder!

Ted "Carpet Bomb" Cruz is (at least in regards to torture) the best it gets on the Republican side (with Randal Paul out of the race). For me (on the subject of who should be the CIC), I'd go with Bernie over any Repub, including Randal (ABSOLUTELY including Randal, given his opposition to the Obama Admin's deal to nuclearly disarm Iraq).

But, of the two candidates running on the Democratic side, I'd greatly prefer Bernie to Hillary.

Hillary Is the Candidate of the War Machine [excerpt from an article by Jeffrey Sachs] The idea that [Hillary Clinton] is bad on the corporate issues but good on national security has it wrong. Her so-called foreign policy "experience" has been to support every war demanded by the US deep security state run by the military and the CIA. ... It is often believed that the Republicans are the neocons and the Democrats act as restraints on the warmongering. This is not correct. Both parties are divided between neocon hawks and cautious realists who don't want the US in unending war. Hillary is a staunch neocon whose record of favoring American war adventures explains much of our current security danger. ...

Hillary's record as Secretary of State is among the most militaristic, and disastrous, of modern US history. ...Hilary was a staunch defender of the MIC at every turn, helping to spread the Iraq mayhem over a swath of violence that now stretches from Mali to Afghanistan. Two disasters loom largest: Libya and Syria. ...

...her tireless promotion of the overthrow Muammar Qaddafi by NATO bombing is the far graver disaster. Hillary strongly promoted NATO-led regime change in Libya, not only in violation of international law but counter to the most basic good judgment. After the NATO bombing, Libya descended into civil war while the paramilitaries and unsecured arms stashes in Libya quickly spread west across the African Sahel and east to Syria. The Libyan disaster has spawned war in Mali, fed weapons to Boko Haram in Nigeria, and fueled ISIS in Syria and Iraq. (Published on The Huffington Post 2/5/2016).

Foreign policy might be a weakness for Sanders; surely that is what HRC has (and will) continue to hit him on. And if he's the nominee, you can bet the Repub will attack him on this front. But I say the candidate who signed on to Dennis Kucinich's idea for a Federal Department of Peace, got the vote on war with Iraq right (whereas HRC got it wrong), and who has been a steadfast advocate for veterans (he is very aware of the human cost of war) is the right person for the job of CIC [1].

A dove instead of a hawk is JUST what we need, IMO. And Hillary Clinton has proven herself to be a hawk. Which is why I agree with what Sanders said on 12/19/2015 at the 3rd Democratic debate.

Bernie Sanders: I worry too much that Secretary Clinton is too much into regime change and a little bit too aggressive without knowing what the unintended consequences might be. Yes, we could get rid of (former Iraqi leader) Saddam Hussein, but that destabilized the entire region. Yes, we could get rid of (former Libyan dictator Muammar) Gaddafi, a terrible dictator, but that created a vacuum for ISIS. Yes, we could get rid of (Syrian dictator Bashar) Assad tomorrow, but that would create another political vacuum that would benefit ISIS. So I think, yeah, regime change is easy, getting rid of dictators is easy. But before you do that, you've got to think about what happens the day after. (Hillary Clinton says Bernie Sanders voted for regime change in Libya by Lauren Carroll. PolitiFact 12/22/2015).

BTW, that HRC claims that Sanders "voted for regime change" (and PolitiFacts says "Mostly True") is mostly very misleading. As PolitiFact points out "the resolution [Sanders voted for] called for peaceful regime change". He didn't vote for military action. But, whatever he thought at the time, clearly he realizes now that when we kill dictators the result is not good. In fact, it creates worse problems. Hillary, on the other hand, hasn't come to this realization and would likely order more of the same as CIC.

Which means that under HRC (or any of the Republicans) we'd get more war and more destabilization (which so far has made terrorism worse). Obviously, given these facts, an informed person should conclude that the sane choice is to vote for Sanders (Gary Johnson will NOT be our next president). Problem is, most people don't bother to get informed. Or (worse), go out of their way to get misinformed (Fox Nooz viewers). Many more don't get informed, but also don't vote.

IMO, if everyone got informed and if everyone voted... the result would be a decisive victory for Sanders. Unfortunately we don't live in that world. IF Sanders wins it will be close. Although it's more likely we'll end up with a president HRC, which will still be a better result than if any of the Republicans win. But I'm convinced she will be another BHO. Mostly good, sometimes great. But also sometimes terrible (Obama's deal to extend the bush tax cuts, the so-called grand bargain that thankfully never came to pass, and now his pushing of the job killing TPP... all of which Bernie has consistently opposed).

[1] Tyson Manker of Veterans For Bernie Sanders: [Bernie Sanders is] the only candidate who talks about, let alone understands, the "true costs of war". Frankly, he has demonstrated a genuine concern American Veterans and the issues we face. As President, I know Bernie will never rush to judgment on foreign policy issues, or lie about his intentions. I know that he'll never put troops into harm's way unless it's absolutely necessary to keeping America safe. (Why the anti-war candidate is so beloved by former soldiers by Zaid Jilani. Alternet 10/24/2015).

Image: Hillary Clinton and Henry Kissinger. According to Dan Froomkin (writing for the Intercept, "the sparring during [the 6th] Democratic presidential debate between HRC and B-S over whether Henry Kissinger is an elder statesman or a pariah has laid bare a major foreign policy divide within the Democratic Party. HRC and B-S stand on opposite sides of that divide. One represents the hawkish DC foreign policy establishment, which reveres and in some cases actually works for Kissinger. The other represents the marginalized non-interventionists, who can't possibly forgive someone with the blood of millions of brown people on his hands".

SWTD #323


  1. Responding to an unpublished TOM comment (unpublished for obvious reasons)...

    TOM: Lying [homophobic slur], Bernie has never said he's going to stop the war, or even not send troops to the Middle East. You truly are the hate filled lying [expletive] everyone says you are, and thanks for proving it [homophobic slur].

    Hey, moron, I never said Bernie Sanders said either of those things. My only point is that Bernie's record proves he is the best candidate for people opposed to us waging so much war. Of course, after gwb and now the Obama administration making things worse (as per what Jeffrey Sachs points out in his article), we have no choice but to deal with the mess.

    In my opinion the facts show Bernie Sanders would be a better CIC than HRC or any of the Repubs. Disagree if you like, but there are no lies in my blog post. The only lies are those put forward by TOM (with his assertions that I said Bernie would do things he has not said he would do).

  2. No one knows what kind of CIC bs would make. He possibly would make a poor CIC. It is likely we'll never know.

    1. Sure, we can't know how he might do until he does it. I'm saying he'd be better than bush, better than Obama, better than any potential Repub, and better than Hillary... based on his record (and based on Hillary's record as Sec of State and based on what the Repub presidential hopefuls say they'll do).

    2. No argument on any of your points here Dervish.

  3. Replying again to an unpublished TOM comment...

    TOM: Hey [homophobic slur] you don't read your own headlines. [Engage in gay sex act with another blogger I don't like] today? Of course that's not what I said but you a to much of a COWARD to post my comment, but then comment on my un-posted comment. Laughable, but thanks for proving what a [homophobic slur] you are. Thanks for reading.

    My Response. Read my own headlines? Yes, of course. My post title says nothing about ending wars immediately or not sending troops. Although I would be surprised if a President Bernie Sanders didn't try to get us out of Afghanistan ASAP and be much more reluctant to send troops than a President Hillary Clinton. You read things into the headline that I wasn't saying.

    As for the "coward" comment, TOM said "Delete when it becomes ridiculous. Delete when the ideas expressed do nothing to progress the discussion". Sounds "pro cowardice" to me. Or good advice, given the fact that TOM's comments are largely ridiculous and do nothing to progress the discussion. Although TOM denies that the TOM who commented on Stay A While and the TOM commenting here are the same TOM. Despite the blogger ID#s matching.

    Gay Bigot Hate-Filled TOM: Blogger ID# 02464117691722213136.
    Stay A While TOM: Blogger ID# 02464117691722213136.

    Re "thanks for reading"... you're welcome. Remember I told you to continue trying to submit comments if you'd like. Now this dipshit DOES WHAT I TELL HIM TO, and he thinks I'm getting really angry that TOM won't go away. Which probably causes the moron to laugh. But I'm laughing at him. Keep commenting, stop commenting. I really don't give a crap what you decide to do.

  4. Another comment from TOM, for which I say "thank you". Unfortunately it consisted of homophobia only and did nothing to progress the discussion. So, as per TOM's own recommendation, I did not publish it. Looks like TOM is too much of a coward to address my pointing out of his previous comment when he noted that he was in favor of deleting.

  5. Re TOM (in an unposted comment) saying he doesn't know what I'm talking about... an odd complaint for someone who wrote "you a to much of a COWARD to post my comment". I'm guessing he meant "are to much"... but my brains aren't scrambled like TOM's are. Sorry you don't understand clearly articulated ideas TOM... although I suspect he might be pretending. I point out his hypocrisy (I'M a coward for deleting) and he thinks he can ignore the fact that he recommended deleting ON HIS OWN BLOG. He's playing stupid - or he is THAT stupid. Either way it doesn't work. Everyone can see TOM is full of shit.


Comment moderation is not currently in effect. Your comment will appear immediately. I do not, however, allow Anonymous comments. Anyone wishing to comment MUST have a Blogger account.