Sanders’ Screwy Mideast Strategy

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

By Sam Husseini

. . . . Some have argued that Sanders’ candidacy is very valuable — that win or lose, he’s putting the issue of income inequality front and center. But if the candidacy is to be lauded for raising issues of economic inequality, educate the public and galvanize around that that, it’s fair to ask how the candidacy is also deforming public discussion on other crucial issues. If the position of the most prominent “progressive” on the national stage is for more Saudi intervention, what does that do to public understanding of the Mideast and dialogue between people in the U.S. and in Muslim countries?

If the U.S. further subcontracts the Mideast to the Saudi regime, the setbacks and disappointments for peace and justice in the Mideast during the Obama years will be small potatoes in comparison. If the Mideast continues to deform, largely because of U.S. policies backing Saudi Arabia, as well as Israel, all the other things Sanders is talking about regarding economic inequality are arguably out the window. He himself has noted that “wars drain investment at home.”

Or does Sanders think it’s all good if he can set up a scheme whereby the Saudis pay the bills and use their own troops for Mideast wars that the U.S. government backs? Martin Luther King in his “Beyond Vietnam” speech referred to the wars taking funds from the war on poverty as a “demonic destructive suction tube.” But he also referred to just looking at the funding as a “facile” connection, listing several other, deeper, reasons based on other moral grounds for opposing war. But Sanders rarely touches on those other reasons. It’s as though we’ve learned nothing about blowback since 9/11.

Contrast Sanders’ call for an escalation in Saudi Arabia’s proxy wars with what insurgent Jeremy Corbyn — who’s campaign to lead the Labor Party in the UK has caught fire — is saying. He’s been challenging the British establishment about arming the Saudis: “Will the Minister assure me that the anti-corruption laws will apply to arms deals and to British arms exports? Will they involve forensic examination of any supposed corruption that has gone on between arms sales and regimes in other parts of the world rather than suspending Serious Fraud Office inquiries, as in the case of an investigation into the Al-Yamamah arms contract with Saudi Arabia?” See a section on Corbyn’s website on Saudi Arabia and video of his remarks at the House of Parliament just last month, with Corbyn relentlessly raising questions of human rights violations by the Saudi regime.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article42735.htm

[leveymg]

1. This is Bernie's Achilles Heel

[Catherina]

36. And the reason I had to think long and hard before supporting him

but support him I do. And even if it his Achilles Heel (well put), he's not as bloodthirsty as the candidates we normally get.

I was not pleased at all to see the way he went along with our crimes in Libya but at least he didn't cackle about killing its leader. Or his initial support for the war against Afghanistan. Or Palestine. But at least he's not aggressively pushing for those things, unlike others.

I'm not going to whitewash his record. We can't hold him accountable if we do. I also think some of the criticism from the Left take some of his statements out of context. It just is what it is, I'm not going to pretend I was fooled in 3 years. And I'm putting a lot of faith in the bolded statements below and my own observations.

The Democratic Party doesn't want me to be a purist. So here they go. I'm not being a purist now because of where Bernie's emphasis is. Bernie is step one to fixing this nation and as palatable a choice as we're going to get.

If he turns out to be a total fraud, which I can't imagine, then this will be my last involvement ever with the current political system.

...

BLITZER: Well, there's a game of chicken, if you will, so we'll see who blinks on this front. But as you point out, the stakes are certainly enormous right now.

Let's talk about Afghanistan for a moment.

You know that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, they come out with a report today that's saying billions and billions of dollars in aid to Afghanistan is simply wasted. It's costing U.S. taxpayers $2 billion a week, $10 billion a month, $100-plus billion a year to keep 100,000 U.S. troops there. Is this a waste of U.S. taxpayer money?

SANDERS: Well, Wolf, I was in Afghanistan a few months ago. And I want to say very honestly, as somebody who is often critical of the military, our guys are doing a tremendous job under very difficult circumstances.

But we have a $1.5 trillion deficit. As you've indicated, we're spending $100 billion a year on Afghanistan, the war there. A lot of it goes to rebuild that country.

Well, you know what? I know a great country that needs to be rebuilt in terms of roads, bridges, schools. That is called the United States of America.

So, after 10 years, I think it is time to start rapidly withdrawing our troops, supporting the Afghan military and their police. We want a victory over the Taliban, but I think it is time to bring our troops home as soon as we possibly can.

BLITZER: Because the president says they're going to stay there until the end of 2014. I take it three and a half years, that's way too much for you to accept.

SANDERS: In my view, it is. I think that the support for the Afghan military and police is imperative, but we've got to bring our troops home. And when we do that, we save substantial sums of money.

BLITZER: So how quickly?

SANDERS: I would accelerate -- I mean, I don't have a date in mind, but much faster I think than the president is talking about.

BLITZER: What would you do, if anything, to stop the slaughter in Syria right now?

SANDERS: Well, you know, there are a limits to the number of laws that we can engage in, and I think we can work with our allies in the region to do the best that we can. But I certainly do not think we can be involved in country after country after country.

BLITZER: Did the president do the right thing in launching Tomahawk cruise missiles and other strikes against targets in Libya?

SANDERS: I have reservations about our involvement in Libya. I mean, we are in a huge deficit. We are in two wars. And I would become somewhat conservative on that issue.

BLITZER: It's already cost U.S. taxpayers a billion dollars for what those Tomahawk cruise missiles, some of the other equipment that was used in Libya. A billion dollars is a lot of money.

SANDERS: It is a lot of money. And, you know, Wolf, there are a lot of horrible things taking place all over this world, but we have enormous problems ourselves -- anyone who gets in their car right now and drives home. We've got to rebuild our infrastructure. We've got to invest in our teachers. We have to build public transportation. We have to deal with global warming.

Believe me, we have enough problems right here at home. So I'm kind of conservative on getting involved in all kinds of wars abroad.

...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/06/08/interview_with_senator_bernie_sanders_110147.html

[Catherina]

2. I support him, for several reasons important to me, however

on this I have serious problems. I keep digging in his past. The best I've found, other than stuff most people know like his real support for the Sandinistas, is that according to close friends, he's not keen on foreign policy right now and thinks our internal problems deserve more attention. I think that was in a Times article. That doesn't really mean much does it? I'm eager to hear much more from reliable sources and from Sanders himself- not imperialists so eager to score a quick point that they ignore the beam in their own eye.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

4. I share your concerns Catherina.

I like Sanders on just about everything except his apparent unwillingness to challenge the U.S. war machine in any meaningful way. I consider this to be a hugely important shortcoming however, and it gives me serious concerns about him.

As to his focus on our internal problems, surely he must see the link between our troubles at home and our resource draining, self defeating foreign policy of never-ending interventionism around the world. How can he not be speaking out about this? I really don't understand that.

[Bubzer]

15. I think Bernie Sanders sees the fight against corproations and the 1% as the crux of many issues.

Its fairly easy to follow money trails leading to various wars. There is virtually always a financial incentive on behalf of a corporate interest. I'd be willing to bet Bernie believes that stabilizing the balance of powers at home, through educating, employing, and otherwise empowering people, corporations and politicians will be less able to get away with inciting wars for profit.

[Catherina]

37. +1. And get the conversation going. Give it a few years.

I agree with many of the author's points in the following article but I disagree with his conclusion. The author take issue over the bolded part, I find it encouraging. Nobody's going to dismantle the Pentagon overnight. That's just not going to happen. But heck yeah! Give the American people an idea of how the Pentagon spends its money so we can start working on the next step.

Get the conversation going. Give it a few years. We'll get there if we're persistent.

Many of my liberal and progressive friends remain clueless about the US Empire, instead opting for the easy explanation: “Bush and GOP started the wars, not Obama and the Democrats.” Of course, liberals usually neglect to mention Obama’s escalation in Afghanistan, drone strikes, Libya fiasco, massacre in Gaza, etc. Most importantly, my liberal friends believe, like so many Democrats, that US citizens can force domestic reforms without directly challenging the US’ bloated, unsustainable and insane military budget and Empire. Here, they are gravely mistaken.

Immediately, it would be worth noting that 57% of the US discretionary federal budget is dedicated to warfare. Whatever liberals and activists wish to do with the remaining 43% doesn’t really matter because the remaining 57% of the budget is off limits and devoted to Empire. In fact, it’s not even part of the discussion. The dominant discourse surrounding the US Empire still takes place within the ideological-political prism of the War on Terror. Within this context, only minor reforms have been suggested concerning the US Empire.

For instance, Bernie Sanders once said, “The situation has become so absurd, that the Pentagon is unable to even account for how it spends its money. Now we can argue about whether we need this weapon system, or that weapon system, or the size of the Pentagon, but I would suggest there is no disagreement that we should have an understanding of how the Pentagon spends its money.”

What does Sanders’ comments tell us about his ideology? He, like so many US politicians, believes that the United States plays a special role in world affairs. For Sanders, it’s not the Pentagon, per se, that’s the problem, it’s the mismanagement of the Pentagon. In other words, it’s not that the US Empire or Pentagon is inherently unsustainable and destructive, it’s that they are simply being mismanaged and misused. For liberals like Sanders and Obama, the US Empire is essential, yet should operate differently. In some ways, they view the Pentagon the same way Donald Rumsfeld did: as an entity to be reformed, modernized and streamlined.

...

https://zcomm.org/zcommentary/no-alternatives-to-us-empire-bernie-sanders-and-the-2016-elections/

[Catherina]

39. Solomon said a similar thing

Solomon (see post 27) said a similar thing:

"Solomon has an even bigger beef with his fellow progressive. "Bernie has chosen to say very little about the warfare state and has concentrated his fire on the corporate state," Solomon said. "I'm personally very supportive of him. But foreign policy is secondary for Bernie, always has been. He's better than Hillary Clinton on foreign policy, but that's a very low bar."

...

My hunch," Solomon said, "is that Bernie feels you can't fight every battle." Sanders may be calculating that his relentless attacks on oligarchy constitute enough of a challenge to the U.S. status quo for voters to digest. Taking on the military, too, might risk "splitting his base," Solomon suggested."

http://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/where-does-sanders-stand-on-foreign-policy/Content?oid=2804761

[Bubzer]

41. +1

[arcane1]

52. It's definitely a matter of treating the disease instead of the symptoms n/t

[Bubzer]

53. +1

Always been a fan of that approach.

[Catherina]

27. 25,000+ sign petition on this issue "Speak Up: Militarism & Corporate Power Are Fueling Each Other"

For Immediate Release
Thursday, August 27, 2015 - 8:45am
Institute for Public Accuracy (IPA)
Contact:

Sam Husseini, [phone]; or David Zupan, [phone]
Bernie Sanders Gets Petition: 25,000 Push on Foreign Policy

WASHINGTON - A petition with more than 25,000 signers from around the United States was transmitted to the campaign headquarters of Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday (Aug. 27), urging him to directly tackle foreign policy issues in his run for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Organized by the online group RootsAction.org, the petition says:

“Senator Sanders, we are enthusiastic about your presidential campaign’s strong challenge to corporate power and oligarchy. We urge you to speak out about how they are intertwined with militarism and ongoing war. Martin Luther King Jr. denounced what he called ‘the madness of militarism,’ and you should do the same. As you said in your speech to the SCLC, ‘Now is not the time for thinking small.’ Unwillingness to challenge the madness of militarism is thinking small.”

The petition is headlined “Bernie Sanders, Speak Up: Militarism and Corporate Power Are Fueling Each Other.” In addition to signing the petition, about 5,000 of the 25,000 signers wrote individual comments that are posted online as part of the petition.

In a letter to Sanders that accompanied the petition, RootsAction.org offered to directly relay any response from him to all of the petition’s signers.

NORMAN SOLOMON, solomonprogressive at gmail.com
Solomon is executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy and co-founder of RootsAction.org. He is the author of War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death. He wrote the recent piece “Bernie Sanders Should Stop Ducking Foreign Policy".

“This petition to Bernie comes under the heading of critical support for his presidential campaign,” Solomon said today. “Bernie has been terrific in this campaign as he eloquently denounces corporate power, economic inequality and ‘oligarchy.’ But he’s not saying much about crucial issues of war, militarism and foreign policy — issues that have a great deal to do with a wide range of concerns that have been central to his grassroots campaign.

Solomon added: “As RootsAction noted in launching this petition campaign, ongoing war and huge military spending continue to be deeply enmeshed with basic economic ills from upside-down priorities. The National Priorities Project has documented that 54 percent of the U.S. government’s discretionary spending now goes to military purposes. We sidestep these realities at our peril.”

JEFF COHEN, jcohen at ithaca.edu
Co-founder of RootsAction.org and director of the Park Center for Independent Media at Ithaca College, Cohen said today: “Like most progressives, I’m thrilled that Bernie’s campaign has aroused so much enthusiasm among voters, especially young voters — despite mainstream media’s embarrassing obsession with candidate Trump. In strongly endorsing Bernie for president, human rights champion Cornel West grouped him with ‘prophetic politicians’ who deserve ‘our critical support’ despite ‘their faults and blind spots.’ That comment probably speaks for thousands of Bernie supporters and sympathizers who signed the RootsAction petition: It is a serious ‘blind spot’ to denounce corporate power and oligarchy without emphasizing militarism and perpetual war.”

Cohen added: “Bernie is connecting with voters by arguing that a country as wealthy as ours should provide free college and healthcare for all and infrastructure jobs. But some supporters are questioning how that’s fundable unless billions of war dollars are redirected homeward.”

SAM HUSSEINI, sam at accuracy.org, @samhusseini
Communications director for the Institute for Public Accuracy, Husseini just wrote the piece “Lousy Food, Small Servings — Sanders Foreign Policy: Backing Saudi Intervention.” He said today: “While Sanders’ pronouncements on foreign policy have been scant, a perhaps larger problem is that some of what we’ve heard has actually been regressive. The foreign policy issue that he seems most passionate about is particularly dangerous. Sanders has pushed for the repressive Saudi regime to engage in more intervention in the Mideast.

“Saudi military intervention in Yemen has helped bring what the UN calls a ‘humanitarian catastrophe’ to that country and more Saudi intervention in Syria, Iraq, Libya or elsewhere will almost certainly lead to more human suffering.

“Sanders has repeatedly argued for more Saudi intervention. He said on CNN: ‘Saudi Arabia is the third-largest military budget in the world, they’re going to have to get their hands dirty in this fight. We should be supporting, but at the end of the day this is a fight over what Islam is about, the soul of Islam, we should support those countries taking on ISIS.’

“Progressives in the U.S. are supposed to look toward the Saudi monarchy to save the soul of Islam? The Saudis have pushed the teachings of the Wahhabi sect and have thus been deforming Islam for decades. This actually helped give rise to ISIS and Al Qaeda. It’s a little like Bernie Sanders saying that the Koch Brothers need to get more involved in U.S. politics — they need to ‘get their hands dirty’.”
###

A nationwide consortium, the Institute for Public Accuracy (IPA) represents an unprecedented effort to bring other voices to the mass-media table often dominated by a few major think tanks. IPA works to broaden public discourse in mainstream media, while building communication with alternative media outlets and grassroots activists.


http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2015/08/27/bernie-sanders-gets-petition-25000-push-foreign-policy

[jfern]

3. Of course Corbyn is further left

But why should that matter when Sanders is by far the most liberal person with any chance of becoming US President?

[eridani]

5. Not holding out a lot of hope in derailing the MIC during a Sanders presidency

Maintaining and extending Obama's Iran and Cuba initiatives is something he would probably do. And he did boycott Bibi.

[Catherina]

35. I'm not either. But he's a good first step in the right direction

and there's no telling how a candidate who wants to derail the MIC would do right now. I don't think enough people, especially working class people are ready to support that in 2015.

Centrists keep chiding us for not being *pragmatic*, so here I am, being pragmatic. Bernie 2016

[JDPriestly]

6. In recent decades, we have pretty much been fighting Saudi Arabia's wars.

Iraq? Saudi Arabia's neighbor and enemy.

Iran? We haven't had a war there but too is not a friend in Saudi Arabia's view.

Bernie points out that we Saudi Arabia has a lot of military, a surprisingly large military and suggests that Saudi Arabia should fight these wars it gets us to fight.

He hasn't come out and said that, but that is my take on what he is saying.

Why should we pay the price to police the world for a bunch of dictators in the world like Saudi Arabia?

Let's further liberate ourselves from oil and Saudi Arabia's oil in particular.

We would be much better off financially if we did that -- stopped spending so much tax money on keeping the Strait of Hormuz and other oil transport lines open and switched as quickly as possible to alternative fuels.

We would kill three birds with one stone if we did that: 1) we would end our entanglements in the Middle East that are bringing us nothing; 2) we would have more friends in the world; 3) we could help save the environment.

Bernie's stance on the Middle East makes good sense to me. Let Saudi Arabia guarantee safe passage on the Strait of Hormuz and elsewhere in the Middle East.

Let's become energy independent with clean energy. Let's spend our money more wisely.

[Scuba]

10. Yep. Hard to take any author seriously who writes ...

... "If the U.S. further subcontracts the Mideast to the Saudi regime" when in fact the Saudis have the US doing their fighting for them.

I'll file this one under "smear attempt."

[Bubzer]

16. That line cought my attention as well.

I had to stop for a moment and think to myself:

"Subcontract? Isn't the Mideast a series of sovereign nations? Why are we "subcontracting" anything on soil that is not our... particularly when our continued presence is inciting discontent against us?"

It almost seems to be an argument geared toward building reasons for us to stay in the region and continue to fund war-profiteering corporations.

[JDPriestly]

31. I was watching the oil crisis in 1974-75 very carefully, writing about it, reading the Financial

Times and oil journals and lots of articles about it and Sheik Yamani figured big. The world looked to the Saudi Arabian leaders for leadership -- incredible as that may seem.

Money carries a bit stick, and Saudi Arabia is considering the relatively small size of its population, a very rich country.

Or at least it has been and was in 1973-74.

I have followed Saudi Arabia's use of its power in the world to some extent. I don't follow it now as closely as I did in 1973-74, but it is still very much a big player in decisions that are made. It's amazing that people don't realize this. The Bushes used to be fairly good business partners of members and friends of the Saudi royal family (which i think is quite large). That family has some influence in the US that it would not have if we could end Citizens United and somehow get a fairer telecommunications law. I don't know how a fairer telecommunications law could be written, but as things stand now, our country is too easily influenced in general by foreign interests.

I hear a lot about how the US is an empire. But the oligarchy that has so much influence here is not strictly American or even interested in the needs and welfare of the American people. Most Americans are unaware of that.

[leveymg]

55. The oil price shocks of 74-75 and 79-80 led directly to the inflation that derailed Carter

and led to the election of Ronald Reagan.

The latter "crisis" was really a sham as there was more crude oil in storage during the so-called Iran Oil Shortage than in previous years. Soaring prices and long lines at the pump did a number on Carter's popularity. This was actually the result of a producers strike by refinery owners and intermediate gasoline distributors. I remember this well because I studied the shortage as it happened while a Political Science major with Howard Zinn.

I agree the oligarchy that runs this country is now globalized, and the Saudis/Gulf States have a particularly malign effect on US economy and politics. But, it's actually far worse in the UK, where the al-Yamamah slush fund and Saudi-controlled companies such as Murdoch's NewsCorp have basically purchased British governments and Mideast policy and public opinion for three decades.

[Stevepol]

7. Hard to understand what's so screwy.

Sanders was asked specific questions and he answered as asked. He was asked about what to do about ISIS and the other threats in the Middle East, and he was clear that ISIS is a threat to humanity, but he wouldn't t want US troops on the ground, which would create an even worse mess. Let the people in the region do the fighting if they want to meet the threats in their neighborhood. He wasn't asked to comment on Saudi Arabia's serious shortcomings. What would the article have us do? Attack Saudi Arabia?? Foreign policy is just a dance to stay out of the messes unless something happens that threatens us directly it seems to me and even then we need to use diplomacy and the best information available.

[beam me up scottie]

8. Wait, wut? Bernie is a Jewish pro-Saudi imperialist who wants LM to make money? WTF?

Husseini said:

But if your point is to build up the next stage of the U.S. government’s horrific role in the Mideast, it kind of makes sense. The U.S. government helped ensure the Saudis would dominate the Arabian Peninsula from the formation of the nation state of Saudi Arabia — a nation named after a family. In return, the Saudis had the U.S. take the lead in extracting oil there and favored investing funds from their oil wealth largely in the West over building up the region, what the activist scholar Eqbal Ahmed called separating the material wealth of the Mideast from the mass of the people of the region. Saudi Arabia buys U.S. weapons to further solidify the “relationship” and to ensure its military dominance.

...

Why is Sanders doing this? Is there a domestic constituency called “Americans for Saudi Domination of the Arab World”? Well, yes and no. It would obviously play well in the general public to say: “We’ve got to stop backing dictatorships like the Saudis. They behead people, they are tyrannical. They have a system of male guardianship. Why the hell are they an ally?”

But Sanders is unwilling to break with the U.S.-Saudi alliance that has done such damage to both the Arab people and the American people. Now, we have a full-fledged Israeli-Saudi alliance and it must be music to the ears of pro-Israeli journalists like Wolf Blitzer for Sanders to be calling for U.S. backing of further Saudi domination.

...

So Sanders and Saudi planners seem to be working toward the same ends, as though war by an autocratic state in a critical region can be expected to breed good outcomes. Sanders doesn’t seem to take money from Lockheed Martin — though he’s backed their F-35, slated to be based in Vermont — but his stance on Saudi Arabia must bring a smile to the faces of bigwigs there.

What a crock.

Bernie is not pro-Saudi, he has criticized them in the past and will continue to do so.

His comments are being taken out of context by the author, he was angry that they want the US to send troops to defeat ISIS:

Sanders blasts Saudi Arabia for suggesting US troops against ISIS

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) ripped Saudi Arabia Friday after the nation’s top diplomat suggested the U.S. would have to deploy ground troops to ultimately defeat the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

“I find it remarkable that Saudi Arabia, which borders Iraq and is controlled by a multi-billion dollar family, is demanding that U.S. combat troops have ‘boots on the ground’ against ISIS. Where are the Saudi troops?” Sanders, a potential 2016 presidential candidate, said in a statement.

“With the third largest military budget in the world and an army far larger than ISIS, the Saudi government must accept its full responsibility for stability in their own region of the world,” he added.

The sharp words come the day after Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, expressed concern that Iran’s military is increasing its support to Baghdad’s forces in the fight against the terror group, especially around the city of Tikrit.

...

Sanders flatly rejected the notion that America must lead the vanguard against ISIS.

“Ultimately, this is a profound struggle for the soul of Islam, and the anti-ISIS Muslim nations must lead that fight. While the United States and other western nations should be supportive, the Muslim nations must lead,” he said.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/234907-sanders-blast-saudi-arabia-for-suggesting-us-troops-against-isis

Unrec.

[Bubzer]

17. +1

Thanks for bringing some clarity to that article... I was having some trouble wading through it.

[beam me up scottie]

21. No problem.

I knew what to look for as soon as I saw the source.

[Trajan]

26. Excellent response ...

Whenever Hillary supporters bring this kind of crap out for a spin, I feel I have to shut them down ...

Mr. 24 is now verboten in my feed ... I don't see why I would ever want a panderer of mistruth to post anything in my feed .... Ignore.

[beam me up scottie]

30. Thanks.

I try to shut them down with facts but it hardly ever works.

[Catherina]

48. There's got to be room for disagreement

Bernie has the unenviable task of bringing together a disparate coalition ranging from conservatives to the hard Left. There's bound to be honest disagreement, even very strong disagreement.

This isn't anything anyone can use against Bernie for political points. It's not like HRC's camp or Republicans can go after him when they've aggressively done so much worse. I see hesitancy from many Leftists to support Sanders until he speaks more about his Foreign Policy so I hope he starts speaking about it more soon.

I believe Sanders is a complicated person and that's ok. Look at just this

In the mid-1980s, Lloyd recalled, then-mayor Sanders opposed peace activists' demand that the local General Electric plant be shut down and converted to civilian production. The factory was making guns that were shipped to Central America for use against leftist forces, including those then holding power in Nicaragua. Sanders was an outspoken supporter of that regime, traveling to Nicaragua to express solidarity with its Sandinista government. But he opposed the campaign to close the GE plant because of the impact it would have on workers and their families.

http://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/where-does-sanders-stand-on-foreign-policy/Content?oid=2804761

You can never do what's *right* for everyone overnight when you're dealing with such complicated issues. Knock down this domino or that one? Hard choices that deserve some slack if someone is as consistent and forthright as they can be.

I hope you know how wholeheartedly I support Bernie.

[Trajan]

56. I understand what you are saying, and I agree with most of it

However, at this point in the campaign, I refuse to let naysayers dog us with negative, disappointing commentary ...

I have no problem with others having their voice ... But it's my choice to 'clean up' my own feed, and not be distracted into useless arguments ...

Go Bernie! ... Much love ...

[Catherina]

57. I understand where you're coming from too

I have all the opposition naysayers on ignore at DU and I've blocked/muted the aggressively dishonest ones on my twitter feed though I'll read their comments on my saved searches. So hell yeah I understand, empathize and sympathize.

I think the main reason I'm cutting slack is because I cyber-personally know people who'll vote for him despite reservations on his foreign policy and others who could easily be brought over with more discussion.

Some, more purist (committed to certain issues is probably a better description) than you or I will never budge but I think navigating contentious discussions with left-leaning people who could be brought over (or are already there like the OP and MisterP) is worth it.

I see a lot of Black brothers and sisters saying they can't support Bernie because they'd be throwing our Palestinian brothers and sisters under the bus. Those poor brothers and sisters are already under the bus and the other busses are way heavier, more unfair and without any nuance. Personally, I think Bernie is about as good on Palestine as we're going to get right now and I hope, that by keeping the channels open with people who sincerely have just that one major reservation, we can bring more over.

I just hate to see 2 people I like unhappy with each other. I shouldn't have interjected and apologize for that. I love you Trajan. You're totally bae (as in delightful and cool) and like Bernie, you just rock.

[Trajan]

58. Aww ... Your posts have been amazing Catherina

You have been rocking it for months now. ..

Before the primary season began, I had two people on ignore, after 13 years of DUness .... Now? .. I don't have time to count, but that's all good ... I'll let everybody out after the primaries ...

Have a great weekend, Catherina ... Love you too!

[JDPriestly]

32. I think the article turns Sanders' statement on its head. Ridiculous.

[beam me up scottie]

34. It's absurd. Reminds me of Fox News "journalism".

[Vattel]

9. The attack on Sanders distorts his position a bit, but raises good issues.

Sanders has the view that we should not be policing the world, and he criticized the Saudi regime for asking our troops to fight ISIS rather than Saudi troops. Given that Clinton as SOS authorized a 29 billion dollar arms sale to Saudi Arabia, it looks like she has no problem arming the Saudis to the teeth. Is that good for the region? That is one of the difficult questions here. Another difficult question is whether we should want Saudi military action in Iraq or Syria.

[cali]

11. information clearing house is well known for its antisemitism

[beam me up scottie]

12. No kidding. Did you read the comments?

I wonder why someone though this belonged here.

Oh, right. I forgot.

Bernie is Jewish.

[cali]

13. on the old DU we weren't allowed to link to it

[Bubzer]

19. Yes, Bernie is Jewish (NOT THAT I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT!)

Sorry, couldn't resist

[beam me up scottie]

23. Exactly! ;)

I fully expect DU to be deluged with more hit pieces like this as the primaries progress.

[Bubzer]

24. Definately. Primaries are unfortunately an fairly ugly time to deal with. So many impassioned people

All trying to convince everyone else that their idea/candidate is the way to go. People erupt in bitter feuds against one another. Its kind of sad really. Most times, those who would feud with each other over politics would be good friends...or at least amicable.

[beam me up scottie]

25. I like and admire many DUers who support other candidates.

I think all of the smart folks steer clear of GD P.

It's an arena and not for the squeamish.

[Bubzer]

28. There's certainly many good discussions and points made.

If I'm wrong about something, someone out there usually points me in the right direction.
I can't say I'm smart enough to stay away from GD though.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

33. So far as I know, ICH is still owned and run by...

... just one individual (Tom Feeley) entirely on contributions from his readership. While he does have a
commenting policy, he does not, apparently, have time/resources to promptly scrutinize every comment posted for removal.

Yes, you can find hate rhetoric, stupidity, and anti-semitism in the comments section there, but the commentary
is not generally dominated by it, and offenders do often have their posts removed and do get banned if they continue violating commenting policy.

ICH commenting policy:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/comment_policy.htm

[cali]

45. you are wrong and it is easy to find antisemitism there in article after article

You reveal yourself using a site that publishes antisemitic material to attack Sanders.

Disgusting and shame on you.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

49. You didn't identify what specifically I said that...

... you believe me to be wrong about (I guess you were in too big a hurry to launch a personal attack), however, if you feel so strongly about this perhaps you should take it up with the admins.

[demwing]

14. It's the economy, stupid

Sanders wants to break our addiction to oil. From an economic perspective, we need to create jobs in alternative energies, and stop subsidizing big oil.

Imagine the impact those economic policies would have on our engagements in the ME.

Saying Bernie is too focused on the economy is like saying Bernie is too focused on the central issue that affects all other issues.

It's truly the economy, stupid.

[Uncle Joe]

18. I agree, demwing, that's it in a nutshell.

[Bubzer]

20. Exactly right! +1

[Catherina]

38. +1000

And, pragmatically speaking, the US isn't ready for anyone an inch to the Left of Sanders right now.

It's the economy. It's working-class issues. And they're related to the war machine. Bernie knows this. He's not a stupid man. But it's not as easy being a leader as people think. Shit's complicated.

I'm just grateful that with Bernie, I see what I'm getting.

"There are times that one wishes one was smarter than one is so that when one looks out at the world and sees the problems one wishes one knew the answers and I don't know the answers. I think sometimes one wishes one was dumber than one is so one doesn't have to look out into the world and see the pain that's out there and the horrible situations that are out there, and not know what to do" - Bernie Sanders

http://www.democraticunderground.com/128040277

[jeff47]

22. Uh...saying the Saudis should fight their own wars instead of the US fighting their wars

is not the same as saying the Saudis should be paid by the US to do everything the US wants to do.

This author is a moron.

[PatrickforO]

29. This is a smear. This guy Husseini is twisting up the simple concept that the armies over in the mid

East should be in the vanguard against ISIS. Not our guys.

[Zorra]

40. Bernie is correct. We are spread too thin. Our own people suffer while

we spend billions of our tax dollars protecting the profit interests of transnational corporations all over the world. Neoliberals pretend that they have the noble goal of curtailing human rights violations in those countries with our presence and influence, and use this pretense to try to justify our imperialist capitalist "presence for profit" abroad.

We have already done everything we could to destabilize the Middle East in the name of imperial capitalist neoliberalism. Time to let the region deal with its own issues, the issues it lives every day. The US cannot be the World Police for several reasons, one of which is that we have proven that we totally suck at doing it, another of which are that it is sucking up half our tax revenue, revenue that could be used to improve the conditions of everyone in the US and maybe even our neighbors in the Americas as well.

Our home is a tragically dysfunctional home, and we all know the ways in which it is dysfunctional. We're definitely not going to be able to help anyone else if we can't even help ourselves.

Neoliberalism is nothing but imperialist capitalism. Neoliberalism is a disease that is killing the planet, and the US is the main host/carrier of neoliberalism and is spreading the disease of neoliberalism throughout the world. Neoliberals claim they spread democracy, but democracy to neoliberals means subjugation of other cultures for profit. Neoliberal imperialists have displaced and dispossessed billions of indigenous people by stealing their land, taking away their means of sustenance/resources, and then forcing them to bow before the self-righteous imperial neoliberal throne, often forcing them to become refugees in order to survive, under the most meager of circumstances.

Virtually every non-white culture on the planet has been infected, exploited, disrupted, and impoverished by murderous neoliberal white supremacist profiteers with delusions of racial superiority.

Let other regions of the world deal with their own issues, which they understand better than anyone. Yes, Saudi Arabia is a nasty, rotten, oppressive neoliberal monarchy. Maybe if they are forced to deal with major threats to their wealth and sovereignty, the people will get a shot at overthrowing the monarchy. The people of Saudi Arabia are not benefiting significantly by neoliberal appeasement and partnership with the rotten regime that oppresses them.

We have proven, over and over that we simply are not capable of effectively dealing with the issues of cultures we cannot understand because we do not live the issues, and we, like so many imperialist European nations before us, have created and perpetuated the enormous clusterfuck that is the Mideast.

We desperately need to break the neoliberal stranglehold on all of our lives, and work on fixing ourselves. If we are not in the Mideast committing mass genocide and blowing the destabilizing unholy fuck out of sovereign nations with unjustifiable wars (for neoliberal profit!) in the Mideast, it may actually give the people of the Mideast the chance to eventually fix themselves.



From Fire to Autonomy: Zapatistas, 20 Years of Walking Slowly
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/21427-from-fire-to-autonomy-zapatistas-20-years-of-walking-slowly

http://www.schoolsforchiapas.org/teach-chiapas/library/

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/mexico/ezln/1997/jigsaw.html

[Catherina]

42. Preach it sister!

This is a touchy subject. I don't think it's going to hurt Bernie. He's losing a lot of pro-Palestinian votes, especially in the younger Black community who refuse to throw our Palestinian brothers & sisters under the bus so I wish he'd speak a little more about that burning hot issue and show that his support for a 2 state solution is way better than his opponent's lip service, that he has harshly chided the Israeli government and military for "reprehensible" actions and wants the settlements out of the West Bank.

I hope he gets a chance so people can see it's not exactly the same old same old.

Excellent post

[Zorra]

44. Thank you, Catherina.

Palestine appears to me to be a Catch-22. Much bigger and better minds than mine have sought to conceive of viable solutions that will be satisfactory to all concerned, to no avail.

I suspect the answer may lie hidden somewhere within the profit/destabilization agenda of the global neoliberal establishment.

Neoliberal Secretary of State Hillary Clinton certainly did less than zero to change the status quo of this region, and he same can be said for her neoliberal predecessors.

Maybe Bernie, who is not beholden to the neoliberal agenda, can develop a workable, constructive plan that will reasonably satisfactory to those most affected by this conundrum, if given the opportunity.

[MisterP]

43. note how Sanders supporters are against this, however: and he's responsive to them

we do have to remind him how compromising on only one big thing undermined LBJ, Carter, and now SYRIZA to the point of burning their respective parties to the ground

[Catherina]

46. He asked us to do this, not to be lemmings

and I think that if we want transparency, the transparency starts here.

Another point, I appreciate that there's criticism coming from the Left. I don't consider that destructive. Bernie's strong enough to handle it and has been handling it for years. He's not a savior, he's a great politician who served his constituency well by being responsive to them and I believe he'll serve us well too as long as we remain engaged and honest.

[MisterP]

47. the party's split between people who support candidate X because they support policies ABC,

and people who support candidate Y no matter what, and therefore support CDE because Y's supporting it

Plato wrote about this, of all people

[Catherina]

50. Or honest people interpreting things differently based on the facts they have

One thing I've noticed about Bernie supporters here is a genuine care about the issues so, I'm cutting lots of slack for honest disagreements based on people's record here. If someone, like the OP, and other posters in this thread also, has consistently opposed militarism, I think they have the credibility to criticize. Others, who supported those ventures, not so much.

If this had been posted by someone looking to trash Sanders, I would immediately have trashed it.

[MisterP]

51. guess it's the first primary where epistemology was a central issue and we have to learn

to cope with it! by 2024 we'll be arguing nominalism vs. realism in our candidates

[Catherina]

54. I had to google that word. Thanks for a new word n/t