No sooner than I'd thought that if the GOP were in the WH (ie. heading the Dept. of State), Libya'd be Democratic Candidate Campaign Strategy Number One (complete w/ un-ironic !Benghazi! sloganeering), comes this interview with Bernie Sanders in which he places at least some of the blame for regime change policy and how it bolsters terrorism at his primary opponent's feet.
Now Sanders voted against authorization in Iraq, or so he says (which says more about me that I hadn't already known it), so what inspired my aforementioned thought — that Dem-loyalist wont of late to harp on the Bush-Cheney-Iraq axis as blame for the creation of ISIS while ignoring the continuity in policy since then — doesn't necessarily apply to him on this issue specifically. But the part in the interview where he says he'd be tougher on allies like Saudi Arabia might make one wonder what that means, especially when he says that "guns should not get into the hands of people who everybody agrees should not have them".
Does it mean he will no longer be legally laundering weapons and money via the Saudis, as the US has done since long before I grew the hair I've since lost? Or does it mean he'll continue to do that, but demand they promise not to allow them to "fall into the 'wrong' hands"?
And what is Sanders' position on the Saudi's current spree-for-all in Yemen? What is his position on the US policy of firing from the sky by way of biometric profiling? When is the last time he ever voted against a military appropriations bill? And when he says “I think the United States, UK, France, Germany, Russia, have the power to make sure that there are Muslim boots on the ground,” which would include "giving them air support" does this really imply a new kind of support, or is he just pandering Clinton style to the white whine set?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Muslim boots all over the ground with coalition air support reflected the situation as it stands, which includes the semi-annual demand that the Saudis and Qatar "invest more".
The debate is tomorrow night — I'll try (not) to pay attention. But if any Sanders' supporters care to weigh-in with answers to these questions — not necessarily to me, but to be prepared to answer anyone who has them — you may or may not be doing him more a service than simply casting a vote.
Now Sanders voted against authorization in Iraq, or so he says (which says more about me that I hadn't already known it), so what inspired my aforementioned thought — that Dem-loyalist wont of late to harp on the Bush-Cheney-Iraq axis as blame for the creation of ISIS while ignoring the continuity in policy since then — doesn't necessarily apply to him on this issue specifically. But the part in the interview where he says he'd be tougher on allies like Saudi Arabia might make one wonder what that means, especially when he says that "guns should not get into the hands of people who everybody agrees should not have them".
Does it mean he will no longer be legally laundering weapons and money via the Saudis, as the US has done since long before I grew the hair I've since lost? Or does it mean he'll continue to do that, but demand they promise not to allow them to "fall into the 'wrong' hands"?
And what is Sanders' position on the Saudi's current spree-for-all in Yemen? What is his position on the US policy of firing from the sky by way of biometric profiling? When is the last time he ever voted against a military appropriations bill? And when he says “I think the United States, UK, France, Germany, Russia, have the power to make sure that there are Muslim boots on the ground,” which would include "giving them air support" does this really imply a new kind of support, or is he just pandering Clinton style to the white whine set?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Muslim boots all over the ground with coalition air support reflected the situation as it stands, which includes the semi-annual demand that the Saudis and Qatar "invest more".
The debate is tomorrow night — I'll try (not) to pay attention. But if any Sanders' supporters care to weigh-in with answers to these questions — not necessarily to me, but to be prepared to answer anyone who has them — you may or may not be doing him more a service than simply casting a vote.
