Of course, it is not hard to look like a peace candidate when you’re standing next to Hillary Clinton.
She was a major reason for the chaos that rules over Libya. Not only did she get the U.S. to brutally overthrow the Libyan government, but she armed Islamic terrorists to do it. This cost American lives in Benghazi. She did the same is Syria. giving birth to ISIS.
So Bernie Sanders seems plausible when he contrasts himself to Clinton. The Hill reports, “Sanders: Clinton voted for war, I voted against it.”
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is continuing to hammer Democratic presidential rival Hillary Clinton over her 2002 vote to authorize the war in Iraq.
“What was the most important vote cast in the modern history of America on foreign affairs? Yeah, it was Iraq,” Sanders told The Des Moines Register’s editorial board Thursday.
“What does Hillary Clinton have to do to convince you that she has significant foreign policy judgment? She cast a vote for the war. I cast a vote against the war,” Sanders added.
Sanders is hoping to gain ground on the former secretary of State on foreign policy, which has moved toward the forefront in the wake of recent terror attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, Calif.
Barack Obama did exactly the same thing when he was running against Hillary Clinton in 2008. He posed so well that he won the Nobel Peace Prize for nothing more than campaign promises. Then he gave us the kill list, indefinite detention, drone murders in Yemen and elsewhere, and cover for the NSA domestic spying. And he was just as responsible for Libya and ISIS.
So what about Sanders?
According to Justin Raimondo at Antiwar.com,
Yet his real foreign policy record is closer to Hillary’s than he likes to admit. Yes, he opposed the Iraq war – and then proceeded to routinely vote to fund that war: ditto Afghanistan. In 2003, at the height of the Iraq war hysteria, then Congressman Sanders voted for a congressional resolution hailing Bush:
“Congress expresses the unequivocal support and appreciation of the nation to the President as Commander-in-Chief for his firm leadership and decisive action in the conduct of military operations in Iraq as part of the ongoing Global War on Terrorism.”
As the drumbeat for war with Iran got louder, Rep. Sanders voted for the Iran Freedom Support Act, which codified sanctions imposed since the fall of the Shah and handed out millions to “pro-freedom” groups seeking the overthrow of the Tehran regime. The Bush administration, you’ll recall, was running a regime change operation at that point which gave covert support to Jundullah, a terrorist group responsible for murdering scores of Iranian civilians. Bush was also canoodling with the Mujahideen-e-Khalq, a weirdo cult group once designated as a terrorist organization (a label lifted by Hillary Clinton’s State Department after a well-oiled public relations campaign).
Sanders fulsomely supported the Kosovo war: when shocked antiwar activists visited his Senate office in Burlington, Vermont, he called the cops on them. At a Montpelier public meeting featuring a debate on the war, Bernie argued passionately in favor of Bill Clinton’s “humanitarian” intervention, and pointedly told hecklers to leave if they didn’t like what he had to say.
As a Senator, his votes on civil liberties issues show a distinct pattern. While he voted against the Patriot Act, in 2006 he voted in favor of making fourteen provisions of the Act permanent, including those that codified the FBI’s authority to seize business records and carry out roving wiretaps. Sanders voted no on the legislation establishing the Department of Homeland Security, but by the time he was in the Senate he was regularly voting for that agency’s ever-expanding budget.
His position became more clearly pro-war at the first Democratic debate. Again, Raimondo:
Based on his responses during the first debate and statements posted on his website, Sanders is clearly not the antiwar candidate he claims to be.
“I supported the war in Afghanistan. I supported President Clinton’s effort to deal with ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. I support air strikes in Syria and what the president is trying to do,” stated Sanders during the first debate.
“Yes, I happen to believe from the bottom of my heart that war should be the last resort, that we have got to exercise diplomacy. But yes, I am prepared to take this country into war if that is necessary,” said Sanders, jumping at the chance to make sure everyone knows that he is not opposed to war.
Fortunately for Sanders – who is hoping to court antiwar Democrats and Independents – he wasn’t asked if he supports the Saudi Arabian dictatorship’s invasion of Yemen (he does).
Nor was he asked if he supports the coup government in Ukraine (he does).
Of course, liberals don’t really care. If a leader gives them enough loot, they are happy to be bribed to be quiet about overseas bloodshed. As Raimondo observes:
As long as Bernie gives them a bigger piece of the American Empire’s pie they are fine with him being pro-war.
It would be easier to swallow the fact that so many liberals are cheering for a pro-war candidate if they would just be honest and say, “I know Sanders is a pro-war candidate, but he said he’s going to give me a piece of the Empire’s pie, so I’m going to vote for him.”
It would be even better if those same people stated that they would accept responsibility for supporting a pro-war candidate, namely that they would do everything in their power to stop a Sanders presidency from engaging in any war.
But don’t expect such honesty. That’s why liberal hypocrisy is so common.