Sanders names Winston Churchill as someone he admires?

[oberliner]

Wasn't he even more of an imperialist than Henry Kissinger?

Seems weird to go after Kissinger and then turn around and cite Churchill in a positive light.

[m-lekktor]

1. at least Churchill isn't around still to "advise" him, unlike Kissinger/Hillary. nt

[oberliner]

5. True - but it seemed like an odd choice

Churchill and Kissinger pretty much shared the same values and approach to foreign policy.

Look at the way Churchill approached India for example.

[Art_from_Ark]

38. Churchill gave comfort and encouragement to his fellow Brits

when they were being bombed by the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain.

He also helped to get American support for his country's war effort (Lend-Lease Act) when he spoke to Roosevelt and the US Congress.

[oberliner]

45. Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating the end of the Vietnam War

Both have some positives and some negatives associated with their legacies.

[Art_from_Ark]

49. And just a few months after Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize,

he became involved with the coup in Chile that ousted the democratically-elected President and ushered in Augusto Pinochet's reign of terror in that country. Look at the pictures of Pinochet and his henchmen from that time-- swaggering around like a bunch of friggin' Nazis. And if that wasn't enough, he also encouraged right-wing dictators in other Latin American countries, particularly Argentina, to commit human rights atrocities against left-leaning citizens. Look up "Kissinger" and "desaparecidos", as well as "Operation Condor".

[oberliner]

50. And right after WWII, Churchill started culling the population of India

Look up his policy with respect to Kenya as well. Google "Britain's Gulag" for instance.

[muriel_volestrangler]

212. Right after WW2, Churchill was voted out

To be precise, he was voted out after the European war ended, but before the Pacific one did. By the time he was voted back in in 1951, India was independent. So we know you're wrong.

[oberliner]

213. In 1943, some 3 million brown-skinned subjects of the Raj died in the Bengal famine

In 1943, some 3 million brown-skinned subjects of the Raj died in the Bengal famine, one of history's worst. Mukerjee delves into official documents and oral accounts of survivors to paint a horrifying portrait of how Churchill, as part of the Western war effort, ordered the diversion of food from starving Indians to already well-supplied British soldiers and stockpiles in Britain and elsewhere in Europe, including Greece and Yugoslavia. And he did so with a churlishness that cannot be excused on grounds of policy: Churchill's only response to a telegram from the government in Delhi about people perishing in the famine was to ask why Gandhi hadn't died yet.

British imperialism had long justified itself with the pretense that it was conducted for the benefit of the governed. Churchill's conduct in the summer and fall of 1943 gave the lie to this myth. "I hate Indians," he told the Secretary of State for India, Leopold Amery. "They are a beastly people with a beastly religion." The famine was their own fault, he declared at a war-cabinet meeting, for "breeding like rabbits."

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2031992,00.html

It was towards the end of WWII, not after it was over.

[AgingAmerican]

95. "Some negatives"

Crimes against humanity

[oberliner]

97. Both in equal measure

Would you agree?

[AgingAmerican]

99. List the war crimes Churchill is accused of

Thanks in advance

[oberliner]

105. Maybe start with Dresden?

Then maybe move on to "Britain's Gulag" in Kenya.

[AgingAmerican]

111. Dresden was a joint USA/UK military action

And there were no war crimes charges leveled against Churchill in that action. You are blowing smoke out your ass.

[oberliner]

117. Yes, indeed it was

Deliberately killing civilians is a war crime. Thankfully now we have a mechanism in place to prosecute such crimes. The modern concept of a war crime didn't really come into its own until later.

[AgingAmerican]

119. Where there's smoke

...there's fire

[bettyellen]

51. I always heard the Queen Elizabeth and her mother gave the Brits hella comfort.

Even my Irish relatives loved them for it. Churchill, not so much. Colonialism.

[Art_from_Ark]

55. Not so much?

I beg to differ.

http://www.iwm.org.uk/history/how-churchill-led-britain-to-victory-in-the-second-world-war

[oberliner]

69. Are you aware of the source you are using?

I can direct you to the Ronald Reagan library if you'd like to learn how he led America to defeat the Soviet Union.

[Art_from_Ark]

79. Well, I had wanted to refer to the August 1965 National Geographic article

but it's not available online.

[oberliner]

82. Are you a fan of Noam Chomsky?

If so, I would encourage you to check out what he has written about Churchill.

[Art_from_Ark]

85. OK, I'll check it out when I have some time.

[oberliner]

88. OK

I've definitely read up more about Kissinger too!

[bettyellen]

75. Somehow the taint of colonialism stuck to him for many, and it was the first thing I thought of...

but, you know...I'm first generation Irish.

[Aerows]

63. Indeed.

There is no comparison between entering WWII, after our own soil was bombed and Kissinger's exploits, deposing leaders and screwing up Central and South America.

NONE.

Anyone that makes that comparison is wholly uninformed about the world surrounding both eras.

[oberliner]

84. What about Churchill's exploits in India and Kenya?

Any thoughts on his policies with respect to the darker skinned peoples of the world?

[gwheezie]

114. Churchill was only involved in ww2?

He's an odd choice.

[TDale313]

2. Well, that's a stretch.

[ErikJ]

101. Except Churchill was the first to propose their NHS universal health care

during the latter part of the war. Others picked up on it and got it done but he strongly supported it and even bragged about it.

[TDale313]

106. The op's attack, I meant.

[oberliner]

109. There is no attack

It was a weird choice. I am sure he would've chosen someone else if he had more time to think about it.

[lunamagica]

3. !I know! Contrast that with Hillary admiring Nelson Mandela n/t

[oberliner]

8. Mandela seemed like the obvious answer

Although I don't think either one was actually responding to the question.

[unapatriciated]

28. agree, I understood the question to mean who

he would go to for advice in today's world.

[oberliner]

32. Exactly

I was surprised that a current world leader was not selected by either of them.

[unapatriciated]

41. Yes I think they both misunderstood the question.

I think it would have been great to hear who they would go to for advice on both domestic and foreign policies.

[UglyGreed]

66. Nice to see Hillary

mention that she admired a socialist

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511204038

[oberliner]

72. Bernie names the leader of the UK Conservative Party and Hillary names a Socialist

Pretty crazy.

[UglyGreed]

78. Well maybe he stole

Hillary's response so she had to name a socialist to even the score. Then she turned the question into an opportunity to berate Bernie about Obama, pretty fancy footwork.

[oberliner]

81. Yeah that was a cheap move on her part

Especially at the end of what had been a relatively civil debate up to that point.

[UglyGreed]

83. IMO it was planned

maybe not at that exact moment but it was going to be said before the night was through.

[oberliner]

87. Probably

Clearly she is going for the "I am just like Obama" strategy - which is odd considering how hard she went after him when they were running against each other (as Bernie alluded to).

[Fla Dem]

153. For cripes sake, she was running against him when he was a wet behind the ears senator. Not

after he had been president for 7 years. That was a stupid comment Sanders made and Hillary should have called him on it.

[oberliner]

170. True - but it did get pretty nasty

It is a little strange to see her being so positive about him now in contrast to then.

[Fla Dem]

192. She worked closely with him for 4 years as SoS. She barely knew him in 2007 when she

began her campaign. He'd only been a senator for 2 1/2 years when they began campaigning.

Here's her glowing comments about him in her concession speech June 2008.

The way to continue our fight now, to accomplish the goals for which we stand is to take our energy, our passion, our strength, and do all we can to help elect Barack Obama, the next president of the United States.

Today, as I suspend my campaign, I congratulate him on the victory he has won and the extraordinary race he has run. I endorse him and throw my full support behind him.

And I ask all of you to join me in working as hard for Barack Obama as you have for me.

I have served in the Senate with him for four years. I have been in this campaign with him for 16 months. I have stood on the stage and gone toe-to-toe with him in 22 debates. I've had a front-row seat to his candidacy, and I have seen his strength and determination, his grace and his grit.

In his own life, Barack Obama has lived the American dream, as a community organizer, in the state senate, as a United States senator. He has dedicated himself to ensuring the dream is realized. And in this campaign, he has inspired so many to become involved in the democratic process and invested in our common future.

Now, when I started this race, I intended to win back the White House and make sure we have a president who puts our country back on the path to peace, prosperity and progress. And that's exactly what we're going to do, by ensuring that Barack Obama walks through the doors of the Oval Office on January 20, 2009.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/jun/07/hillaryclinton.uselections20081

People change their attitudes about people and ideas as they become more familiar with them. People evolve from their experiences. People who stay rigid and steadfast never considering other ideas or opinions become dogmatic.

[oberliner]

194. Those comments are not actually all that glowing

They are pretty much the standard remarks that the losing primary candidate makes about the winning one as they gear up for the coming general election.

In any case, you must admit that it is a little funny to see the contrast.

[Fla Dem]

197. As I said people evolve, so yes there is definitely a difference from when she was

campaigning against him 9 years ago. Lots of water under the bridge.

[TheBlackAdder]

131. You noticed she dropped his name and didn't go into why? Does she really know, a pander to AA, both?

[oberliner]

151. Mandela seems like the most obvious answer to the question

Who would you have chosen?

[TheBlackAdder]

159. Domestic, my favorite politician: Shirley Chisholm; Foreign a toss up between Mandela and Churchill.

.


My point is that she dropped his name and didn't elaborate, which was revealing.


Anyone can drop a name. I would like her to have justified it to the world.



Churchill fits more directly with with Sanders's struggle against an oppressive political force affecting the whole country, as people are afraid of making the institutional changes to disrupt those forces, and are losing hope. And, before you distort the prior sentence, there was a wide faction of whites in South Africa who were quite content.


.

[oberliner]

162. Churchill was a racist, imperialist who led the overthrow of the leader of Iran

He seems antithetical to everything Sanders stands for.

Bernie specifically called out the coup against Iran as a negative example of the US pursuing regime change with horrendous consequence.

Churchill was one the leaders who instigated that coup.

[TheBlackAdder]

203. I believe SBS quantified it to his rallying of countrymen to adversity. nt

[DURHAM D]

4. Yep.

That a trick question.

[oberliner]

24. What would've been the response if Hillary had named Churchill?

I would imagine that some folks might have brought up some of the darker elements of his foreign policy.

[Ed Suspicious]

56. I admit. I would have jumped on her for that.

but mostly because of her track record in international politics and her admiration for the K-man. It is interesting and unexpected that Bernie cited Churchill. It would have been appalling if Hillary did.

[oberliner]

59. Thank you for your honesty

I believe she would've gotten a lot of flak for such an answer.

I also think that if Bernie had more time to consider the question, he would've picked someone else.

[femmedem]

185. It was not the best moment of the debate for him, IMO.

And yes, I'll admit I would have been all over Hillary if she had referenced both Churchill and Kissinger.
Her Mandela answer struck me as smart, safe and also sincere.

Thank you for recognizing that Bernie probably would have picked someone else had he given it some more thought.

[Bjornsdotter]

6. He held Britain together

...and gave the people hope and someone to believe in during Britain's darkest days.

[oberliner]

89. Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize

They each have their good and bad points.

Churchill was brutal with respect to India and Africa, and we all know about Kissinger.

[Fearless]

7. Good luck with that.

[oberliner]

11. Not a huge deal - just an observation

It seemed like a surprising choice.

[Fearless]

13. Good luck with this strategy.

[Snotcicles]

22. Sowing seeds. nt

[oberliner]

25. There is no strategy

I just watched the debate and thought that was an odd choice. This is a discussion board, so I wanted to see if other people agree or disagree. That's it

I like both of our candidates.

[Warren DeMontague]

9. Churchill didnt take any shit from Hitler.

Gotta give him that.

[oberliner]

19. He deliberately targeted German civilians in bombing campaigns

The bombing of Dresden was pretty barbaric.

[840high]

23. Of course the Germans were so kind.

[oberliner]

30. Deliberately killing civilians is wrong

That shouldn't even be controversial, should it?

[Warren DeMontague]

33. I find many things in US foreign policy worthy of second guessing in the past 100 years

the prosecution of World War II is not one of them.

Whatever culpability you are assigning to Churchill could also be assigned to FDR, no? And certainly Truman, given the decision to drop the bomb twice.

[oberliner]

39. Yes, they are all culpable for deliberately killing innocent civilians

One can certainly argue that such action was justifiable. However, given the opportunity to cite any world leader past or present as a potential role model for how one would conduct foreign policy (which I think was the gist of the question) - it seems to be a surprising choice.

[Warren DeMontague]

42. Given the magnitude of the threat posed by Fascism in WWII, I don't find it surprising at all.

[840high]

96. So Germans didn't kill civilians?

[oberliner]

108. Of course they did

No one is citing Hitler as a role model for foreign policy.

[Warren DeMontague]

31. If you want to try and compare Kissinger to Churchill, go ahead and run with that.

If you want Hillary to be the candidate of arguing that the United States and Allies were overly zealous in the prosecution of WWII and the defeat of the Nazis and Japanese Empire, yeah, go with that too.

[oberliner]

34. I just thought it was an odd choice

You don't think so?

Put aside the politics for a second. Wasn't it kind of a surprising person for Sanders to cite?

[Warren DeMontague]

40. No, becuase Sanders has close relatives who were victims of the Holocaust.

And if you want to list the people who told Hitler to fuck off, Churchill is up near the top.

[oberliner]

90. Stalin would be at the top of the list

The Soviets lost 20 million men fighting the Nazis.

[Warren DeMontague]

204. you should have this conversation with Senator Sanders, then.

I don't think Churchill and Stalin are equivalent, I also don't think his statement is the "gotcha" you seem to think it is.

[oberliner]

207. This is a discussion forum where people talk about what the candidates say and do

I thought that answer was worth discussing, and I wanted to share my perspective with my fellow DUers on why I didn't think it was the best choice. You explained why you thought it was a good answer, I tried to explain why I thought it wasn't.

I don't think it is any kind of "gotcha" but I do think that in retrospect with further reflection he would've picked someone else.

[Zorra]

199. ^This^

Sanders was born in the New York City borough of Brooklyn. His father, Eli Sanders, was born on September 19, 1904, in Słopnice, Poland,[23][24] to a Jewish family, and emigrated to the United States in 1921,[25] at the age of seventeen.[23][26] His mother, Dorothy Sanders (née Glassberg), was born in New York City on October 2, 1912,[27][28] to Jewish immigrant parents from Poland and Russia.[29][30] Many of Eli's relatives who remained in Poland were killed in the Holocaust.[6][28][31] His paternal uncle, Romek, who was the leader of the Jewish community in Słopnice, was the first Jew to be murdered by the Nazis when they invaded the town.[26]

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

"Winston Churchill's politics were not my politics," Sanders began. "He was kind of a conservative guy in many respects," having been the head of the Conservative Party, "But nobody can deny that as a wartime leader, he rallied the British people when they stood virtually alone against the Nazi juggernaut and rallied them and eventually won." Along with Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the former U.S. president who also killed Nazis, "These are two leaders that I admire very much." - Bernie

It's easy to understand and empathize with how Bernie, as a descendant of a Jewish family genocided by the Nazis, might appreciate Churchill's stance against the Nazis. I pretty much despise much of what Churchill said and did, but am forced to admire, and respect, what he did as a leader to stop Hitler and his fascist hordes. The leadership of FDR, Churchill, and yes, even Stalin, pretty much saved an enormous segment of the human population on earth from being ruled by aggressive, genocidal, dictatorial, fascist sociopaths.

[oberliner]

211. Stalin had a much stronger stance against the Nazis than Churchill did

The Soviet army was liberating the countries of Eastern Europe before the Allies had even mounted any kind of serious challenge.

As you may know, it was the Soviets who liberated Auschwitz, the killing center and largest concentration camp in Europe.

Certainly no one would cite Stalin as a role model for foreign policy, in spite of the fact that he was the leader most responsible for the the defeat of Nazi Germany.

I would also point out that earlier in the debate, Sanders spoke very critically about the US-UK led coup of the democratically elected leader of Iran in the 1950s. He pointed to this as a foreign policy blunder caused by the dangerous pursuit of regime change.

The leader who was the prime instigator of that coup was Winston Churchill (who was the PM of the UK at the time).

[TubbersUK]

139. Exactly

It's not that there aren't points to be made about the less edifying aspects of Churchill's history.

It's that, ultimately, no comparison with Kissinger can possibly hold up given the WWII context of a worldwide fascist threat and on-going genocide.

As you imply, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are also in the mix.

There's absolutely nowhere to go with it as a debating point except straight into the buffers.

Hillary wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole.

[oberliner]

143. No world leader did more to fight the Nazis than Stalin

The Soviet Union lost 20 million people fighting the Nazis.

Certainly one would not cite Stalin as a role model for foreign policy today because of the "less edifying aspects" of his history.

Are you aware of Churchill's policies with respect to India? Kenya?

Are you aware of Churchill's role in the coup that overthrew the democratically elected PM of Iran?

This was an incident that Sanders specifically cited earlier in the debate as an example of the dangers of regime change.

[TubbersUK]

155. Yes, I'm aware of all of that - and probably more

I still don't think that there's a viable talking point in it for Hillary's campaign.

[oberliner]

164. It's definitely not meant to be a "talking point for Hillary's campaign"

I just think he made a weird choice in answer to that question - worth at least discussing on a discussion forum.

[jeff47]

43. So did FDR, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and Hirohito.

Guess what? Dumb bombs dropped from high altitude with WWII aiming technology don't hit exactly on target.

Shall we discard FDR because of the firebombing of Tokyo? That made Dresden look like a candle.

[oberliner]

74. Understood

I just think it was an odd choice and that Bernie would most likely had picked someone else given time to think about it.

I also think Hillary would've gotten some flak had she chosen Churchill.

[Donkees]

160. Re: Odd Choice

Bernie's brother lives in England and is also involved in politics there. Churchill was a reformer (pensions, unemployment, prisons, etc). I think the point that Bernie was focusing on was bringing people together to work for the common good.

[oberliner]

161. But the question was specifically about foreign policy advice

Here's the question:

"Can you name two leaders -- one American and one foreign -- who would influence your foreign policy decisions? And why do you see them as -- why are they influential?"

Seems weird to pick an imperialist who actively supported overthrowing the democratically elected leader in Iran for instance as someone who would influence his foreign policy decisions.

Again, I would assert that upon reflection, he would've made a different choice.

[Donkees]

178. 'He took the English language and sent it into battle.'

"In the dark early days of the Second World War Churchill had few real weapons. He attacked with words instead. The speeches he delivered then are among the most powerful ever given in the English language. His words were defiant, heroic and human, lightened by flashes of humour. They reached out to everyone in Britain, across Nazi-occupied Europe, and throughout the world. As journalist Beverly Nichols wrote, 'He took the English language and sent it into battle.'

'http://www.iwm.org.uk/history/how-churchill-led-britain-to-victory-in-the-second-world-war

[oberliner]

181. Are you aware of the source you are using?

If you'd like to learn about how President Reagan won the Cold War, I can direct you to the Ronald Reagan Presidential library website.

[Kentonio]

156. There are plenty of things to hold Churchill accountable for

But Dresden was more the responsibility of 'Bomber' Harris. He was basically a borderline (at least) psychopath who disregarded his instructions in a quest to crush Germany with no consideration to the human cost.

[oberliner]

179. Fair enough

But I think my broader point still stands.

[B Calm]

167. Who in the hell dropped the atom bomb?

[oberliner]

169. Sanders didn't cite Truman as a role model for his foreign policy

So that is sort of a moot point.

[B Calm]

210. I disagree that it's a moot point.

[oberliner]

218. OK - not entirely moot

I guess my main point, though, is that Churchill was a strange choice for Sanders to make in response to that question, especially in light of his citing the US/UK led coup of Mossadegh in the 1950s that was instigated by Churchill on the UK side.

[Skwmom]

10. He stated he didn't support his politics, just how he was able to rally people against Hitler. n/t

[oberliner]

14. Do you remember what the question was?

I'm not sure that I do, exactly. Is it posted anywhere?

[Warren DeMontague]

36. What leaders, one Foreign and one domestic, do you draw inspiration from.

I think it's awfully hard to argue that there wasn't anything inspirational about Churchill's holding strong against Nazi Germany, particularly circa 1940 or so.

Sanders' answer was spot on.

[Gregorian]

12. Only in terms of his wartime effort to unite nations for a purpose.

[Snotcicles]

15. He said he disagreed with Winston Churchill, but admired him for bringing the people of England

in times of incredible despair together to defeat the German Army.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

16. NO NO NO - HE said - very different from Sanders

Only suggested that he was able to hold together a country on the brink of destruction

Stupid to say anything else

[oberliner]

134. The question was to name a foreign leader who would influence policy decisions

"Can you name two leaders -- one American and one foreign -- who would influence your foreign policy decisions? And why do you see them as -- why are they influential?"

That was the question.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

17. Churchill was an effective and inspiring leader during WWII,

which might have been the reason.

[oberliner]

26. He was?

Churchill remains a controversial figure because of incompetent or brutal decisions made during the two world wars. He played a central role in planning the disastrous military campaign at Gallipoli[wp] during WWI, leading to a quarter-million Allied casualties. Worse, his decisions during the Second World War led to the fire-bombing of German cities by the Royal Air Force (the bombing of Dresden is one of the rare examples in which the American Army Air Corps joined the RAF in the purposeful incineration of civilians). To be fair, however, Churchill later realized how horrific a war crime it was and expressed deep regret over this strategy, likening it to "mutual annihilation," and lamenting a lost age of chivalry in warfare. Evidently, burning hundreds of thousands of non-combatants to death also serves as a massive blow to your pride.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill

[Glamrock]

53. Bernie said he disagreed with the man politically

He admired him for uniting his people against a common foe. Much like he is trying to do.

[oberliner]

58. Hilary tried to make a similar distinction about Kissinger

She has said, in writing, about Kissinger "we have often seen the world and some of our challenges quite differently, and advocated different responses now and in the past" but admired what she called his "astute observations about foreign leaders".

I just think it's odd to make a big stink about Kissinger and then turn around and praise Churchill whose foreign policy in service of the empire was certainly at least as brutal as anything Kissinger was responsible for.

Sanders could have named any world leader, past or present, as someone who he admires in terms of their foreign policy. I think Churchill was a weird person to choose under the circumstances.

I bet if he were submitted the question in advance and given time to reflect on it, that he would've chosen someone else.

[Glamrock]

68. I'll concede

You're probably right as far as getting the question in advance. And I'll concede that as a supporter that one didn't bother me because of my obvious bias.

Respectfully, however, I will say that Winston Churchill is famous for rallying his people together. His speeches during the 2nd war were legendary. That's what he's known for. What a lot of us were taught in school.

Kissinger on the other hand, is famous for being a war monger. Sure he did other things. But he is despised by the left and will be at least until the teenagers who witnessed his tenure as SoS have passed on into the great unknown.

I see how that can be viewed as hypocritical though. I do.
Peace

[oberliner]

71. Fair enough

I will say that I like both Hillary and Bernie a lot and that I actually don't think the answer was a big deal at all. It just seemed strange, in context, because both Churchill and Kissinger have similar legacies of imperialism.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

102. USA = Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki. n/t

[AzDar]

18. Churchill also helped usher in Nationalized Health Care...

[Wig Master]

27. Thought that was Attlee

[JackRiddler]

48. Um, sort of...

By making himself so unpopular that Labour beat him in a landslide soon as the war was over and they held an election a few weeks later.

[DesertRat]

20. Churchill abandoned socialism by the age of 30

and condemned others who supported socialism as "lacking a brain."

[Krytan11c]

76. To be fair...

Socialism during Churchill's time was marked by Lenin and how it almost cost the allies WW1.

[noretreatnosurrender]

21. It's understandable

Sanders had family members die in the Holocaust. It wouldn't be surprising that he would admire Churchill's ability to rally English citizens to take on the Nazis.

[joshcryer]

29. Churchill was a bastard fighting for the right cause.

Kissinger was a hawk fighting for a made up cause.

[oberliner]

92. Not in India and Kenya

Or several other places populated by darker skinned individuals.

[joshcryer]

120. True point, but did Kissinger ever fight on the right side?

[oberliner]

123. Paris Peace Accords?

Which did effectively remove the US from the Vietnam War.

He did receive a Nobel Peace Prize for that.

[joshcryer]

126. You can thank the American people, and Eugene McCarthy, for that.

LBJ halted bombing immediately after Eugene McCarthy's campaign took off. If it wasn't for stupid party politics we would've had him run against Nixon and he would've won. The Paris Peace Accords, btw, didn't actually accomplish the end of the war, which didn't happen for several more years. You'll note his co-winner of that Nobel Peace Prize, Lê Đức Thọ, rejected the award on those grounds. It was a farce.

[oberliner]

127. No argument here

You asked for one example of when he was on the right side.

[joshcryer]

128. Fair enough.

But I think he was just doing his job in the Paris Peace Accords, and it was all smoke and mirrors for the US to get away from that utter disgrace of a war.

[oberliner]

130. My only point is that Churchill was a strange choice

Especially in light of the earlier (completely justified) criticism of Kissinger.

Also do you remember in the debate when Sanders was criticizing the US backing of regime change over the years and citing the example of the coup in Iran against Mossadegh?

Churchill was one the principal leaders who orchestrated that coup (which was a joint UK - US operation).

Of all the people to cite as a foreign policy role model, Winston Churchill?

[joshcryer]

133. Yes, I don't agree with the choice.

I feel as though it was a gimmie.

I'd completely missed that Sanders mentioned the Mossadegh coup, that is terrible (I knew of Churchill's involvement, one of his last shining examples). Could backfire if the Kissinger thing has legs.

[longship]

35. Kissinger was no Churchill!

Yes, Churchill was a person out of time, almost devoutly devoted to the crown, and the UK's empire.

But Churchill did something quite remarkable during WWII. Edward R. Murrow called him the best broadcaster in England (as Murrow called it) which is rather amazing for Murrow, and especially considering Sir Winston's speech impediments, a pronounced lisp.

This was Churchill's finest speech before Parliament, here reproduced after the war from Churchill's exact notes. The speech is about Dunkirk, when the UK was closest to losing the war. It is an astounding statement of resolve and purpose. From June 4, 1940:

I do not blame anybody from worshipping this Churchill. Nor the one who spoke before the US Congress on December 26, 1941, after Pearl Harbor and the US had just entered the war. "What kind of people do they think we are?"

I support Churchill, in spite of his flaws. He was what the UK needed at the time.

That is why I unequivocally support Bernie Sanders.

Sometimes one has to shake things up.

[oberliner]

47. Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize

Here's an except from the acceptance speech:

America's goal is the building of a structure of peace, a peace in which all nations have a stake and therefore to which all nations have a commitment. We are seeking a stable world, not as an end in itself but as a bridge to the realisation of man's noble aspirations of tranquility and community.

If peace, the ideal, is to be our common destiny, then peace, the experience, must be our common practice. For this to be so, the leaders of all nations must remember that their political decisions of war or peace are realised in the human suffering or well-being of their people.

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1973/kissinger-acceptance.html

Both men have good and bad aspects. Is that fair to say?

[Admiral Loinpresser]

107. What are Dr. Strangelove's redeeming qualities? n/t

[oberliner]

129. Kissinger and Churchill are/were similar in their support for imperialism

And for their culpability in the deaths of many civilians.

My point is that they are certainly at the very least in the same ballpark.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

216. I never heard of anything good Kissinger did.

Churchill was terrible in many ways, but I'm glad he was British PM in 1940.

[oberliner]

217. Negotiating the SALT treaty with the USSR?

It just seems like people are readily accepting the Churchill mythology while quickly and comprehensively rejecting other similar mythological figures in history.

What is your opinion of the US-UK led coup against Mossadegh of Iran in the 1950s for instance?

[Admiral Loinpresser]

220. I spoke out of hatred for Kissinger.

Of course he did some good things. The major things I believe would be SALT, as you say, as well as helping Nixon to re-establish diplomatic ties with China. Having said that, Churchill's contribution in 1940 was more important, historically. At the end of the day, they were both reactionary pigs.

[Bohemianwriter]

37. I once told some youngsters in Dublin 5 years ago..

That Ireland could use a Winston Churchill. They were stunned.

I explained why.

He pushed for massive social reform in his younger years,

Granted, Churchill was an arrogant imperial arsehole. Like most upper class Brits of his time were.
But one thing no one can take away from him was his persistence. Even if he changed party a few times, he did stand on the right side of history what NHS and workers' are concerned.

And then you have WW2.

That is all....

[uhnope]

44. ofy he did. & Hillary didn't even answer the question, she just went negative

until then she was doing better than last time

[oberliner]

46. She mentioned Mandela

And then went negative after that (but she did answer the question sort of).

[pandr32]

52. Churchill was probably the only foreign leader he could think of

...for his "example"

[applegrove]

54. They were both men of their time. Today Churchill would

not be imperialist. But he'd still be a great leader when evil like Hitler is concerned. Canada recently had a vote on favourite famous canadian. A social reformer was chosen. Great man Tommy Douglas. He gave us universal health care in the 1960s. He also did his PhD thesis on eugenics. See it was a trend back in the 1920s and 1930s. Same as postmodernism was a trend in the 1980s and 1990s. You can't look at any historical person and not find some bad in their choices. Because they weren't the good old days. They were actually the bad old days. Nelson Mandela said it best when he pointed out he was a man, and like all humans he was both good and bad. That is a smart way to look at the world. Less scapegoating if people don't think of themselves or their politician or their religion as perfect.

[oberliner]

196. Today Churchill would not be imperialist?

What do you base that assessment on?

[applegrove]

200. Nobody in Britain today is an imperialist. If Churchill were a politician today he would not be an

imperialist.

[oberliner]

205. Are you serious? Tony Blair and George W Bush aren't imperiliast?

What was your take on the invasion of Iraq?

[applegrove]

208. They thought they were going to be nation building, they were not planning

on there not being democracy there. To me an imperialist wants a colony for themselves. No democracy. Bush and Blair believe a new neocon government takes the place of colonies and makes the 'rightful 1%' rightful billionaires by placing pro-business neocons in power around the world. Not the same thing. Neocons think they can force economic models on every nation in the world with weak government oversight everywhere. Then the billionaires will truly be free..... ...we shall overcome.....

[oberliner]

214. OK

If Churchill were alive today, I would suggest that his approach to the world would be pretty similar to that of Henry Kissinger.

Kissinger quotes and cites Churchill all the time in his writings and speeches.

[jfern]

57. On foreign policy

I think he appreciates what FDR and Churchill did to those who murdered his father's family.

[oberliner]

61. Are you aware of his foreign policy with respect to India and Kenya?

If not, I would encourage you to look it up.

[Ed Suspicious]

62. I think you'll find very few people in this country from the Greatest Generation who disliked

Churchill. I think you'll find very few Kissinger fans from any generation.

[oberliner]

112. Because they didn't really ever learn much about the dark side of the British empire

Ask an American from that generation of Indian descent what they think of Churchill.

[melman]

60. Are we really at the point where admiring Churchill is supposed to be controversial?

Seriously?

[oberliner]

64. Pretty sure no one in India or Africa admires him

He was unquestionably an imperialist and a racist. Certainly at least on par with Kissinger on both counts, if not worse.

[madfloridian]

86. I was thinking the same thing. He was like a rock it seemed in a time of war.

He may have seemed arrogant, but so what?

[oberliner]

116. Did you watch the debate?

If so, do you remember the moment when Sanders criticized the coup in Iran that led to the overthrow of their democratically elected leader?

Do you know who was behind that coup?

[Le Taz Hot]

184. And Churchill now equals Kissinger.

I've stepped into an alternate universe.

[oberliner]

198. What is your opinion about the coup that overthrew Mossadegh?

Sanders talks about it a bit in the debate:

But this is nothing new. This has gone on 50 or 60 years where the United States has been involved in overthrowing governments. Mossadegh back in 1953. Nobody knows who Mossadegh was, democratically-elected prime minister of Iran. He was overthrown by British and American interests because he threatened oil interests of the British. And as a result of that, the shah of Iran came in, terrible dictator. The result of that, you had the Iranian Revolution coming in, and that is where we are today. Unintended consequences.

[silenttigersong]

65. Because of Nazis

I get it do you?Sen.Sanders probobly has heard lots of stories directly from family's that lost loved ones,as well as escaped that holucoust.

[oberliner]

67. The Soviet Union did the most to defeat the Nazis

They lost 20 million men fighting Nazi Germany.

They were led in this effort by Joseph Stalin.



He's the one on the left next to FDR and Churchill.

[mikehiggins]

70. Well, lets compare...

Churchill. Led England in war against the Nazis, probably saving Western civilisation.

Kissinger. Soaked in the blood of US soldiers and those pesky yellow people that we all know don't really count anyway. Oh, and lots of brown people in Central and South America.

Yeah. Kissinger by a mile.

Good call, HRC.

We won't even bring up Albright and it's worth the deaths of all those dead Iraqi children.

Is that the kind of foreign policy we want in our future?

[oberliner]

80. Are you serious?

You can't possibly be.

Do you know anything at all about Churchill and his policies with respect to India, Kenya, and the rest of the dwindling empire?

[Bonobo]

73. Kick! nt

[elleng]

77. Yea, what a shame, navigating defeat of hitler such an imperialist.

[oberliner]

93. Stalin did the most to defeat Hitler

And he was without question an imperialist.

What do you know about Churchill's foreign policy with respect to India and Africa?

[AgingAmerican]

91. Kissinger is a war criminal

And he cannot travel to many different countries lest he be arrested as same.

[oberliner]

94. Churchill unquestionably was a war criminal as well

That can't even possibly be debated.

[AgingAmerican]

98. For what crimes against humanity?

Which country is leveling charges and what are those charges?

[oberliner]

100. British bombing raids killed a thousand German civilians a day

They were deliberately targeted as a matter of policy.

[AgingAmerican]

110. Which country is leveling charges?

Which cities are you talking about and which countries were involved in the bombing?

Dresden was ordered by both UK and US military commanders, BTW.

[oberliner]

115. His war crimes predate the existence of the ICC

There are sources much better than myself if you'd like to learn the answers to your questions. Pick up any book about Churchill and WWII.

What are your thoughts on that coup in Iran that Bernie mentioned at the debate?

Because that was also Churchill's idea.

[Spider Jerusalem]

103. If Churchill hadn't been Prime Minister in 1940...

Britain probably would have negotiated peace with Germany (Lord Halifax, who was one of the other options for PM after Chamberlain, [iwanted to negotiate peace]). Had that happened? WWII would probably have turned out very differently.

[BainsBane]

104. Don't forget King Abdullah of Jordan

whom he has repeatedly described as a "hero."

There is no question Churchill is a leading historical figure, but he also headed Britain's Conservative Party--a party that opposed Labor and the unions it represented.

[oberliner]

113. Hilary would have gotten a lot of crap for choosing Churchill: a right-wing, imperialist, racist

I am glad at least some folks here are honest enough to admit that.

[Zorra]

118. Churchill was a white supremacist racist imperialist oligarch pompous asshole. nt

[mikehiggins]

122. Well, to lots of people who came to this country from Ireland, all Brits are. nt

[Zorra]

152. There were, and are, many lovely English folks who are horrified at what the

royal imperialist oligarch sociopath rulers and their minions in England did to millions of people in other lands. They stole my family's ancestral lands and killed many members of my ancestral families. But people are not responsible for the sins of their ancestors, (although many apologies and reparations from the English government and royal treasury of England really are in order, considering how much innocent blood was spilled, how many resources were stolen, and how many people were sold into slavery, etc. over the course of many centuries).

But Churchill...he was in an elite class of racist, imperialist, pompous oligarch sociopath assholes. Let's take a quick look into the heart, soul, and mind of ol' Sir Winston, Knight of the Royal Garter (or some such hilarity):

"I do not admit... that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia... by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race... has come in and taken its place."
Churchill 1937

"The choice was clearly open: crush them with vain and unstinted force, or try to give them what they want. These were the only alternatives and most people were unprepared for either. Here indeed was the Irish spectre - horrid and inexorcisable." Churchill, The World Crisis and the Aftermath, 1923-31

The unnatural and increasingly rapid growth of the feeble-minded and insane classes, coupled as it is with a steady restriction among all the thrifty, energetic and superior stocks, constitutes a national and race danger which it is impossible to exaggerate... I feel that the source from which the stream of madness is fed should be cut off and sealed up before another year has passed."
Churchill, 1910

"This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States)... this worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the 19th century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire."
Churchill, 1920

But hey, we can't imagine the Beatles being to blame for the atrocities Sir Winston and the Sheriff of Nottingham, can we?

[Beacool]

121. I wonder if Sanders ever read this Churchill quote.

[AgingAmerican]

132. Sanders isn't a Socialist

He is a Democratic Socialist. Entirely different thing.

[oberliner]

145. Sanders: "I am a socialist and everyone knows that"

He's not afraid of the word like some people are.

[Waiting For Everyman]

124. We're gonna need a new word for this

because "clueless" won't cover it anymore.

[oberliner]

125. What do you mean?

You don't think it was an odd choice?

Do you remember earlier in the debate when Sanders criticized US foreign policy for its frequent pursuit of regime change, citing the example of the Mossadegh coup in Iran?

Churchill was one of the driving figures behind that decision.

[retrowire]

135. he said he didn't agree with everything Churchill

was in the same breath. lol try harder.

don't insult our intelligence.

[oberliner]

137. He called him "a leader that I admire very much"

Here was the question:

"Can you name two leaders -- one American and one foreign -- who would influence your foreign policy decisions? And why do you see them as -- why are they influential?"

Of any foreign leader that could have been named here, he chose a right-wing, imperialist, racist.

He chose the leader who helped instigate the coup against Mossadegh, which Bernie cited earlier in the debate as an example of the unintended consequences of pursuing a foreign policy bent on regime change.

That coup was primarily orchestrated by Churchill.

I am confident that if Bernie had more time to contemplate the question, he would have given a different answer.

[retrowire]

138. Bernie said he didn't agree with everything.

Hillary called Kissinger a friend.

Hillary never said anything bad about Kissinger.

But Bernie did clarify his statement. If you wanna cherry pick the moment he said he admired Churchill and remove detail, be my guest.

but allow me to smh while you do.

[oberliner]

140. Here's what he said exactly

In the same light, as the foreign leader, Winston Churchill's politics were not my politics. He was kind of a conservative guy in many respects. But nobody can deny that as a wartime leader, he rallied the British people when they stood virtually alone against the Nazi juggernaut and rallied them and eventually won an extraordinary victory. Those are two leaders that I admire very much.

That's from the debate transcript and is the totality of what he said.

Do you really not think that Churchill was an odd choice for Bernie to make in response to that question?

Put the politics aside for a second. Surely, a right-wing imperialist who instigated the very regime change that Bernie criticized earlier in the debate was not a great choice.

[retrowire]

144. keep ignoring this part

"In the same light, as the foreign leader, Winston Churchill's politics were not my politics."

keep ignoring that line, it's the only way to keep your footing in this discussion.

English is a language that I understand and speak fluently. And, I get it when Bernie opens a remark with a statement like that, he is essentially saying that he is not 100% aligned with this person that he admires.

I'll give an example.

I don't agree with everything Hillary does, but I do like the fact that she was a fan of Tetris on the Nintendo Gameboy back in the 90's. For that, I give her geek credit.

Now my statement isn't supposed to be correlated with the idea that I now admire everything that is Clinton. I don't approve of her business relationships, I don't trust her and I find her highly inconsistent on the issues.

But I do admire her geek cred.

So Bernie can say that Churchill was a great offensive leader and not agree with anything else of his. He's right though, history does uphold Churchill as a great wartime leader.

I think it was probably a bit wise of Bernie to invoke Churchill, because Churchill was tough and people fear that Bernie might not be tough. So it was an appropriate invocation I believe.

[oberliner]

147. I posted that line along with the entire quote

So I am not ignoring it. Obviously, they don't have the same politics. Churchill was the leader of the UK Conservative party.

My point is that Churchill was a weird choice to cite in response to the question for the reasons I have already indicated.

Churchill's foreign policy is one of supporting regime change, racism, and imperialism.

Surely, there were other world leaders that would have made for a better response.

[retrowire]

149. of course there are other world leaders. nt

[Sancho]

136. That was a weird choice...maybe Bernie doesn't have a good grasp of that history

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29701767

The 10 greatest controversies of Winston Churchill's career

Churchill certainly believed in racial hierarchies and eugenics, says John Charmley, author of Churchill: The End of Glory. In Churchill's view, white protestant Christians were at the top, above white Catholics, while Indians were higher than Africans, he adds. "Churchill saw himself and Britain as being the winners in a social Darwinian hierarchy."

[Tanuki]

141. Some background on Churchill, for those who grew up on media whitewash:

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29701767

The article doesn't even mention his role in the Gallipoli debacle, but here are a few gems:

"In 1937, he told the Palestine Royal Commission: "I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."
.............

"Churchill has been criticised for advocating the use of chemical weapons - primarily against Kurds and Afghans.
"I cannot understand this squeamishness about the use of gas," he wrote in a memo during his role as minister for war and air in 1919.
"I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes," he continued."
.................

"It is alarming and nauseating to see Mr Gandhi, a seditious Middle Temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir… striding half-naked up the steps of the Vice-regal Palace," Churchill said of his anti-colonialist adversary in 1931.
"Gandhi should not be released on the account of a mere threat of fasting," Churchill told the cabinet on another occasion. "We should be rid of a bad man and an enemy of the Empire if he died."

[cherokeeprogressive]

142. Apparently, Bernie Sanders is in some pretty good company in his admiration of Winston Churchill.

April 9, 1963 - President John F. Kennedy proclaims Winston Churchill an honorary citizen of the USA

You were saying?

[oberliner]

150. JFK names Harvard Professor Henry Kissinger special advisor

On this day, February 28, in 1961, John F. Kennedy appointed Kissinger as consultant for foreign affairs. Despite spending only several days a week in the White House and being kept at bay by his dean-turned-boss, Kissinger earned wide influence over the president’s policies.

http://www.famousdaily.com/history/jfk-names-henry-kissinger-special.html

[speaktruthtopower]

146. They put him on the spot by giving him that question first

she had time to think about it.

[oberliner]

148. He's never thought about it before?

One would think there have been world leaders whose foreign policy he has admired over the years. After all, he has been in the Senate for quite some time now and is pretty well versed in foreign affairs.

[Zorra]

158. It is only recently that the truth about Churchill has become

a bit more widely known, thanks to the internet. Most people never thought about it before. I have a degree in European history, and even so never really knew about "Darth" Churchill until the past few years, after doing hundreds of hours of research to learn the circumstances of the genocide of my ancestral families.

Think about it. The British government and British scholars weren't exactly advertising that a great national hero was, in fact, an arrogant, racist sociopath.

[oberliner]

163. That is definitely not true

Bernie is obviously well versed in the circumstances that led to the US-UK-led coup in Iran. He even cited it in the debate.

That was Churchill leading that on the UK side.

[riversedge]

154. Lame. That question gets asked often of political candidates.

[nichomachus]

157. Churchill was an extremely complex person -- Kissinger is a straight-forward war criminal

Churchill did a lot of things we can criticize, but an awful lot of good. Kissinger did nothing worthwhile and a lot of evil stuff.

[Bucky]

171. Kissinger was complex too. You don't need to cartoonify someone just cause you disapprove of them

Kissinger's work in stabilizing superpower relations was as big a factor in the west winning the Cold War as were Mickey Mouse or Levi Strauss. He did a lot of good. He achieved it by doing a lot of evil and his methods should be reviled. Yes, he's a war criminal. But don't think for a second that the abuse of power is incapable of complexity.

[oberliner]

176. Ridiculous comment

Churchill did as much "evil stuff" as Kissinger, if not more.

[Bucky]

165. Churchill beat fascists. If Trump gets nominated, Winston will be a useful role model

[oberliner]

174. So did Stalin

In fact, the Soviets probably were the most responsible for defeating the Nazis.

Churchill was a racist, imperialist, who led the illegal overthrow of Mossadegh (which Sanders discussed earlier in the debate).

Is he really the world leader that Bernie most admires with respect to foreign policy?

[Bucky]

180. Bernie said it, not me. I assume he meant it.

[oberliner]

189. I think upon reflection he would change his answer

I think he probably said Churchill because he had just been talking about FDR and it was the end of the debate and he was not at his sharpest at that point in the evening.

[LanternWaste]

166. Earlier this morning, I'd thought I'd found a post illustrative of the lowest common denominator...

Earlier this morning, I'd thought I'd found a post illustrative of the lowest common denominator on DU. My observation was inaccurate however, as it didn't take your OP into account.

I'm humbled by my dramatic over-estimation of your grasp of critical thought and historical context...

[oberliner]

173. What do you mean?

I don't understand what your comment is trying to say.

All my OP was meant to suggest was that Churchill was an odd choice for Sanders to give in response to that question.

Do you disagree?

[Motown_Johnny]

168. He was pointing out the destabilization of Cambodia and the rise of Pol Pot because

it is similar to the destabilization of Iraq and rise of ISIS.


I am not surprised Hillary admires Kissinger, she even seems to repeat his foreign policy disasters.

Nothing like that happened because of decisions Churchill made.

[oberliner]

172. The overthrow of Mossadegh was led by Churchill

The negative consequences of that coup were specifically cited by Bernie during the debate.

Here's what he said in the debate:

But this is nothing new. This has gone on 50 or 60 years where the United States has been involved in overthrowing governments. Mossadegh back in 1953. Nobody knows who Mossadegh was, democratically-elected prime minister of Iran. He was overthrown by British and American interests because he threatened oil interests of the British. And as a result of that, the shah of Iran came in, terrible dictator. The result of that, you had the Iranian Revolution coming in, and that is where we are today. Unintended consequences

The British leader who was behind that action was Churchill.

[Motown_Johnny]

175. It didn't leave the power vacuum that occurred due to the Iraq war

or due to the war in Cambodia.

[oberliner]

177. I don't understand what your point is

Mine is that Churchill was a very odd choice in response to the question.

His foreign policy approach seems antithetical to everything Bernie stands for.

[Motown_Johnny]

182. Bernie is not an ideologue on foreign policy.

I know that Clinton supporters have tried to claim he was a Pacifist, that didn't work.

Clinton supporters have also tried to claim that he "Loves his $1 Trillion war machine" that didn't work either.


There isn't anything that is antithetical to everything Bernie stands for because he looks at each situation and makes decisions accordingly.


Hillary always opts for military option. Peace is antithetical to Hillary's foreign policy because she is one dimensional.

[oberliner]

187. So you think Churchill was a good answer to that question?

You would not have given Hillary any flak if she had gone first and chosen Churchill herself?

[Motown_Johnny]

190. I understand why he went with Churchill and no, I would not blame Hillary

for doing the same thing.

FDR + Churchill makes a lot of sense as an answer to that question. Bernie needs to do better with the 65+ crowd and that was a good answer for that crowd.

You are cherry picking out one thing about Churchill to criticize. To many, he was a hero.

Kissinger is a villain to liberals of that age. I think Bernie scored a few points there (although not a whole lot) and I couldn't blame Hillary for doing the same.

[oberliner]

193. OK

I'll just have to take your word on that one.

Personally, I think Churchill made no sense as an answer to that question. If for no other reason than the fact that Bernie specifically pointed out earlier in the debate how wrong it was for the US and UK to launch an illegal coup against the democratically elected leader of Iran.

The man who led that coup on the UK side was Winston Churchill.

I wouldn't call that cherry picking as it was a specific historical moment raised intentionally by Bernie Sanders in the debate to make a point about previous foreign policy blunders.

[Motown_Johnny]

195. You make a reasonable point.

Even so, Churchill is remembered well by history and the older the voter the more likely they are to hold that opinion.


I think it was a good answer, especially when paired with FDR.

[Le Taz Hot]

183. And Jefferson was a slave holder

and FDR signed the Bill that interned thousands of Japanese Americans without Due Process.

Those things cannot be denied nor reconciled. HOWEVER, the good that they did outbalances the bad they did and their legacies have lasted for generations.

Henry Kissinger is a craven power broker with the blood of millions on his hands. He makes Cheney look like an amateur. His legacy has also lasted for generations and millions suffered from it.

[oberliner]

186. Do you think Churchill was a good answer to that question?

You would not have been critical of Hillary if she had gone first and chosen Churchill as the person whom she most admired with respect to foreign policy?

You would not have pointed out that he was a conservative with a legacy of imperialism, racism, and orchestration of the Iranian coup?

Seems like she would've gotten some flak if she had given that answer.

[Le Taz Hot]

188. Seriously, you're wasting everyone's time with this

"when did you stop beating your wife" routine. It's old and tired.

[oberliner]

191. I've found it to be a really interesting discussion

Lots of people have shared really good insights.

I think most would agree that it wasn't a great answer.

It's okay to admit when one's preferred candidate doesn't answer a question in a debate in an ideal way.

Certainly Hillary had her share of poor responses to questions. In fact, I would argue that poor answers from Hillary are much more common than poor answers from Bernie.

[alarimer]

201. Better than Kissinger.

Anyone who listens to that war criminal should be automatically disqualified as a presidential candidate.

He is a thoroughly reprehensible person who belongs in prison.

[oberliner]

206. Churchill: I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes.

During the 1951-1953 when Iran attempted to nationalize its oil and remove the British grip on Iranian resources, Winston Churchill ordered the British navy to barricade all the Iranian ports. For two years no food, no milk, and no medicine, were delivered through Iranian ports and no ships were allowed to import or export from Iran.

Later the CIA operative Kermit Roosevelt admitted in his book that the Britain (and in particular Winston Churchill, its Prime Minister) was trying to "starve Iranians into submission or death, whichever comes first as long as eventually Britain gets the oil".

http://www.writersviews.com/article-dr-mossadegh.php

[LisaM]

202. I know - I picked up on that too.

It did seem like a peculiar choice. However, Bernie Sanders is not a pacifist, he's said as much (I can't quote a source, I heard it with my own ears in a debate). Churchill became more conservative as he went on, too. I found it interesting that neither mentioned a woman. I'd probably go with Susan B. Anthony if someone asked me the question.

[oberliner]

209. How about Mary Robinson?

First female president of Ireland. Long-serving UN high commissioner for human rights. Focused attention on the connection between international conflict and climate change.

She seems like a more apt choice.

[muriel_volestrangler]

215. Which puts him in company of diverse people of the left such as George Galloway and Mo Mowlam

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p008ltzv
http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/george-galloway-i-ve-always-fancied-being-mayor-and-next-year-i-finally-could-be-a3106411.html

[oberliner]

219. George Galloway?

Is that good company to be in?