The Nation: Bernie Sanders Just Gave the Progressive Foreign-Policy Speech Weve Been Waiting For

[Hassin Bin Sober]

plus and another

Bernie Sanders Just Gave the Progressive Foreign-Policy Speech We’ve Been Waiting For

https://www.thenation.com/article/bernie-sanders-just-gave-the-progressive-foreign-policy-speech-weve-been-waiting-for/

Throughout the winter and spring of 2016, Bernie Sanders challenged Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, proudly laying out an agenda that pulled together one progressive policy plank after another. But in one important area, there was near deafening silence: foreign policy.

Well, today Sanders finally delivered the speech many of us have been hoping to hear, from him or anyone else, for quite some time. In laying out a principled and bold progressive vision for recentering US foreign policy at the core of a progressive platform, Senator Sanders has given voice to those of us who have always believed that our values don’t simply stop at the water’s edge.

Taking to the same stage where Winston Churchill delivered his famous “Iron Curtain” speech almost 70 years ago, Sanders’s challenge to the progressive movement, and indeed to all Americans, was to redefine for the 21st century a vision for America’s role in the world. Laying out the questions he sought to answer, Sanders asks:

At a time of exploding technology and wealth, how do we move away from a world of war, terrorism and massive levels of poverty into a world of peace and economic security for all? How do we move toward a global community in which people have the decent jobs, food, clean water, education, health care, and housing they need?

[bettyellen]

1. Can't find concrete answers. Have used up my free Nation quota.

Is there any specific policy proposals about the ME or Russia we should know about? This is the third post I e seen and so far, nothing has been detailed.

[Mike__M]

9. Transcript - Bernie's speech

at Vox:
Read: Bernie Sanders's big foreign policy speech

[bettyellen]

11. Thanks! Conceptually it's beautiful. No real answers on Syria...

We're between a rock and a hard place there. And military spending... unfortunately pretty much every senator has some blood on their hands there. Russia... not seeing an expansionist threat, but Estonia and the Ukraine are shitting bricks at the huge military exercises going on. Putin likely sees an opening right now, no?

We're so fucked.

[arthritisR_US]

18. Thats my take on things too.

[tonyt53]

2. I, for one, do not need Bernie Sanders speaking for the Democratic Party. Don't want or need it.

To equate Sanders with Churchill on foreign policy amounts to grandstanding and nothing more. To say that Hillary Clinton did not speak about foreign policy during the campaign is pure nonsense. She had more foreign policy expertise than every candidate combined - Democrat or Republican.

[leftstreet]

3. His speech doesn't appear to mention Democrats n/t

[tonyt53]

4. So when day and time do "Progressives" start their own party and leave the Democratic Party?

[leftstreet]

5. I thought the Democratic party embraced progressive ideas

Maybe I'm confused by your question. I thought the title of the article meant 'progressive' as in policy

[tonyt53]

6. Pretty much the same difference, unless you are splitting hairs.

[theaocp]

8. Tony has spoken

"Progressives", you are not welcome here.

[Old Crow]

14. That's the message I got. Loud and clear. (N/T)

[0rganism]

15. спасибо товарищу

for your efforts to further divide online communities sympathetic to Democrats, you get big reward by Putin government

[tonyt53]

49. Actually, my response is quite the opposite .

But then those that took the russian lies without ever checking how factual they were, then went out and voted for a third party candidate, will never comprehend that. I proudly stand with Hillary Clinton and when she stated that Sanders rhetoric hurt her, I can fully see that. I can also see that in the past year, some people on here seem to think that Bernie Sanders has become an expert on foreign policy. This is from a speech that was very vague on particulars. But the same people that fell for the fake news and voted third party, would not accept the expertise of Hillary in regards to foreign policy.

[Jim Lane]

42. Would that make you happy?

There was a gathering toward that goal earlier this month (the Peoples Convergence). If they succeed in launching a new party that attracts substantial support, some of that support will come from progressive Democrats who are tired of the party's attitude toward them. The more scorn and petty attacks that get heaped on them, the more likely they are to leave.

Of course, a significant third party on the left would guarantee Republican dominance of elections at all levels. Maybe some people think that's a small price to pay for helping to unify (what would remain of) the Democratic Party. I personally think it would be a catastrophe, but I gloomily suspect that it would be met with lots of cheering and +1's on DU.

[tecelote]

16. Can you please pay attention to the content. Leave your Bernie hate at the door.

Forget it's Bernie if that causes you distress.

What was said that offends you other than he spoke where Churchill once did.

[Ninsianna]

94. Churchill is the guy who engaged in a genocide of 2 million brown people by deliberate

starvation, right?

[LostOne4Ever]

21. Can't have a single positive Bernie thread without someone pissing in the punch bowl. Nt

[Autumn]

26. I think he's speaking for the American people.

[ehrnst]

46. Except for those who would like some more details.

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/9/21/16345602/bernie-sanders-foreign-policy-speech-westminster

[Autumn]

50. Many great actions by our leaders started by a spoken vision, not all of them spang forth complete

and detailed. But if it keeps you busy it's all good.

[ehrnst]

51. I guess if you never question a leader's vision,

then facts and data aren't really that relevant.

But if it keeps you inspired and pissed off it's all good. Like climate change deniers who have their dogma, and will hang onto it as "liberal lies to kill business," they will reject anything that doesn't confirm their confirmation bias.



Those of us who aren't caught up in the "vision" at the exclusion of the reality are busy listening to those not so enthralled by the messenger:

Harold Pollack, a University of Chicago public-health researcher and liberal advocate for universal coverage, says, “There has not yet been a detailed single-payer bill that’s laid out the transitional issues about how to get from here to there. We’ve never actually seen that. Even if you believe everything people say about the cost savings that would result, there are still so many detailed questions about how we should finance this, how we can deal with the shock to the system, and so on.”

Achieving universal coverage—good coverage, not just “access” to emergency-room care—is a winnable fight if we sweat the details in a serious way. If we don’t, we’re just setting ourselves up for failure.

https://www.thenation.com/article/medicare-for-all-isnt-the-solution-for-universal-health-care/

[Autumn]

54. I remember when Medicare and the ACA were visions but oh well. nt.

[ehrnst]

55. Yeah, and LBJ had to lie about what they cost to get them passed.

Can't do that now with the CBO.

And in LBJ, there was a leader that had the skills to work with both sides of the aisle, and commanded respect from his colleagues as a Senator.

Oh, well.

[Autumn]

56. Oh well I guess you proved LBJ is as bad as any fucking republican. Good on you.

And the ACA, did that spring forth complete from Obama's vision of health care reform ?

[ehrnst]

60. I think you may be confusing me with another poster?

Seems that those who tell the truth around here about health care policy get flamed.

Johnson maneuvered every step of the way getting this bill through Congress, and one of the things he did — and this is a little dicey in today's climate — was suppress the costs. So this young kid gets elected from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy, in 1962, and Johnson is explaining to him [over the phone] how you get a health bill through. And what he tells him is don't let them get the costs projected too far out because it will scare other people:

"A health program yesterday runs $300 million, but the fools had to go to projecting it down the road five or six years, and when you project it the first year, it runs $900 million. Now I don't know whether I would approve $900 million second year or not. I might approve 450 or 500. But the first thing Dick Russell comes running in saying, 'My God, you've got a billion-dollar program for next year on health, therefore I'm against any of it now.' Do you follow me?"

We believe, after looking at the evidence, my co-author [David Blumenthal] and I, that if the true cost of Medicare had been known — if Johnson hadn't basically hidden them — the program would never have passed. America's second-most beloved program would never have happened, if we had had genuine cost estimates.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112234240

[ehrnst]

62. About Obama and the origins of the ACA

Last edited Mon Sep 25, 2017, 12:46 PM - Edit history (1)

In September/October 2007, the candidates from both parties who were in the primaries were invited to present their health care reform plan to a panel of experts from "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," ABC News, National Public Radio, and The Wall Street Journal, who then questioned them on it. This was sponsored by the Kaiser Family Foundation, as "Health Care 2008: Presidential Candidate Forums."

This required that the candidate had a plan, and that they understood the plan in enough depth to field high level questions.

Those who accepted the invitation:

Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.)
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio)
Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.)
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)
Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.)
Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.)
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.)
Former Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-Ark.)
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas)
Gov. Bill Richardson (D-N.M.)

Obama declined. He didn't have a fully realized plan to articulate to others at that time, which turned out to be purposeful.

The ACA was created by congressional Democrats:

The Obama White House took a number of lessons from the Clinton experience with healthcare policy. First, do not rely on your own, detailed White House plan as the starting point for negotiations in Congress; let Congress work out the structure and details from your goals. Second, try from an early point to get buy-in from the major actors in the health world, including insurers, physicians, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals and other providers, to at least defuse or minimize their opposition. Third, recognize that the House and Senate are very different institutions, and let each work through its own ideas and plan before finding ways to merge the two into a single bill. Obama and his White House executed those lessons brilliantly.

.........................................................................

Democrats debated the issue for several months, but mostly amongst themselves, before introducing a detailed bill that emerged from committees in July 2009 and passing it through the House later in the year with just one Republican vote.

But with Obama’s blessing, the Senate, through its Finance Committee, took a different tack, and became the fulcrum for a potential grand bargain on health reform. Chairman Max Baucus, in the spring of 2009, signaled his desire to find a bipartisan compromise, working especially closely with Grassley, his dear friend and Republican counterpart, who had been deeply involved in crafting the Republican alternative to Clintoncare. Baucus and Grassley convened an informal group of three Democrats and three Republicans on the committee, which became known as the “Gang of Six.” They covered the parties’ ideological bases; the other GOPers were conservative Mike Enzi of Wyoming and moderate Olympia Snowe of Maine, and the Democrats were liberal Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico and moderate Kent Conrad of North Dakota.

Baucus very deliberately started the talks with a template that was the core of the 1993-4 Republican plan, built around an individual mandate and exchanges with private insurers—much to the chagrin of many Democrats and liberals who wanted, if not a single-payer system, at least one with a public insurance option. Through the summer, the Gang of Six engaged in detailed discussions and negotiations to turn a template into a plan. But as the summer wore along, it became clear that something had changed; both Grassley and Enzi began to signal that participation in the talks—and their demands for changes in the evolving plan—would not translate into a bipartisan agreement.

To be sure, the extended negotiations via the Gang of Six made a big difference in the ultimate success of the reform, but for other reasons. When Republicans like Hatch and Grassley began to write op-eds and trash the individual mandate, which they had earlier championed, as unconstitutional and abominable, it convinced conservative Democrats in the Senate that every honest effort to engage Republicans in the reform effort had been tried and cynically rebuffed. So when the crucial votes came in the Senate, in late December 2009, Harry Reid succeeded in the near-impossible feat of getting all 60 Democrats, from Socialist Bernie Sanders and liberal Barbara Boxer to conservatives Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor, and Blanche Lincoln, to vote for cloture, to end the Republican filibuster, and to pass their version of the bill.

More here:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/the-real-story-of-obamacares-birth/397742/

[Autumn]

63. Are you saying that Obama didn't have a plan all laid out explaining EXACTLY how the ACA was

going to work, how it would be paid for? When Obama said it "was time for health care reform" that got the ball rolling and the details were later worked out. But Bernie's Medicare for All is bullshit because the details aren't all laid out? Double standard.

[ehrnst]

64. Perhaps you should read my post again. This time, move the strawman.

You'll see the screen better.



And say "Hi" to "CherokeeFiddle" over at JPR for us.

[Autumn]

65. I read your article. There was NO exact plan laid out by Obama, yet some expect Bernie to have one .

The ACA was not laid out exactly how it would be done when Obama started health care reform. No one here complained about Obama working out the details as we went along. Bernie isn't being given the courtesy of a discussion on his plan.

This is my post

Are you saying that Obama didn't have a plan all laid out explaining EXACTLY how the AC was

going to work, how it would be paid for? When Obama said it "was time for health care reform" that got the ball rolling and the details were later worked out. But Bernie's Medicare for All is bullshit because the details aren't all laid out? Double standard.

and this is where you proved my point.


https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9632979

Now I'm done because quite frankly your insults are meaningless to me and add nothing to your previous post with the links that proved my point.

I don't post at JPR, If you want to tell someone somthing you can tell them yourself.

[ehrnst]

67. You seem to have bought strawmen in bulk - did you find a sale?

Um... you seem to say that I "have proved your point," which I think is really different than you think...

You commented: "I remember when Medicare and the ACA were visions but oh well"

When I pointed out that history shows that LBJ had to lie about the costs of Medicare and Medicaid to get them to pass, and that the CBO would make that impossible today, you got snippy. You said that I "compared him to a fucking republican" because I guess you got embarrassed when I took your snarky remark and schooled you on how Medicare/Medicaid actually got through, and it had to do with flat out lying. Which can't happen now, so at least one misconception you had about the inevitabilty and pure motives that made Medicare/Medicaid possible will make M4A possible, too.

The point I got from that is that you are embarassed about not getting the last word in, because you accused me of "proving that LBJ was no different than a fucking republican," when I simply shared with you a bit of history that clearly you weren't aware of, that spoiled your view that it was all "vision" like M4A, and would just follow that same quick route to reality.

The message I got was, "Shut up with the history lesson, you are supposed to feel insulted! AND ALSO YOU PROVED MY POINT!!!" After which you tried to say that I had somehow said that because Obama didn't have vital details when he directed Congress to create the plan (which is nothing like what Sanders is doing - claiming that his plan has all the funding and most details worked out, and not instructing Congress to write...), that I was applying different standards to "the same thing." So, no, only you are comparing the two in a way that would indicate a "bullshit" double standard reasoning.

In fact, your defense of his latest M4A bill indicates that it is totally possible, and needs no more details or analysis to go to the floor Because it's BERNIE, aslo at some point in time the ACA and Medicare weren't fully formed (way before they were presented for vote), but at the same time IT'S OK IF THERE AREN'T ENOUGH DETAILS IN M4A BECAUSE THE ACA AND MEDICARE DIDN'T START OUT FULLY FORMED AT SOME POINT IF YOU THINK HEALTH CARE IS A RIGHT THEN YOU HAVE TO AGREE THAT M4A IS FINE AS A PIECE OF LEGISLATION, SHUT UP ABOUT IT!!11

And all of these seem to be deployed whenever you want to derail the thread, especially when you are schooled, which is red herring.

I know that you get enraged at the messenger anytime a health policy expert, or think tank - questions Sanders' funding mechanisms, or anything else that he has stated. But please try to keep calm enough to the conversation at hand straight, sans strawmen and herring.

I think you're capable of logical debate, but your assumption that any and all fact checking on Sanders is an attack you must defend him from. Because quoting experts on the legislation he says is ready for a vote is bashing him?

I think he'll be OK if you aren't on the boards, trying to humiliate and insult any and all discussion of him that isn't praise.



and JPR - yeah.

[Autumn]

68. You seem to be adressing a different post so whatever.

[ehrnst]

69. LOL. I guess you weren't done after all...

Couldn't stay away.


"whatever"

I guess you told me! Like an 8th grader who didn't want to sit at that stupid lunch table anyway.

Truth stings, doesn't it?

[Autumn]

73. If there were any truth to your insults it might would sting but your insults are nothing

more than defelcting that you did indeed prove my point so that's no longer under discussion. Thanks for doing that.

[ehrnst]

74. And you still can't leave it there....

And doing the highly skilled "I know you are but what am I?" repartee.

Now go back to JPR and tell them how you spanked me.

[Autumn]

79. Nothing to do with "I know you are but what am I? You still proved my point. You can't change that

health care reform and legislation is done by starting a discussion and working with others to figure out the best way to impliment things like that for the American people. No idea come out with every detail, it all gets added later, as the links you posted to me proved. The ACA and Bernie's MFA begins when our politicians start a discussion, like Bernie and Obama did and then others join in and make it happen.

[ehrnst]

83. He has submitted a bill.

It is beyond "the start of a discussion" as was the ACA at the time when it went to the floor. People are rightly asking questions about the math and the implications for delivery, since he has laid out those numbers, and in the case of a deep analysis of his 2016 plan, he doesn't take kindly to experts implying the numbers and consequences might be different than he deems them to be, let alone consider them "up for discussion."

Comparing the begining of discussions on the ACA with the submission of the M4A to the floor is not a valid comparison. Blurring it all into a false equivalency doesn't give you credibility on the issue.


You just proved my my point that yours is the double standard.

Now come back at me and double down...

[Gothmog]

96. LOL

[NurseJackie]

103. You rock! (If you don't mind my saying.)

[Eliot Rosewater]

75. Nobody here wants universal healthcare for all more than you or I do. Which is WHY

you expend so much energy engaging in it here.

I dont have a problem floating a bill like this, and in fact our party does once a year every year, Conyers. Right, every year?

Anyway, there has been an overt attack of the Democratic Party, started about 2 years ago, well wait, it started WAY before that but it took on a new dimension, so to speak, about 2 years ago when someone accused someone of ... ...

wait, you see I cant discuss it.

I am not allowed to tell you HOW we got here, WHO specifically made it happen with daily, repeated attacks of our party.

Sorry, cant say it.

So if I cant say that, then I cant say anything I guess ...oh well, how is the weather your way?

[ehrnst]

76. Rather hot for this time of year.

Orange alert for air quality.

You?

[Eliot Rosewater]

77. Dont ask, sucks.

[Eliot Rosewater]

66. Isnt JPR filled with people who delighted in something really bad that happened that I am not

allowed to mention here?

Surely nobody from there is here?

That would piss me off big time.

[ehrnst]

70. There are several who post both places.

And have no clue that people here know.

[Eliot Rosewater]

71. So we will see a repeat of history as I have predicted a few thousand times over the

past few months.

I keep hoping if I SCREAM about it loud enough, often enough, people will wake up and not insist on repeating.

[ehrnst]

72. But, you know - maybe it just has to "all burn down"

so that the revolution can really begin, and it would show everyone who was "right all along."

Which is an incredibly privileged point of view.

[JHan]

81. Yup +++++++++++++

[Eliot Rosewater]

82. I once assumed that would happen because it was forced on us by the GOP

But now there is this as well.

Democrats have so many obstacles.

[ehrnst]

84. Our own tea party. (nt)

[Me.]

95. There's Nothing Partyish About It

Nice to see you

[guillaumeb]

7. Do we move away from endless war and ever rising war budgets?

And actually rebuild the country and help the actual public?

[bettyellen]

12. Renounce the 1.5 trillion F-16 program. Leading by example works for me.

[guillaumeb]

17. One excellent example, and there are others. eom

[bettyellen]

20. Any one taking about reducing the military budget has to be honest about their part in it-

Pork is not inherently a bad thing, and it gets them local support no doubt. But it starts at home.

[guillaumeb]

22. And THAT concept of pork, and who benefits,

is a reason that there is a military contract in literally every Congressional District.

Or it is all coincidence.

[Nanjeanne]

25. I know. It's really too bad so many Dems voted for the increase in military

spending bill that was even more than Trump asked for. Only Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, and Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden from Oregon voted against it. Oh, and Bernie but he's not a Democrat.

[bettyellen]

30. Don't be fooled- some of them already have all the pork their state wants! 1.5 trillion ain't

Been turned down by those people in VT that are the first to complain about "hippie punching" yet they reap the economic benefits while shaking their fists at others. It's bullshit and we all know it.

[Nanjeanne]

33. Oh ok. I'll check out Oregon and NY pork. Thanks.

[bettyellen]

34. Ignore the F-16 program with all your might. But it won't go away because VT wants $$$$$ for war too

[Nanjeanne]

35. I'm not ignoring. So you need me to argue or agree with you? You have said it

a few times. Since you didn't mention NY or Oregon, I said I'll look into those states. Is there more to be said?

[The Polack MSgt]

99. This may seem petty, and I really don't intend to be confrontational, but you have it wrong

The F-16 was designed in the late 70s and the USAF and a dozen or so allies have been using it for 38 years.

In today's dollars it's average cost is approx. 30 million each, and more than 3000 have been built. The Block 50 version was produced up until a few years back.

It remains effective in several roles against even the most modern air defenses and will most likely fly until 2050.

I think you mean the F-35 which is currently grounded (again) has cost over $1Trillion so far and looks to wind up costing over 300 million per copy.

It has been a pig in the air and ineffective at every role assigned to it - in the limited time it's actually been allowed to fly

That has been and I hope will forever remain the biggest money gouging fraud perpetrated against the US tax payer in history

[bettyellen]

102. No worries. It's just that VT has its war pork same as everyone else, yet they get a pass.

Not from me they don't.

[The Polack MSgt]

104. Oh, the pork is spead out so all the politicians can get a bite.

They count on no one noticing...

[ehrnst]

52. Not seeing that in the Single Payer bill. (nt)

[guillaumeb]

58. Lowering the war budget is unthinkable for politicians.

The source of too much bribery/campaign contributions.

[ehrnst]

59. Still don't see that in the Single Payer bill. (nt)

[guillaumeb]

78. It is a single issue Bill, not a budget resolution. eom

[Nanjeanne]

10. It would be nice if there were actually discussions about the ideas

Like

Foreign policy is about U.S. government budget priorities. At a time when we already spend more on defense than the next 12 nations combined, foreign policy is about authorizing a defense budget of some $700 billion, including a $50 billion increase passed just last week.

Meanwhile, at the exact same time as the President and many of my Republican colleagues want to substantially increase military spending, they want to throw 32 million Americans off of the health insurance they currently have because, supposedly, they are worried about the budget deficit. While greatly increasing military spending they also want to cut education, environmental protection and the needs of children and seniors.

and

Foreign policy is about whether we continue to champion the values of freedom, democracy and justice, values which have been a beacon of hope for people throughout the world, or whether we support undemocratic, repressive regimes, which torture, jail and deny basic rights to their citizens.

What foreign policy also means is that if we are going to expound the virtues of democracy and justice abroad, and be taken seriously, we need to practice those values here at home. That means continuing the struggle to end racism, sexism, xenophobia and homophobia here in the United States and making it clear that when people in America march on our streets as neo-nazis or white supremacists, we have no ambiguity in condemning everything they stand for. There are no two sides on that issue.

And

Today I say to Mr. Putin: we will not allow you to undermine American democracy or democracies around the world. In fact, our goal is to not only strengthen American democracy, but to work in solidarity with supporters of democracy around the globe, including in Russia. In the struggle of democracy versus authoritarianism, we intend to win.

When we talk about foreign policy it is clear that there are some who believe that the United States would be best served by withdrawing from the global community. I disagree. As the wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth, we have got to help lead the struggle to defend and expand a rules-based international order in which law, not might, makes right.

We must offer people a vision that one day, maybe not in our lifetimes, but one day in the future human beings on this planet will live in a world where international conflicts will be resolved peacefully, not by mass murder.

And more ...

But, you know ... it's Bernie -- so fuck it.

[guillaumeb]

23. Difficult to deny.

No matter what he says, some appear to reflexively reject it.

[ehrnst]

80. There is real discussion of this speech

Taking a stand against things like torture and supporting brutal regimes that wantonly slaughter innocent civilians is laudable, and Sanders should be given due credit for doing so. Criticizing Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris climate agreement and urging him not to abandon the Iran nuclear deal is sensible policy.

But while condemning American imperialism and Trump’s recklessness might play well with Sanders’s liberal base of support, those things alone do not add up to a comprehensive foreign policy that addresses the myriad international crises and challenges facing the United States today.

...............................................

Yet decries both full-scale US military intervention and the use of drone strikes and other airstrikes to kill terrorists around the world. That’s all well and good, but then how does he plan to address the threat — both to the US directly and to the security, stability, and prosperity of people around the world — from groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda, if not by some combination of military intervention or drone and airstrikes?

Does he have an alternative idea of how to approach the threat from international terrorist groups, beyond the vague notion that if everyone is happy and prosperous, terrorism will automatically disappear? If he does, he failed to share it with the rest of us during his speech.

........................................

Similarly, while Sanders sang the praises of the Iran nuclear deal and encouraged Trump not to pull the US out of it — which would essentially destroy the deal — he never mentions the very real concerns the Trump administration and many of the deal’s supporters and detractors have raised about Iran’s other dangerous and destabilizing actions, such as its support for terrorist groups and sectarian militias throughout the Middle East, its atrocious human rights record at home, and its continued testing of ballistic missiles.

And while he rightly slams the US for supporting Saudi Arabia in its disastrous war in Yemen, he fails to acknowledge that the Obama administration gave that support in the first place in order to convince Saudi Arabia to support the Iran nuclear deal and to do more to help fight ISIS in Syria.

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/9/21/16345602/bernie-sanders-foreign-policy-speech-westminster

But since it asks real questions about what was left out or seemingly contradictory in his speech ---fuck it.

[Arazi]

13. Saw this earlier. Came to post it but ya beat me to it

Great speech

[George II]

19. I see a lot of questions, not much "policy".

[Hassin Bin Sober]

37. Which questions?

[George II]

39. I've already taken my visit to the aquarium this week, thanks.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

41. Huh?

[ehrnst]

87. I hear it's lovely! Lots of clownfish.

[George II]

89. Yes, they have a bunch of them:

And also a nice display of these:

[JustAnotherGen]

91. Don't hate me

Our painted back turtle LOVES clown fish.

I can throw in 20 medium sized gold fish (easier for him to catch) and three tiny goldfish and he doesn't pay attention to the goldfish until the clownfish are gone.

Circle of life. He was rescued by us with his shell severely cracked. Don't hate Jack the Painted Back for being a turtle. Turtle has gotta turtle!

[George II]

92. Like you say, it's only part of the circle of life - "fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly".........

....and turtles gotta turtle.

Was going to conclude with this..... ....then realized I have this in my library:

[ehrnst]

86. Many are addressed here, at length

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/9/21/16345602/bernie-sanders-foreign-policy-speech-westminster

[zentrum]

24. Thanks for the Post. nt

[Eliot Rosewater]

27. Does he mention the great enemy of the human race and freedom, Putin?

[Nanjeanne]

29. Yes. Just read the speech.

[bettyellen]

31. Talks about working with Russia to reduce dependence on oil....

Also that they should t meddle in elections. Nothing about how though.

[Eliot Rosewater]

43. Working with Russia?

sigh

I hate being right

[bettyellen]

45. To end dependence on oil, lol. It made me wonder if he's paying any attention at all.

[comradebillyboy]

53. Isn't the Russian economy dependent on oil and gas exports?

I don't see them getting together with Bernie on this one.

[VOX]

40. Or why he and Rand Paul were the only 2 senators to vote against the Russia sanctions?

I know he said it was because of the Iran deal, but that didn't seem to stop the Senate Democrats (who mostly support Obama's Iran deal) from voting for the sanctions. Does he and Rand Paul know something all others don't?

[Eliot Rosewater]

44. I know, but nobody even talks about it, like it doesnt matter or didnt happen

[ehrnst]

88. SHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

[Equinox Moon]

28. Bernie's foreign policy speech

His speech starts at 25:00 min (right after he is given an honorary degree - hence the yellow)

[rainin]

32. Why so insecure?

--I'm not replying directly to the OP, this is more a general reply to many of the commenters--

Bernie haters are demanding tribalism. If you are not IN my tribe, I won't accept you no matter what you say.

Tribalism weakens the whole.

So, Bernie Haters, please consider that your actions aren't growing the democratic party. You're sewing discord.

[riderinthestorm]

36. Thanks for bringing this. K&R nt

[disillusioned73]

47. K&R..

It was a great speech..

[Tavarious Jackson]

48. I thought it lacked A LOT

of policy detail. I like policy wonk and I heard none of that.

[Kentonio]

61. It's a speech intended to rouse enthusiasm and passion

It's about giving people a vision of a different world, it's not at all the place to get all detail driven.

[JHan]

85. First the good bits:

It is good for us to be aware of how shortsighted our foreign policy has been over the years. Bernie is right to point this out.
However, I have heard similar speeches a million times before. I don't know what the author was "waiting for" unless they don't avail themselves of what other people say.

I have heard Obama speak with soaring rhetoric , Bill Clinton speaking about the promise of a better tomorrow, and Hillary herself.

Anyone could stand in front of people and make soaring speeches about world peace.

I was looking out for certain details as to why conflicts happen - the particulars. Why certain countries suffer despite being resource rich, the effects of corruption on wealth creation for all and how that drives conflict, how to address historical and political divides which feed conflicts...The understanding that resources are finite and how to develop a more sustainable approach towards economic development. Nothing Sanders said has not been said before by Secretaries of State and Presidents.

And I am not the only one who feels this way re present foreign policy : https://www.vox.com/world/2017/9/21/16345602/bernie-sanders-foreign-policy-speech-westminster

"Yet he decries both full-scale US military intervention and the use of drone strikes and other airstrikes to kill terrorists around the world. That’s all well and good, but then how does he plan to address the threat — both to the US directly and to the security, stability, and prosperity of people around the world — from groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda, if not by some combination of military intervention or drone and airstrikes?

Does he have an alternative idea of how to approach the threat from international terrorist groups, beyond the vague notion that if everyone is happy and prosperous, terrorism will automatically disappear? If he does, he failed to share it with the rest of us during his speech.

Similarly, while Sanders sang the praises of the Iran nuclear deal and encouraged Trump not to pull the US out of it — which would essentially destroy the deal — he never mentions the very real concerns the Trump administration and many of the deal’s supporters and detractors have raised about Iran’s other dangerous and destabilizing actions, such as its support for terrorist groups and sectarian militias throughout the Middle East, its atrocious human rights record at home, and its continued testing of ballistic missiles.

And while he rightly slams the US for supporting Saudi Arabia in its disastrous war in Yemen, he fails to acknowledge that the Obama administration gave that support in the first place in order to convince Saudi Arabia to support the Iran nuclear deal and to do more to help fight ISIS in Syria.

And then there’s North Korea — probably the most acute foreign policy challenge the United States is currently facing and one that carries the threat of potential nuclear war. Sanders correctly acknowledges the failure of past efforts to curb North Korea’s nuclear ambitions and the urgent need to confront the threat.

“Despite past efforts they have repeatedly shown their determination to move forward with these programs in defiance of virtually unanimous international opposition and condemnation,” Sanders said of the North Korean regime.

Yet his prescription for how to solve the problem is just more of the same:

As we saw with the 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran, real US leadership is shown by our ability to develop consensus around shared problems, and mobilize that consensus toward a solution. That is the model we should be pursuing with North Korea.

As we did with Iran, if North Korea continues to refuse to negotiate seriously, we should look for ways to tighten international sanctions. This will involve working closely with other countries, particularly China, on whom North Korea relies for some 80 percent of its trade. But we should also continue to make clear that this is a shared problem, not to be solved by any one country alone but by the international community working together.

So we should work together with other countries to tighten sanctions on North Korea and try to get China to cut off its trade ties with the North. In other words, the same basic policy President Trump is currently pursuing and that President Obama pursued before him. How this will magically solve the problem when — as Sanders himself just admitted — it has consistently failed to do so thus far is something Sanders conveniently fails to address."

I'm sure if that speech were given by anyone other than Sanders, the author of the article in the OP would say it's more of the same.

this is what I don't get, the unnecessary adulation of what was actually a very middle of the road, safe speech that would not have gotten headlines were it not for the speaker.

[ehrnst]

100. Great minds...

[ehrnst]

90. And a former candidate for POTUS could be expected to have some concrete ideas about this

Why is Bernie exempt from the "how?"

I mean, anyone can say or write, "We need to have lasting peace, national security and prosperity," and get applause. A leader who wants people to vote for them lays out how we get there.

Jill Stein can "lay out a vision" to halt all investment in fossils fuels, because she knows she's never going to have to follow through with any real details on making that happen. However, Bernie presents himself as a real option for POTUS, not simply a "visionary." And a politician has to have the ability to answer questions about their plans, without simply brushing them off as "unimportant" as he has been known to do.

Here are some good observations on his speech.

Taking a stand against things like torture and supporting brutal regimes that wantonly slaughter innocent civilians is laudable, and Sanders should be given due credit for doing so. Criticizing Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris climate agreement and urging him not to abandon the Iran nuclear deal is sensible policy.

But while condemning American imperialism and Trump’s recklessness might play well with Sanders’s liberal base of support, those things alone do not add up to a comprehensive foreign policy that addresses the myriad international crises and challenges facing the United States today.

....................................................

Yet he decries both full-scale US military intervention and the use of drone strikes and other airstrikes to kill terrorists around the world. That’s all well and good, but then how does he plan to address the threat — both to the US directly and to the security, stability, and prosperity of people around the world — from groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda, if not by some combination of military intervention or drone and airstrikes?

Does he have an alternative idea of how to approach the threat from international terrorist groups, beyond the vague notion that if everyone is happy and prosperous, terrorism will automatically disappear? If he does, he failed to share it with the rest of us during his speech.


Similarly, while Sanders sang the praises of the Iran nuclear deal and encouraged Trump not to pull the US out of it — which would essentially destroy the deal — he never mentions the very real concerns the Trump administration and many of the deal’s supporters and detractors have raised about Iran’s other dangerous and destabilizing actions, such as its support for terrorist groups and sectarian militias throughout the Middle East, its atrocious human rights record at home, and its continued testing of ballistic missiles.

And while he rightly slams the US for supporting Saudi Arabia in its disastrous war in Yemen, he fails to acknowledge that the Obama administration gave that support in the first place in order to convince Saudi Arabia to support the Iran nuclear deal and to do more to help fight ISIS in Syria.

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/9/21/16345602/bernie-sanders-foreign-policy-speech-westminster

[DFW]

98. Rings a bell

[Man_Bear_Pig]

57. :)

[ananda]

93. Sanders is clearly the best statesman alive right now.

Thank you, Senator!

[burrowowl]

97. Yup!