Bernie Sanders: US foreign policy has ignored Latin America, just like I have

[geek tragedy]

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2016/03/bernie-sanders-says-he-has-to-brush-up-on-colombian-peace-process.html

Bernie Sanders declined to opine Tuesday on perhaps the most important issue for South Florida Colombian-American voters: the fraught peace talks between the Colombian government and armed guerrillas.

Asked about the negotiations on a Colombian-American radio station in Miami, Sanders said he had to brush up. The peace process has been under way in Havana for more than three years.

"Um, I have to tell you that I am not up to date on that issue," Sanders told Radio Caracol, WSUA-AM (1260). "What I will tell you is that I think the United States has not paid anywhere near the kind of attention that it should be paying to Latin America, who are our closest allies."

So, he says the US "hasn't paid anywhere near the kind of attention it should be paying to Latin America" while in the same breath admitting that he is not "up to date" on the 3-year old peace talks in Colombia, the second most populous country in the continent of South America and third most populous in Latin America (behind Brazil and Mexico).

I just can't imagine why people think he's not serious about foreign policy.

[Octafish]

1. Like the time Hillary helped Honduras out of its democracy.

Hillary Clinton’s Honduran Disgrace

By Matthew Rothschild
The Progressive, March 5, 2010

Hillary Clinton continues with her hawkish ways, making Obama’s foreign policy less distinguishable from Bush’s every day.

She just met with Honduran President Pepe Lobo, she’s notified Congress that the Obama administration is restoring aid to Honduras, and she’s urging Latin American nations to recognize the Lobo government in Tegucigalpa.

The democratic opposition in Honduras boycotted lobo’s election, since he’s allied with the forces that overthrew Manuel Zelaya last June.

But for the longest time, Hillary Clinton stubbornly refused to call the June takeover a “coup,” even though her boss, the president of the United States, immediately denounced it as such.

SNIP..

“Other countries of the region say that they want to wait a while,” she said on her Latin American trip. “I don’t know what they’re waiting for.”

CONTINUED...

http://progressive.org/wx030510.html

Ha ha. It is to laugh at fascism.

[synergie]

5. Nice deflection, your attempt really coverd up Bernie's failure to understand what's actual issues!

Oh, wait, no.

[Octafish]

10. No. No deflection. I just couldn't think of an example where Bernie lied about Latin America.

Here's an example of where he told the truth in Miami:

SALINAS: In South Florida there are still open wounds among some exiles regarding socialism and communism. So please explain what is the difference between the socialism that you profess and the socialism in Nicaragua, Cuba and Venezuela.

SANDERS: Well, let me just answer that. What that was about was saying that the United States was wrong to try to invade Cuba, that the United States was wrong trying to support people to overthrow the Nicaraguan government, that the United States was wrong trying to overthrow in 1954, the government — democratically elected government of Guatemala.

Throughout the history of our relationship with Latin America we’ve operated under the so-called Monroe Doctrine, and that said the United States had the right do anything that they wanted to do in Latin America. So I actually went to Nicaragua and I very shortly opposed the Reagan administration’s efforts to overthrow that government. And I strongly opposed earlier Henry Kissinger and the — to overthrow the government of Salvador Aliende (ph) in Chile.

I think the United States should be working with governments around the world, not get involved in regime change. And all of these actions, by the way, in Latin America, brought forth a lot of very strong anti-American sentiments. That’s what that was about.

-- http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/10/us/politics/transcript-democratic-presidential-debate.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

As for Hillary Clinton, what has she done for Latin America, apart from continuing the work of those who overthrow Democracy in Latin America?

[synergie]

15. Yes, it was deflection, did you not understand the OP? He was uninformed, and didn't realize

what was going on, you don't seem to have found anything where Bernie seemed to know anything about Latin America or what was going on there.


Why were you looking for Bernie lying about LA? The criticism was about his failures on the foreign policy front, and his failure to learn what was going in Cuba in the past couple of years.

Well, if you were not so busy looking for ways to deflect and making up lies, you might understand that the answer to your question, but again WAY TO DEFLECT after rambling on after missing the point, you still don't seem to get it.

Why is that? Does Bernie's ignorance of simple foreign policy matters mean nothing to you because you don't know much about what's going on in the world either? This explains so much about why so many Bernie supporters like those knee jerk slogans and don't quite get nuance.

[Octafish]

27. I read the OP. It's an example of what ignorance of the issue leads.

That's why I posted, to try and help you and the OP's poster.

[lunamagica]

35. It's all about Wall Street and the Oligarchy, didn't you know?

[BainsBane]

16. Did he speak the truth

when he talked how sickening a speech from JFK was?

Vermont senator and Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders once said that he was “physically nauseated” by a speech made by President John F. Kennedy when Sanders was a young man, because Kennedy’s “hatred for the Cuban Revolution […] was so strong.”
“Kennedy was young and appealing and ostensibly liberal,” Sanders reminisced in a 1987 interview with The Gadfly, a student newspaper at the University of Vermont. “But I think at that point, seeing through Kennedy, and what liberalism was, was probably a significant step for me to understand that conventional politics or liberalism was not what was relevant.”
In the same interview, he also criticized Jesse Jackson’s decision to try and affect change by “working within the Democratic party” and offered some pointed remarks about Walter Mondale.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ilanbenmeir/bernie-sanders-despised-democrats-in-1980s-said-a-jfk-speech#.xc4MdRRdj

[Octafish]

29. Out of Context Much?

Kennedy faced traitors within his own administration on Cuba. Take Allen Dulles, who reported to President John F. Kennedy that the Cuban exile invasion would work without US military intervention. They also knew the plan had been compromised, yet failed to inform the president that Castro knew the place and date for the attack.

Soviets Knew Date of Cuba Attack

By Vernon Loeb
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, April 29, 2000; A04

Shortly after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in 1961, a top CIA
official told an investigative commission that the Soviet Union had
somehow learned the exact date of the amphibious landing in advance,
according to a newly declassified version of the commission's final report.

Moreover, the CIA apparently had known of the leak to the Soviets--and
went ahead with the invasion anyway.

In an effort to oust Fidel Castro, the CIA organized and trained a force of
about 1,400 Cuban exiles and launched the invasion on April 17, 1961.
Castro's soldiers easily repelled the landing force in less than 72 hours,
killing 200 rebels and capturing 1,197 others in what became one of the
worst foreign policy blunders of the Cold War.

The investigative commission, chaired by Gen. Maxwell Taylor, was
established almost immediately and held a series of secret hearings at the
Pentagon before sending a sharply critical report to President Kennedy in
June 1961.

CONTINUED…

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/bay-of-pigs/soviets.htm

The un-released Volume V, from what I understand, covers the Taylor investigation. So, it's likely to provide JFK's perspective on the fiasco.

PS: I'd add, "you know," but I don't think so.

[BainsBane]

31. So Bernie did not speak the truth?

Is that your answer to my question?

[arcane1]

2. Seriously, the guy hasn't supported a single coup!

[geek tragedy]

3. presumably he's aware of them within 4 years of them happening?

Has he found anyone to advise him on foreign policy yet, or is he just going to rely on his own awesome level of knowledge on world affairs?

[vintx]

4. I know, right?

He needs to brush up if he's gonna know which RW coup to support once they've ousted the next leftist leader in line for replacement!

[NuclearDem]

7. He hasn't really supported anything, really.

His entire foreign policy platform (term used generously) is a series of saying he didn't do things Clinton did.

[AZ Progressive]

6. Is ignorance worse than poor decision making and warmongering?

[geek tragedy]

8. Can't beat something with nothing nt

[BainsBane]

17. In my opinion, yes

Because it offers no alternative. He can't offer an alternative foreign policy when he doesn't care enough to inform himself or even assemble a team of advisors. That truly is unprecedented in modern political history.

[KitSileya]

19. Not so unprecedented in this election though

Trump has done the same. Not that I equate Sanders and Trump in any other metric, but Trump is apparently his own foreign policy adviser too. :shudder:

[BainsBane]

23. Oh, God. That's right

[treestar]

20. Yes

He can't confirm whether he would have made the same decisions or not.

[pdsimdars]

9. Because when he does look into an issue, he gets it right the first time. 40 years of it.

Resume is no reason to vote for a president. Cheney has a great resume, he's done a lot. So has Kissinger.
The best reason is JUDGEMENT. No matter how many different things people have done, if they don't have good judgement, you can't fix that.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

11. I'd prefer a candidate who admits to not being fully briefed on an issue

...to a candidate who is very knowledgeable on an issue, and uses that knowledge to support the overthrow of governments.

[geek tragedy]

12. I would prefer a President who takes all aspects of the job seriously.

The Colombian peace negotiations are one of the biggest stories in the hemisphere.

Though, let's pretend Hillary Clinton doesn't exist ... that answer was all kinds of fail, no? I mean, stating that we should be paying more attention to Latin America is all good, but not exactly convincing if you admit you haven't been paying attention yourself in the same breath.

He's actually making an argument for Hillary Clinton there. If a person really wants to vote for the candidate who will pay more attention to Latin America, probably that candidate isn't the guy who whiffs on the peace accords in Colombia.



www.dailymotion.com/video/x31xtzk

[DisgustipatedinCA]

13. I have no doubt Clinton would take all aspects of the job seriously.

And I don't doubt the Sanders would do the same. That's not the metric that concerns me with respect to Hillary Clinton being President. And Sanders' comparative lack of foreign policy knowledge, compared with Clinton, is not what draws me to his candidacy.

[geek tragedy]

21. When will Sanders take foreign policy seriously?

January 20, 2017? Early November?

Just to be clear: I am far from a fan of a lot of Hillary's foreign policy views. I have little doubt she will be a step backwards from Obama.

But, a well-intentioned but poorly executed foreign policy can also be a disaster.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

24. I'd like to think he'd catch up to speed much the same way Obama did. nt

[geek tragedy]

30. Obama hit the books on foreign policy before he ran for president.

He was more interested in foreign policy than domestic policy when he decided to run. Remember his bio--foreign policy was in his DNA, literally.

Bernie Sanders doesn't have a single foreign policy advisor linked to his campaign. Think about that--not one.

Certainly it's not reasonable to expect him to compete with Clinton in terms of experience.

But, he needs to show some substance.

This is where the "one issue candidate" branding begins to seem credible.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. The US ignoring Latin America is probably a blessing considering our track record there.

[BainsBane]

18. Here's what I don't get

Colombia was, under Bush at least, the third largest recipient of US Aid. It continues to receive a lot of aid from the US, which means congress votes on that aid. How is it that he doesn't know anything about the subject when his job has included votes concerning US aid and policy there?

He also didn't know about wetfoot, dryfoot, or other policies relating to Cuba and Cuban immigration. I find that stunning.

[geek tragedy]

22. it's also a huge labor issue, labor activists are among the biggest victims

of the violence there.

[KitSileya]

25. That's another thing I don't get.

For someone who was (is?) a huge supporter of the Cuban revolution, how did he not pay attention to the results of it, especially concerning the Cuban-American community in Florida? Florida was a state he tried to win, and he hadn't been briefed on this? Weird.

[BainsBane]

26. I read something, I think in Politico

that during hearings on some foreign policy issue or another, he would launch into his spiel on corporations, etc.. What we've heard in every debate. Eye rolling ensued.

I think it's in here. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/bernie-sanders-foreign-policy-deficit-218431

[KitSileya]

32. Doesn't surprise me, but does decrease his ability to do the job.

Either he doesn't care about the Cuba an immigration, which is not a good sign in someone who wants to be President, or he said he didn't know because he didn't want to say what he really meant. So the choice is between someone who is incompetent when it comes to important parts of foreign policy, or someone who is a liar.

[BainsBane]

33. I think its the former

He made positive comments about Castro in the debate in Florida. Either he didn't care how that would hurt his electoral prospects there or he didn't know. To his credit, he did speak his mind on the issue.

[giftedgirl77]

28. If it's not fiscally related to the evil Wall street Sanders

can't be bothered. He wouldn't have advocated for the militia on the border if he gave 2 shits about the brown ppl that are being treated as prey by those bastards.

I also believe he shies away from addressing issues directly effecting minorities bc he's afraid of the backlash from his base.

[UglyGreed]

34. Border

FTFY the rest of your post is beyond repair........

[giftedgirl77]

36. Oooh, thanks.

I feel the same way about yours. Ppl that show up during an election season & only post RW talking points tend to stand out.

[UglyGreed]

38. Yeah too bad

I was here before you........... and search my posts....

[giftedgirl77]

39. still was an election season.

[UglyGreed]

41. Well at least

your ban has been lifted so you can carry on with your agenda of division......

[giftedgirl77]

42. I'm not sowing division.

Just pointing out the abundance of hypocrisy that is so prevelant among certain individuals. 😉

[UglyGreed]

43. Carry on

enjoy!!!!

[UglyGreed]

40. Also

I've seen your replies and believe me your are an authoritarian who sticks up for Wall Street and believes in war.

[TM99]

37. So he is not up-to-date on one issue.

Where was Clinton when Sanders spoke out against Reagan's interventions in Nicaragua?

Where was Clinton when Sanders directly and vocally supported the Sandinistas?

Where was Clinton when Sanders vocal spoke out against the US support of the Contras?

Sanders never called South Americans 'petulant children' like Clinton did.

Sanders never sowed division between Brazil and Venezuela as Clinton did.

Sanders never supported a violent coup against left-wing Honduran president Manuel Zelaya like Clinton did.

Yeah, Sanders is the clear winner here on Central & South American foreign policy while Clinton carries on the Monroe Doctrine(which Sanders repudiated!) and pushes the neocon vision not just in the Middle East.

Clinton is 'serious' alright, seriously bad on almost every foreign policy decision she has ever made!