SANDERS vs. CLINTON - FROM AN ANTIWAR GROUP'S PERSPECTIVE
It's clear that Hillary Clinton's foreign policy is worse than Bernie Sanders'. But from an antiwar perspective, the foreign policy of Bernie Sanders is not even close to being supportable; it's actually repulsive.
Liberals rightfully cheer when Sanders says he doesn't want to kick Muslims out of the U.S., but they turn a blind eye to the fact that he wants Muslims in the Middle East to bomb and shoot each other
Why is caring about overseas victims of U.S. wars lowest on the totem pole? Would democrats support Sanders if he were just a little better than
- but still bad - on gay marriage, the environment, workers' rights, race relations or a woman's right to choose?
For liberals to rationalize their support of Sanders on the basis that his foreign policy is not as imperialistic as Clinton's speaks volumes. This "lesser of two evils" way of thinking is not only tired, it is catastrophic for millions around the world. Is it ever acceptable to support:
- al-Qaeda because they are less brutal than ISIS?
- Rapists who "only" rape adults but not children?
- Cops who only shoot black people but not white people?
Sanders has pledged to do whatever it takes to prevent Trump from getting into office, but he fails to mention that a Clinton presidency would put (or keep) the "Full Spectrum Dominance" neoconservatives in the Oval Office.
If Sanders' idea of a "political revolution" is to encourage his supporters to vote for Clinton, he will be exposed as a typical politician who ultimately does what is best for his own career.