Sanders:
Clinton's Pursuit of 'Regime Change' in Libya Helped
Rise of Isis
Exclusive interview: Vermont senator challenges
Clinton’s foreign policy record and says ties to
Wall Street mean she would not take on ‘billionaire
class’
By Dan Roberts
December 18, 2015 "Information
Clearing House" - "The
Guardian"
-
Bernie Sanders
has accused
Hillary Clinton of encouraging Islamic extremism
in Libya, in a prelude to a Democratic debate on
Saturday during which he is expected to go on the
attack for the first time over the unintended
consequences of the former secretary of state’s more
interventionist foreign policy.
Speaking to
the Guardian in an
extensive pre-debate interview, the senator from
Vermont criticised Clinton for carelessly fomenting
regime change in Libya “without worrying” about the
ensuing instability that has helped Islamic State
forces take hold in the country.
“Regime
change without worrying about what happens the day
after you get rid of the dictator does not make a
lot of sense,” Sanders said.
“I voted
against the war in Iraq ... Secretary Clinton voted
for that war. She was proud to have been involved in
regime change in Libya, with [Muammar] Gaddafi,
without worrying, I think, about what happened the
day after and the kind of instability and the rise
of Isis that we have seen in Libya.”
Clinton has
previously defended her role in airstrikes
against Gaddafi in 2011, arguing he was a “murderous
dictator ... who had American blood on his hands”
and there was pressure for US action from European
and Arab allies.
But the
latest Sanders comments are in stark contrast to the
first debate of the Democratic presidential
nomination process, where Sanders came to Clinton’s
rescue during the height of the Benghazi committee’s
investigation into her communications over Libya,
saying: “The
American people are sick and tired of hearing about
your damn emails.”
Many of his
supporters have become frustrated at what they see
as a reticence by Sanders to attack Clinton’s record
directly, particularly after he appeared to be a
reluctant participant in foreign policy discussions
that dominated the
second debate, held in the wake of the Paris
terrorist attacks.
Though
initially reluctant to let foreign policy distract
from what
he considers a more important domestic agenda,
the Sanders campaign increasingly sees his
opponent’s hawkishness as an opportunity for him to
turn Saturday’s debate in New Hampshire into a clash
on the best way of achieving lasting national
security.
“We have to
be smart and not just tough,” he said. “And that
means it’s not just destroying Isis, it’s making
sure we do it in a way that leads to a better future
and more stability in that region. And that means,
absolutely in my view, that it cannot simply be as
we did in Iraq ... It cannot simply be unilateral
American action. What it means is a broad coalition,
in which the troops on the ground are Muslim
troops.”
He also
turned on Republicans and hawks in the Democratic
party for not heeding the lessons of recent US
intervention in the Middle East.
“Sometimes
in our country, especially among our Republican
friends who suffer from amnesia, we forget what
happened yesterday,” added Sanders. “I can remember
like it was yesterday, when we had a ‘tough’
president. George W Bush, and his vice-president was
even tougher. So tough! And they went into Iraq,
man, and they got rid of Saddam Hussein, terrible
guy. But they forgot to be thinking about what
happens the day after you get rid of Saddam Hussein.
What has happened in that region, as everybody
knows, is there is massive instability, human
tragedies beyond belief. In terms of people in that
region, in terms of American soldiers, there is PTSD,
traumatic brain injury, 6,700 dying.”
Sanders
concedes that his vision of the US playing a
supporting role in the fight agaisnt Isis rather
than leading intervention is close to that of Barack
Obama, but argues a tougher approach with Arab
allies in the region is needed.
“The area
that I would be a little bit different from Obama is
I would put more pressure on Saudi Arabia, on Qatar,
which happens to be per capita the wealthiest
country on earth,” he said during Tuesday’s
interview in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.
“I think
the United States, UK, France, Germany, Russia, have
the power to make sure that there are Muslim boots
on the ground,” added Sanders.
He also
blasted the impatience among many to provide glib
reassurance to Americans in the face of complex and
unpredictable domestic terror threats.
“Any idiot,
especially one who is prepared to die, who has a
gun, can start shooting up people,” added the
Vermont senator. “Can I guarantee you, can you
guarantee me that this will not happen? Nobody can.”
Though
foreign policy has become a growing part of the
senator’s campaign stump speech in recent days, he
has largely avoided talking about gun control – an
area where Clinton argues his record as a rural
state senator is weak.
“I happen
to believe that certain types of assault weapons,
which are manufactured and designed for military
purposes to kill people very quickly, should not be
used in civilian society,” he said.
“There is a
gun show loophole, which says you can circumvent the
background check by going to a gun show and getting
guns. We have to deal with that ... I believe we
have to deal with what is called the strawman
provision, which means that you can walk in and
legally buy a gun and then sell it to him who is a
criminal.”
Though less
sweeping than many in the party would like, Sanders
argues there is more practical chance of achieving
political support for such measures.
“That is a
broad consensus,” added Sanders. “That is what I
believe, what I have voted for. It is not very
different from what Hillary Clinton or anybody else
believes. But politics being what it is, they saw
that as a vulnerability of mine because I come from
a state that doesn’t have any gun control but I
think we’re handling it fine now.”
On other
issues, Sanders said that Clinton has reluctantly
moved closer to his position – arguing his campaign
has achieved significant progress regardless of how
it now fares in the party primary.
“I think we
have shifted the debate ... You are seeing Hillary
Clinton and others beginning to move in our
direction,” he said.
Sanders
insists the differences between them remain “very
significant”: “I was from day one in opposition to
the Keystone pipeline. It took her a long time to
come about. Trade policy is the same thing. So I
think the differences between Secretary Clinton and
myself are pretty profound. She has a Super Pac. I
don’t have a Super Pac.”
He also
draws new parallels with her husband’s record on
Wall Street, where he wants to break up big banks
and Clinton does not.
“I believe,
during the 1990s, President Bill Clinton and the
Republicans fought very hard to deregulate Wall
Street, I led the opposition to that,” he said. “I
did not think it was a good idea to allow investment
banks, commercial banks and insurance companies to
merge. My view today is that we have got to break up
these huge institutions that have so much political
and economic power.”
And the
Vermont senator now seems increasingly willing to
draw a public line between Clinton’s fundraising on
Wall Street and her policies toward the economy as a
whole.
“Ultimately
the real issue is which candidate is prepared,
frontally, to take on the billionaire class,” he
said. “Can you receive huge amounts of campaign
contributions from Wall Street and the wealthiest
people in this country and say ‘Well, I’m going to
really take them on’? The answer is no, you are not
going to do that.”
It is unacceptable to slander, smear or engage in personal attacks on authors of articles posted on ICH.
Those engaging in that behavior will be banned from the comment section.
In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)