Sanders tells the truth about the U.S.'s sordid past; Clinton smears him to cover up the truth

I'm guessing that many viewers of the Democratic debate Wednesday night didn't know much about our sordid U.S. history of intervention in other countries' governments that Sanders and Clinton argued about.   A lot of it was unfamiliar to me too -- because our official history spins the facts to make us look like the good guys.  Charles Pierce on his blog for Esquire filled in some gaps.   It's worth reading.

"Well, at least I lived long enough to hear a presidential candidate from one of the major parties refer to 'the so-called Monroe Doctrine.'  It came during the most interesting passage in the debate Wednesday night between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Sanders was asked if he regretted having once supported the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua and having once paid some compliments to the Castro regime in Cuba. 

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 . . . 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 to 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 Allende 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.

"A few minutes later, as an addendum to an answer about her solution to Puerto Rico's crippling economic crisis, HRC pounced and pandered.

CLINTON:  And I just want to add one thing to the question you were asking Senator Sanders. I think in that same interview, he praised what he called the revolution of values in Cuba and talked about how people were working for the common good, not for themselves. I just couldn't disagree more. You know, if the values are that you oppress people, you disappear people, you imprison people or even kill people for expressing their opinions, for expressing freedom of speech, that is not the kind of revolution of values that I ever want to see anywhere.

[Back to Pierce:]  "OK, I wanted to yell, 'What about the Saudis/Chinese?' at my TV, too, and it did occur to me that HRC might want to ask her lunch buddy Henry Kissinger about his human-rights record some time. But what most struck me is the depth of the denial still about the profound costs of U.S. intervention in the affairs of our closest neighbors, and our easiest proxies, in the various Great Games. The Monroe Doctrine might have made sense when England, France, Spain, and even Portugal still had imperial ambitions. But that was a very limited space in time. By the mid-1800's, the Monroe Doctrine, and the philosophy behind it, was an excuse for land-grabbing."

Then Pierce quotes Abraham Lincoln having said:  "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable—a most sacred right—a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world."

*     *     *

There is more, but this is the gist.   Sanders is being honest about what we have done in our own hemisphere to interfere with other governments -- not just Cuba, but Guatemala, Nicaragua, Chile, and others.   Pierce again:  "[W]e backed dictator after dictator, oligarch after oligarch. We armed terrorists. We financed coups. We allowed bombings and drug smuggling. We sold missiles to the mullahs in order to finance our terrorists. Somoza. Pincochet. Batista. Rios-Montt. To paraphrase John Quincy Adams, we did not go far abroad to find monsters to support."

But, rather than join Sanders in admitting to our shameful past in front of an audience made up largely of Hispanics with ties to some of those countries, Clinton leaped at the opportunity to try to smear Sanders with what the Republicans would do if he is nominated -- attack him for being a leftist -- rather than agree with him that the United States has done harm, as well as good, in the world.

I admired Sanders for his honesty.   I agree with him on his sympathies.    And I lost another measure of respect for Hillary Clinton for taking a cheap shot of political pandering.

Ralph