massive difference between Clinton’s foreign policy leanings (actions in Iraq, Libya, Syria) and Sanders far more reasonable and sane foreign policy leanings
Please provide exactly where the “massive difference” is: one is Likud and AIPAC, the other is Zionist Bloc and JStreet.
There is not a speck of difference for a Palestinians facing the occupation, theft and genocidal action. If you see any, please specify exactly in what.
Both defend the genocidal massacres in Palestine. Both are out with the mantra that the invader “has a right to defend itself”. Both have supported the AUMF and the Iraq budget –Sanders, being a “Labor” Zionist, registered a grandstanding Nay, soon belied bt his budget vote.
They then both pushed for war to destroy Libya and Syria. If there is any difference on the Sanders side, please provide specifics (not his own late, self-serving general principle BS from his own web site.) Same applies to many more situations, like the aggression against Russia, the re-invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, etc. In fact, Sanders revelaled himself as the more clueless of the two by inviting Saudi troops to invade Syria and cheering on the destruction of Yemen.
So “Sanders’ far more reasonable and sane foreign policy leanings” seem to consist in the fact that he doesn’t follow the same genocidal Zionist party but a more dangerous one, and that he is part of most of the crimes of aggression supported by the Empress, except for the fact that she is first-person Nuremberg gallows bait (or whatever would be done today.)
This isn’t the first time, and my invitation to provide solid evidence for your electoral propaganda items is still valid. Thank you.
RSS Feed
April 3rd, 2016 
Awake Goy 
Posted in 
Tags: 
