Sanders hedges on military action

[The Patriot]

[Boats]

Sanders Hedges On Military Action
By: TAYLOR MILLARDPosted at 8:01 pm on February 23, 2020
Re: https://hotair.com/archives/taylormi...litary-action/

Bernie Sanders is hedging a bit on when he’d use military action.

“Threats against the American people, to be sure. Threats against our allies. I believe in NATO,” Sanders said. “I believe that the United States, everything being equal, should be working with other countries in alliance, not doing it alone.”

Cooper asked Sanders if China taking military action against Taiwan would elicit a military response from the United States.

“That’s something, yeah,” Sanders said. “I mean I think we have got to make it clear to countries around the world that we will not sit by and allow invasions to take place, absolutely.”

It’s the typical comment from American politicians who don’t want to overturn the apple cart when it comes to alliances across the globe. However, it also shows he may not be the dove he attempts to portray himself in the media.

A reminder for Sanders fans who believe he will end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and not get involved in other foreign conflicts. Sanders supported the airstrikes by former President Barack Obama in 2014. From The Hill:

“I believe that Congress must become increasingly engaged in the Iraq-Syria crisis. It is my understanding that the president does have the executive power to launch air strikes,” Sanders said in a statement Monday. “He does not have the power to send combat troops into harm’s way without congressional authorization.

As someone who voted against the military action in Iraq in the first place, I continue to be very strongly opposed to sending combat troops back into Iraq or to Syria.”

His tone when President Donald Trump decided to do airstrikes in 2017 was a wee bit different.

“The Trump administration must explain to the American people exactly what this military escalation in Syria is intended to achieve, and how it fits into the broader goal of a political solution, which is the only way Syria’s devastating civil war ends. Congress has a responsibility to weigh in on these issues. As the Constitution requires, the president must come to Congress to authorize any further use of force against the Assad regime.

“Further, the U.S. must work with all parties to reinforce longstanding international norms against the use of chemical weapons, to hold Russia and Syria to the 2013 deal to destroy these weapons and to see that violators are made accountable.”

It is nice Sanders presents some sort of fealty to the Constitution when it comes to America deciding to send in ground troopers. However, military action via airstrike is still a declaration of war and those suggesting otherwise need to re-look at the Constitution. It requires Congress to vote on war i.e. military action. Sanders is failing this test when it comes to discussing with CBS on what military action is appropriation without a vote in Congress (none).

The way Sanders speaks it sounds like he would be perfectly fine with NATO conducting a war, or the United Nations pushing forward for some sort of military action like it did in Korea in the 1950s. One has to wonder if this will go over well with the anti-war socialists or if they’re fine with his comments because it’s Bernie Sanders.

Gotta love (*) hypocrisy.

(*) The meaning of hypocrisy: It's the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.