Bernie supported the 1979 Embassy takeover

[Derec]

Hahaha, good one. I was actually talking about Iran-Contra.

Yeah, me too.

No, it's not a derail at all. It's about the falsity of guilt by association.

Once would have been enough, but you keep harping on Alex Jones.

And whether guilt by association depends on closeness of association. In the 70s and 80s Bernie was affiliated with SWP, which makes this fair game I think. Very different than say paying off hostage takers.

Clearly, you just want to throw support to your own candidate

I don't have a candidate. All of them have pros and cons, including Bernie. Hell, I was accused of being a "Bernie Bro" in another thread because I defended him.

If you actually want to have an honest conversation, I will freely admit I worry about Bernie's chances right now. Yup, it's true. I can see that CNN is more closely aligned to mainstream Democratic Party as well as the Daily Beast. As soon as Bernie took the lead, he's gotten all kind of attacks. I don't know if it's Bloomberg's connection to media, Warren made a secret survivor-style deal with Biden, Trump, or a combination of actors. However, I suspect that shills and payoffs are being orchestrated by Trump to sow division among his competition. All the negativity will be gathered and repeated in the general and his back room dealings extend to working with anyone, even Dershowitz.

You lost me with Derschowitz conspiracy theories, but yes, I do think DNC will do whatever they can to prevent a Bernie nomination. So unless his support gets really overwhelming, he will not be the nominee.

While this particular hit-piece is illogical, it's inconsequential. The corporate and conservative media are strong.

Mainstream media like CNN, NY Times or WaPo are left-of-center but they are much more comfortable with the likes of Warren rather than Bernie.
But they also like the horserace, and thus will likely talk up whoever is most likely to prevent Biden to run away with it. At least for a while.

Bernie will be destroyed by the onslaught eventually.

Probably. There are plenty of other skeletons in his closet I am sure.

But they will also label whatever Democrat is left as a communist who wants to take your money and guns and has no plan for your security.

Who is this "they"? Again, mainstream media will go for the Democrat over Trump.

The biggest difference with Bernie is that here and now he can say, "Yeah, so what? I AM a socialist." He doesn't have to quibble or give a half-assed answer about special rules of when to fight in the Middle East because his principles actually make sense.

His principle in the Middle East is to leave it to Russia and Iran. It is to take away military aid to Israel and give it to Hamas instead. How does it "make sense"?
You need more complex rules about foreign policy because foreign policy IS COMPLICATED. Any simplistic rule will not work, as Trump himself found out after he pledged to take US troops out of Middle East himself.

Nor does he have to give a half-assed answer about healthcare (except when CNN asks a loaded debate question).

He can't adequately explain how he would pay for it.

He can speak directly to the economics of swing state voters about their true enemy. In swing state areas, his message is popular. It is something needed right now .

I agree parts of his message are very popular, particularly in the areas of the country that have suffered from the hollowing out of the manufacturing sector. '

(whether you want to do Trump's dirty work for him or not)

Note that Trump ran on many of the same issues that Bernie ran on. However, his implementation, such as the whole tariff clusterfuck was completely incompetent.

A Trump-Bernie race would be interesting in nothing else. Too bad it will never happen.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I am going to add something very unpopular here. I understand there will be backlash but no one else will say it because it's too politically incorrect.

The position alleged to be held by some prominent individuals in the Socialist Workers Party that many of the hostages in the Iran hostage crisis were spies was plausible.

Of course it is plausible that some embassy employees work for CIA under diplomatic cover. As they say in those Geico commercials, "everybody knows that". But that doesn't mean that all or most are CIA. And it certainly doesn't justify a foreign country invading and occupying an embassy and taking embassy personnel hostage.

I did not say it did. Neither did Sanders.

Look at the hitpiece more closely. From the introductory summary:
"...but also justified the hostage taking by insisting the hostages were all likely CIA agents. Who was that person? It was Bernie Sanders. "

Summary claims:
1. Bernie Sanders thought all the hostages were CIA agents.
2. Doing so is eqivalent to justifying the hostage taking.

The second claim (2) is false but probably a popular thing to say. Technically, it is not a logical deduction.

As for the first claim (1) it is very much also not supported and hyperbole. Apparently, the evidence later in the article is that some other guy named Pulley said, "we can be sure that many of them are simply spies… or people assigned to protect the spies." He did not say ALL but instead "many." He also did not say it justified the taking of the hostages. If he did it would have been quotemined like the rest of the article. Pulley of course had support by Bernie to speak at a university but it in no way means Pulley and Bernie had the same opinion.

Even if they did it does not follow that Bernie supported the hostage taking.

If it did, then so do you Derec, because just like Pulley the mad communist, you just conceded that some were spies.

*crickets*

 

[Elixir]

So Sanders didn’t back the hostage takers, he backed the people who defended the hostage takers?

Transitive property of supporting evil regimes.

Doesn't bother you much in other cases.

Kim, MBS, Xi, Duterte et al
I guess you find it more palatable when it's really really REALLY overt, and coming from someone who is in power.
Oh - and a right wing extremist - that makes it okay.

 

[Derec]

I guess you find it more palatable when it's really really REALLY overt, and coming from someone who is in power.
Oh - and a right wing extremist - that makes it okay.

Wrong, as I am not a Trump supporter. But nice try at whataboutism.

 

[Derec]

If it did, then so do you Derec, because just like Pulley the mad communist, you just conceded that some were spies.

What do you mean "concede"? Everybody knows that there are "legal spies" working under diplomatic cover. Unlike the mad communist, I do not think that gives the weird beards a justification to invade and occupy the US embassy.

I see that you are trying to downplay the connection of Sanders and Pulley/SWP in the 70s and 80s. But that won't work. Bernie endorsed and campaigned for Pulley during his presidential run in 1980 and did the same for another SWP candidate in 1984. He even was one of Pulley's three Vermont electors!
Bernie Sanders campaigned for Marxist party in Reagan era

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why do you keep calling them "weird beards"? Their beards are the most normal thing about them.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

If it did, then so do you Derec, because just like Pulley the mad communist, you just conceded that some were spies.

What do you mean "concede"? Everybody knows that there are "legal spies" working under diplomatic cover. Unlike the mad communist, I do not think that gives the weird beards a justification to invade and occupy the US embassy.

I see that you are trying to downplay the connection of Sanders and Pulley/SWP in the 70s and 80s. But that won't work. Bernie endorsed and campaigned for Pulley during his presidential run in 1980 and did the same for another SWP candidate in 1984. He even was one of Pulley's three Vermont electors!
Bernie Sanders campaigned for Marxist party in Reagan era

Once again, for the third time now:
That doesn't mean he supported everything he said. Even if Bernie did, Pulley only said many were spies. Saying many are spies is not defending hostage taking. Even someone like you admitted some were spies. So do I. And the facts show that the CIA WAS involved, though they magnified their importance, in the overthrow of the Iranian govt using spies. But just like you and I admitting this, neither one of us supports the hostage taking that took place. Therefore, once again your whole op hit-piece falls apart.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I am going to add something very unpopular here. I understand there will be backlash but no one else will say it because it's too politically incorrect.

The position alleged to be held by some prominent individuals in the Socialist Workers Party that many of the hostages in the Iran hostage crisis were spies was plausible. Using diplomats and the cover of embassies is just something that governments do on occassion. And in a case where a foreign embassy supports one group over another in the domestic locale, there is a strong likelihood that some countries would engage in interventions or at a minimum information gathering for that purpose. This tactic was probably especially prevalent during the Cold War by both the US and USSR but also extends to modern times.

So what? Everyone knows some diplomats are spies. When you identify who is the spy you either decide to leave them in place but watched (it's often better to watch a spy than stop him) or throw them out. You don't take them hostage, period.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So now Loren also agrees with Pulley from the SWP that some were spies. Loren, Derec, Pulley and I agree. So does the available documentation. This proves that saying so is not an endorsement of the hostage takers.

 

[ZiprHead]

So now Loren also agrees with Pulley from the SWP that some were spies. Loren, Derec, Pulley and I agree. So does the available documentation. This proves that saying so is not an endorsement of the hostage takers.

Yeah, this thread is just character assassination.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So now Loren also agrees with Pulley from the SWP that some were spies. Loren, Derec, Pulley and I agree. So does the available documentation. This proves that saying so is not an endorsement of the hostage takers.

Yeah, this thread is just character assassination.

Interestingly, the SWP didn't have an official position on Iran. It goes without saying they were against the American imperialism that supported the Shah. In 1979, 14 SWP members went to Iran, some of whom were from there to try to promote democracy, women's rights, and workers' rights. They were arrested for these thing by the Iranians and in 1979 members were protesting the Iranian regime. Some were hoping the proletarian masses would rise up against the Supreme Leader to institute those things. The Iranians also had the hostages which was terrible but had 4 meager demands for their release to include a promise not to engage in Iranian interference and an apology. Carter was willing to meet 3 demands, just not the apology. It's quite ludicrous. At the same time the SWP put forth a Presidential candidate (Pulley) who dangerously stated that the US should meet all 4 demands. Oh noes!

While there was hope by many in the SWP that the soldiers of Iran would flip, because SWP was an American group, their rhetoric often focused on criticism of American foreign policy. Many, some even in the SWP, might start thinking things like the enemy of my enemy is my ally and that they could be turned to democracy. However, there was also some recognition that the Supreme Leader and Republican Guard represented the bourgeoise counter revolution.

Now again this was 1979.

Bernie is alleged to have joined (or been aligned to) the SWP in 1980. This was after the Iranian regime had imprisoned the SWP of Iran. It would make no sense to claim for sure exactly what views Bernie had in 1980. It would not be unreasonable to think he was against the Iraq proxy war, American and British oil corporations trying to own Iranian oil, and the authoritarianism of the Iranian regime.

To make implications he supported the Iranian regime is indeed a character assassination by a Daily Beast author who has a history of writing superficial articles to attack all Democrats to the left of Third Way Democrats. It's of course not a character assassination because the author is a dick, but instead because of the gross fallacious logic employed.

 

[Elixir]

I guess you find it more palatable when it's really really REALLY overt, and coming from someone who is in power.
Oh - and a right wing extremist - that makes it okay.

Wrong, as I am not a Trump supporter. But nice try at whataboutism.

Yeah Derec, I know you're an "I'm not a trumpsucker".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I guess you find it more palatable when it's really really REALLY overt, and coming from someone who is in power.
Oh - and a right wing extremist - that makes it okay.

Wrong, as I am not a Trump supporter. But nice try at whataboutism.

You do share his devotion to women though.

 

[Treedbear]

... throw them out. You don't take them hostage, period.

I don't hate America but I hate the fact that our government was directly responsible for overthrowing Iran's democratically elected leader in 1953 and replacing him with a brutal dictator for the purpose of maintaining control over their oil reserves and then giving refuge to that dictator when the people rebel. I really hate that, and place much of the blame for the current situation on that incident which would surely have appalled our founders. The trillions of $'s we've spent and the thousands of lives sacrificed due to the policies of our government and the corporations that support them. And so when the Iranian people rise up and are finally able to overthrow that dictator, by whatever means, and then take Americans as hostage because President Carter refused to return of the dictator to face justice, I find it difficult to own our government's actions. Carter payed a price for refusing to return the Shah. America was humiliated and now there's no way for either side to save face. I sympathize with the Iranian people and would apologize to them for what we did in the past. If this is what Bernie Sanders was thinking during the hostage crisis I think it was prescient, and I would now have to agree. Bernie's only fault is that he's a politician who adamantly stands on principles. But if he became President there might be some hope of resolving this thing peacefully.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So now Loren also agrees with Pulley from the SWP that some were spies. Loren, Derec, Pulley and I agree. So does the available documentation. This proves that saying so is not an endorsement of the hostage takers.

Huh?

We are saying that you don't capture spies with diplomatic cover, period. If the claim in the OP is true he's way, way out of line. At the moment that the hostages came under control of the revolutionary government and they didn't hand them over they were engaging in an act of war against the United States.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So now Loren also agrees with Pulley from the SWP that some were spies. Loren, Derec, Pulley and I agree. So does the available documentation. This proves that saying so is not an endorsement of the hostage takers.

Huh?

We are saying that you don't capture spies with diplomatic cover, period. If the claim in the OP is true he's way, way out of line.

The claim isn't true. I was demonstrating it when you responded, repeating a premise already debunked. Please review before responding.

At the moment that the hostages came under control of the revolutionary government and they didn't hand them over they were engaging in an act of war against the United States.

This is a separate question from whether the hit-piece is true or not. It isn't.

Let's consider it, though. There were already acts of war by the US, Britain, and the Shah they supported against the Iranian people. The Iranian people had a right to self-determination and democracy.

So the western corporations started it. However, just because they started it doesn't mean taking hostages was appropriate. It wasn't. As an alternative, the embassy could have been booted and the same demands could have been made in order to reestablish an embassy.

In going down the path of revolution, several groups overthrew that illegitimate Iranian government. As an analogy, picture the so-called Arab spring. In any of the countries theocratic, democratic and foreign factions vied for power or formed coalitions post Revolution. In the case of Iran decades prior, there was a little hope that the peasants would install democracy or rank and file soldiers would support one. Instead, the Aiyatollah crushed dissenting factions, imprisoned people and filled the power vaccuum with himself.

Going back to the Arab Spring analogy again, it was US policy under Obama to support democratic factions during the power vaccuums left when dictators were overthrown. There ought to also have been popular support for democratic faction in Iran decades before.

The SWP criticized the authoritarianism, patriarchy, and counter revolution that resulted.

Let's not over-simplify history or assign positions to SWP they didn't have. Never mind Bernie who came late into it in 1980 and left early in 1982. Allegedly.

 

[laughing dog]

So Sanders didn’t back the hostage takers, he backed the people who defended the hostage takers?

Transitive property of supporting evil regimes.

That would be a valid response if support for or membership in a party means one necessarily accepts all positions of the party. Since that is patently false, a valid application of that property requires evidence that Mr Sanders backing of SWP was based in part for his support the hostage takers. Without such evidence, this is an exercise of guilt/smear by association.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

From the op article:
Bernie Sanders joined a Party that "pledged support for the Iranian theocracy." However, the SWP supported equality of women and democracy.

Here is an article written by a SWP organizer, from 16 Oct 1979, The Los Angeles Times



Again, the above was written in 1979.

The op article claims that "In 1977, he [Bernie] left the tiny left-wing Liberty Union Party of Vermont that he’d co-founded, and in 1980 instead aligned himself with the Socialist Workers Party (SWP)..." So, they are saying that Bernie aligned himself with the SWP in 1980 after the SWP of Iran was imprisoned...after the SWP was saying that Iran needed to allow democracy and equality to women.

How then could anyone with a straight face imply that Bernie "pledged support for the Iranian theocracy?"

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In going down the path of revolution, several groups overthrew that illegitimate Iranian government. As an analogy, picture the so-called Arab spring. In any of the countries theocratic, democratic and foreign factions vied for power or formed coalitions post Revolution. In the case of Iran decades prior, there was a little hope that the peasants would install democracy or rank and file soldiers would support one. Instead, the Aiyatollah crushed dissenting factions, imprisoned people and filled the power vaccuum with himself.

Note that the overthrow of the Shah was not a good thing for the people of Iran.

Going back to the Arab Spring analogy again, it was US policy under Obama to support democratic factions during the power vaccuums left when dictators were overthrown. There ought to also have been popular support for democratic faction in Iran decades before.

The SWP criticized the authoritarianism, patriarchy, and counter revolution that resulted.

Let's not over-simplify history or assign positions to SWP they didn't have. Never mind Bernie who came late into it in 1980 and left early in 1982. Allegedly.

And look what happened with our support for democratic factions. The Arab "spring" was more like winter--a bad thing for the people.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

In going down the path of revolution, several groups overthrew that illegitimate Iranian government. As an analogy, picture the so-called Arab spring. In any of the countries theocratic, democratic and foreign factions vied for power or formed coalitions post Revolution. In the case of Iran decades prior, there was a little hope that the peasants would install democracy or rank and file soldiers would support one. Instead, the Aiyatollah crushed dissenting factions, imprisoned people and filled the power vaccuum with himself.

Note that the overthrow of the Shah was not a good thing for the people of Iran.

Going back to the Arab Spring analogy again, it was US policy under Obama to support democratic factions during the power vaccuums left when dictators were overthrown. There ought to also have been popular support for democratic faction in Iran decades before.

The SWP criticized the authoritarianism, patriarchy, and counter revolution that resulted.

Let's not over-simplify history or assign positions to SWP they didn't have. Never mind Bernie who came late into it in 1980 and left early in 1982. Allegedly.

And look what happened with our support for democratic factions. The Arab "spring" was more like winter--a bad thing for the people.

I tend to agree but this is retrospective and the reasons are different...probably also outside the bounds of the thread op.