The OAS is certainly heavily influenced by the US, but that influence is bipartisan, and American intervention in Latin America is a bipartisan endeavor as well. For example, the overthrow of Guatemalan president Jacobo Arbenz, while executed under Eisenhower in 1954 with Operation PBSuccess, was first planned under Truman with Operation PBFortune two years earlier. I find it very unlikely based on history that the actions of the OAS would have been any different with a Democratic president.
I mean, the Democrats did do similar things with Libya, and Obama increased the amount of troops in Afghanistan by 50% less than a month into his presidency. Looking at the vote for the invasion of Iraq, over half of Democratic senators voted for it, including Schumer, Biden, Kerry, Clinton, and Feinstein. The democratic leadership was totally cool with it (save Pelosi, so points for her I guess). The idea isn't "the Democrats would have done the same thing", but rather "the Democrats have done similar things and voted to let Republicans do it when they themselves were not in power." Liberals have no problem with going gung-ho into countries that don't kneel to America, they just try to give the appearance that they do.
Democrats did do similar things with Libya, and Obama increased the amount of troops in Afghanistan by 50% less than a month into his presidency.
Libya arguably would have been better off without U.S. intervention, but that was preceded by widespread uprisings that were either a civil war or close to it. It's not really comparable to the OAS ginning up false issues with a recent election and eventually deposing the just-elected president, all directly contrary to the will of the people. Similarly, the surge in Afghanistan was an attempt to end a war we were already fighting, as just flat-out leaving could easily leave the country in a state like Libya's in today. That's also not all that comparable to engineering a coup against a popular government at peace. These events aren't carbon copies of one another.
Looking at the vote for the invasion of Iraq, over half of Democratic senators voted for it
Voting for an invasion is not the same as inventing the reason for that invasion out of thin air. Going along with it is bad, but not nearly as bad as forging a ton of intelligence, crafting a propaganda campaign to manufacture consent, and then browbeating opponents with "you hate America" just two years after 9/11.
The OAS is certainly heavily influenced by the US, but that influence is bipartisan, and American intervention in Latin America is a bipartisan endeavor as well. For example, the overthrow of Guatemalan president Jacobo Arbenz, while executed under Eisenhower in 1954 with Operation PBSuccess, was first planned under Truman with Operation PBFortune two years earlier. I find it very unlikely based on history that the actions of the OAS would have been any different with a Democratic president.
I mean, the Democrats did do similar things with Libya, and Obama increased the amount of troops in Afghanistan by 50% less than a month into his presidency. Looking at the vote for the invasion of Iraq, over half of Democratic senators voted for it, including Schumer, Biden, Kerry, Clinton, and Feinstein. The democratic leadership was totally cool with it (save Pelosi, so points for her I guess). The idea isn't "the Democrats would have done the same thing", but rather "the Democrats have done similar things and voted to let Republicans do it when they themselves were not in power." Liberals have no problem with going gung-ho into countries that don't kneel to America, they just try to give the appearance that they do.
Libya arguably would have been better off without U.S. intervention, but that was preceded by widespread uprisings that were either a civil war or close to it. It's not really comparable to the OAS ginning up false issues with a recent election and eventually deposing the just-elected president, all directly contrary to the will of the people. Similarly, the surge in Afghanistan was an attempt to end a war we were already fighting, as just flat-out leaving could easily leave the country in a state like Libya's in today. That's also not all that comparable to engineering a coup against a popular government at peace. These events aren't carbon copies of one another.
Voting for an invasion is not the same as inventing the reason for that invasion out of thin air. Going along with it is bad, but not nearly as bad as forging a ton of intelligence, crafting a propaganda campaign to manufacture consent, and then browbeating opponents with "you hate America" just two years after 9/11.