Huh? The most aggressive overt and covert activities in those places were carried out by Democrat administrations or under substantial Dem control Congresses. Back in the pre-neocon days when a powerful cadre of Congressional Democrats were referred to as "Hawks", bought, sold and owned by the defense industry.
Brush up a bit, say, on the what's and when's of Guatemala and El Salvador.
The voters in the party (both parties, for the most part actually) have done a good job of stemming that, but it did leave an opening for the rise of neoconservatives. An equally sinister, if not easier to conceal under paper mache patriotism, movement that arguably is much more universally destructive than any industry proliferating "Cold War" scheme. Those were more just materially expensive and wasteful. But didn't ever really threaten entire societies, as the imperialism shaded over by neoconservatism does.
And BTW, BOTH of these Presidential candidates are soiled by it. One of them at least represents a party that is in the process of reforming itself on the matter. The other rapidly becoming a hybrid, strange brew of all things nefarious.
The tendency of propagandists to play the "Soviet" card when discussing Russia is as stark a mirror into the diminished level of geopolitical knowledge and awareness in the general U.S. citizenry as there is.
You must have seen wehav's hideous statement the other day about all the lives we have squandered fighting "communism" in our legacy of imperialist undertakings.
Propaganda driven "just knowing", to the power of infinity.
