Oliver also has a long history of arguing against military intervention (Iran, Yemen, and North Korea spring immediately to mind, but I’m sure there are others) and he happens to be married to someone who works for a veterans’ rights lobbyist group. I don’t recall his coverage of Venezuela but I’ve always thought that his coverage of China is far more nuanced than most media outlets and is a long way off parroting State Department propaganda.
The information in the Sourcewatch link in the original twitter post that you quoted is far from damning (Washington-based lobbyists in using-the-same-webhost-as-other-GOP-linked-Washington-based-lobbyists SHOCK HORROR!) and it’s not really a surprise that a veterans’ rights lobbyist (who is herself a veteran) would argue that there was an improvement in the situation in Iraq between 2001 and 2008, not least because that’s true, but also because her audience are veterans and politicians, and “fuck you, murdering imperialist pig bastards” doesn’t tend to win friends and influence people in either group as far as pleas for funding go. Nothing that is linked to in the original Twitter post makes me feel otherwise.
It’s totally possible to be against all forms of military intervention and yet still believe that those who have been left poor and disabled by the lies fed to them by those in power have a right to decent medical care and disability pensions. Ideally, this would also extend to the foreign victims of America’s militarism, but I don’t feel like advocating for the rights of the poor and disabled, no matter how they ended up that way, is fundamentally anti-socialist.