After Hillary Clinton has the nomination nearly sewn up, the New York Times decides to run a Sunday magazine piece titled “How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk,” by Mark Landler revealing conclusively that she has a greater “appetite for military engagement” than anyone else in the race, on either side. Here’s the nut graf:
Clinton’s foreign-policy instincts are bred in the bone — grounded in cold realism about human nature and what one aide calls “a textbook view of American exceptionalism.” It set her apart from her rival-turned-boss, Barack Obama, who avoided military entanglements and tried to reconcile Americans to a world in which the United States was no longer the undisputed hegemon. And it will likely set her apart from the Republican candidate she meets in the general election. For all their bluster about bombing the Islamic State into oblivion, neither Donald J. Trump nor Senator Ted Cruz of Texas have demonstrated anywhere near the appetite for military engagement abroad that Clinton has.
The article details Clinton’s long commitment to the use of force, including incidents never revealed before; explains why Donald Trump is likely to be far less eager to go to war than she would be; and says that Clinton had to hide her hawkishness during the primaries so far:
To thwart the progressive insurgency of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Clinton carefully calibrated her message during the Democratic primaries
The piece is an ode to Clinton’s “pugnacity” and her “muscular brand of American foreign policy,” with a celebratory chorus line of Robert Gates, Jake Sullivan and various functionaries. And lest you had any doubt about the newspaper’s point of view, there’s this foolish bonbon at the end:
It’s an open question how well Clinton’s hawkish instincts match the country’s mood. Americans are weary of war and remain suspicious of foreign entanglements. And yet, after the retrenchment of the Obama years, there is polling evidence that they are equally dissatisfied with a portrait of their country as a spent force
It’s not an open question actually. As Stephanie Schriock of Emily’s List told J Street last week, the mood of the people is isolationist, they don’t want to be engaged in foreign wars.
So why are we learning this now? Donald Johnson nails the journalistic and moral dereliction at the heart of this publication:
The readers picks on the 600-plus comments on the article are very good. Clinton defenders sound like militarists or idiots. One says she only wants to prevent genocide. Yeah, heart of gold.
It is utterly cynical of the NYT to publish this after her nomination is nearly certain. The readers noticed that.
Israel is not mentioned in the article, but it occurs to me that maybe she panders to Benjamin Netanyahu because she really does believe what she says about terrorists raining down rockets. I can easily imagine her bombing Gaza without the slightest qualm. She might really be as stupid and narcissistic as the people who defend Israel’s actions in Gaza. And while I have read that Bill Clinton disliked Netanyahu, yes there might be bad blood that way, but they might still see themselves as the staunch defenders of civilization.It’s interesting to read the folks who say we have a moral obligation to vote Democratic. I find lesser-evilism voting persuasive, much as I hate it, but the people making the argument go much further. There are nearly always personal insults towards the people too pure to live in the real world. But to respond: How realistic is it to tell Clinton she has your vote no matter what she does, so long as Republicans are worse?
I was told we have to start at the bottom. Does that mean most Democratic activists at present are currently pro war or pro Netanyahu and this is why we get people like Clinton? I have no idea. People who care about issues already start at the bottom and I would guess rank and file Democrats don’t want another war and yet we get Clinton.
True enough. Even worse: The FBI just announced it is in no hurry to finish its investigation of Clinton, which may well go on beyond the DNC date.
WTF does that mean?
Would it not be of the utmost urgency to know once and for all whether a presidential frontrunner is actually a legitimate candidate, rather than a possible felon about to go to jail?
Is she just a tool to run Sanders into the ground up to and/or beyond the DNC, then indict her, and give the Dems full liberty to run whoever they want as candidate in November?
Or, let’s say HRC is indicted AFTER she is elected POTUS in November. Will her VP then be president? What if Bernie is her running mate? Will it be the speaker of the house? Or will Congress decide on the next POTUS? Will Netanyahu give another big speech to Congress before they vote on Obama’s successor? Or will the FBI indict as soon as President HRC does sth they or whoever does not like?
This is insane.
I don’t understand why there is not enormous pressure on the FBI to publish the results of their investigation asap
War and peace is the #1 issue of our time. Trump is NOT the greater of two evils. Trump is the lesser evil.
Obama set immediately to screwing the people who voted for him and his “Hope is a change you can believe in” amalgamated sloganeering. Trump will likely turn away from his thuggishly racist supporters as well, and be far far far less likely than Clinton to use war and death as a first resort. Politicians disappoint. That’s Trump’s disappointment mode, imho. Bad for his supporters. Relatively good for the rest of us.
Still can’t vote for either of them though. I’m voting Green and hoping a third party takes enough votes from Hillary that she loses and we have a chance, however small, for some smidge of sanity to return to our foreign/war policy.
Shorter version: Trump is the lesser of the two evils, not Hillary.
“It’s an open question how well Clinton’s hawkish instincts match the country’s mood. Americans are weary of war and remain suspicious of foreign entanglements. And yet, after the retrenchment of the Obama years, there is polling evidence that they are equally dissatisfied with a portrait of their country as a spent force.”
As if, you’re either weary of war or don’t want to be a weakling: either beat this guy up or your a weakling yourself.
Excuse me, but this is the Times claiming the role of elite opinion molder, again, and framing false choices, designed to paint those who choose “wrongly” as weaklings. This has worked with Obama, who is neither fighter nor executive, and was constantly put in a position of doing what the warmongers wanted, to avoid being shown to be weak. He ultimately squirmed out of attacking Syria, but only after having been manipulated into drawing a red line, and then appeared weak to everyone when he failed to take action, which finally came by deferring to Congress. He’s weak in not being able to force his state and defense establishment to follow his lead. He complained about the playbook and his advisors, but, as leader, he should write the playbook, not complain about how it was used against him. He should’ve fired the warmongers, not leave them in a position to manipulate him.
Hillary is the true tool of the Neocons/Likudniks, who pitilessly pine and plan for the war of civilizations, and who can only be taken out by brute frontal assault.
The polling evidence of dissatisfaction is with the US being manipulated into counter-productive foreign entanglements that leave us weaker than before, at enormous expense. And with manipulators like the Times goading the country forward with false choices, of being humiliated as weak unless you do as you’re told.
Dubya’s were bred in the gut. Bone-based breeding appears to result in a much more powerful desire to fellate donkeys and cause highly-selective, large-scale devastation.
Those who need the Times to point out to them what a warmongering sociopath Clinton is are beyond hope anyway. Unfortunately, that includes a majority of so-called progressives. Her bloodthirsty machinations around the globe are no secret, and it requires a concerted effort to remain unaware of her record. But again, that concerted effort is being made by vast numbers of people in this country.