August 14, 2014

ANGELIC, NOT DEVLISH:

How Hillary Will Fail Liberals (Steve Chapman, August 14, 2014, Chicago Tribune)

[I]f they mass behind Clinton's presidential candidacy, liberals will be making a Faustian deal. They may get the White House. But if they expect her to implement an ambitious domestic agenda, they are in for a painful shock. It's not that she wouldn't like to achieve it. It's that her priorities will make it impossible.

Those priorities became clear this week in her interview with Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic, which she used to highlight how much more hawkish she is than that guy she used to work for.

She thinks the United States should have done more to help the Syrian rebels, must get over its habit of "hunkering down and pulling back," and needs an "overarching" strategy to combat Islamic terrorism. "I'm thinking a lot about containment, deterrence and defeat," she said.

Of Russian President Vladimir Putin's aggression against Ukraine, she implicitly blamed Barack Obama for not being assertive enough: "In the world in which we are living right now, vacuums get filled by some pretty unsavory players." [...]

Hawks would feel vindicated if Clinton were elected. The Weekly Standard, a tireless advocate for the Iraq war and any other possible war, excerpted The Atlantic interview under the headline, "Special Guest Editorial:

Obama's Foreign Policy Failures." Right-wing radio host Laura Ingraham said, "She sounds like John McCain."

What all this means is that Obama's presidency would be a hiatus between the military aggressiveness of George W. Bush and the military aggressiveness of Hillary Clinton. Obama's effort to wean us from perpetual intervention would be abandoned.

Well, except that the weaner initiated or continued wars in Libya, the Ukraine, Syria, Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Posted by at August 14, 2014 3:03 PM
  
blog comments powered by Disqus
« WE ARE ALL NEOCONOMISTS NOW: | Main | LOSING THE WAR: »