The neocon War Dogs, like Max Boot and Robert Kagan, are literally frothing at the mouth at the thought of an interventionist Clinton White House. The National Interest tells readers:
It would do no harm to her persuasiveness if Clinton admitted a degree of truth in the case made by her opponents, whether on the Libya war, the advisability of repeating that experiment in Syria, or the innocent design of propagating democracy that drove the expansion of NATO. An incorrigible belief in the purity of one’s motives is among the most dangerous endowments a politician can possess. Her sentences about NATO could have been written by Tony Blair; and this explains why at least three neoconservatives—Eliot A. Cohen, Max Boot and Robert Kagan, in ascending order of enthusiasm—have indicated that a Clinton presidency would be agreeable to them. She is a reliable option for them. Her comparison of Putin to Hitler in March 2014 and her likening of Crimean Russians to Sudeten Germans were reminiscent, too, of the specter of Munich evoked by an earlier secretary of state, Dean Rusk, to defend the escalation of the Vietnam War in 1965—the kind of tragic mistake that Hillary Clinton seems prepared to repeat for the most laudable of humanitarian reasons.
Latest posts by Richard C. Young (see all)
- Conspiracy and Collusion with Russia? - February 20, 2018
- Breaking Paris Intelligence from David Lebovitz - February 20, 2018
- Is Nikolas Cruz a Product of America’s Moral Decomposition? - February 16, 2018