Hillary Clinton is responsible for a terrorism surge and the New York Times admits it.
I didn’t expect the media to reveal that Hillary Clinton is responsible for anything bad now that the primaries have started. But every once in a while the mainstream media pleasantly surprises us. This is one of those times. The New York Times says that Hillary Clinton is responsible for the failed state of Libya and the policy decisions that made it into a terrorist haven.
This is the story of how a woman whose Senate vote for the Iraq war may have doomed her first presidential campaign nonetheless doubled down and pushed for military action in another Muslim country. As she once again seeks the White House, campaigning in part on her experience as the nation’s chief diplomat, an examination of the intervention she championed shows her at what was arguably her moment of greatest influence as secretary of state. It is a working portrait rich with evidence of what kind of president she might be, and especially of her expansive approach to the signal foreign-policy conundrum of today: whether, when and how the United States should wield its military power in Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East.
The story even links Libya to our policy (and its disastrous results) in Syria. This is a refreshing change from the typical media spin on Syria which simply regurgitates the federal government’s narrative.
But where are the Republicans? Other than blame Hillary Clinton for Benghazi, I haven’t heard any GOP candidate blame the Democrat front-runner for the state of the country. Hillary Clinton is responsible for the spread of terrorism. Why don’t Republicans say so? Is it because they agree with what she did to Libya?