Rip van Winkle starts to his palsied feet and stares wildly about him:
The Left Ought to Worry About Hillary Clinton, Hawk and Militarist, in 2016
[I]t ought to worry progressives that the next president of the United States is likely to be much more hawkish than the current one…
She’s … taken a more hawkish line than Obama on Ukraine and the confrontation with Russia….
Clinton joined Panetta, CIA Director David Petraeus and the military in proposing that the United States go to war in Syria. (That the United States didn’t act more aggressively in Syria back then was entirely due to President Obama’s decision to resist Clinton and the other hawks.)
… Clinton—joined by several other administration officials, including Samantha Power and Susan Rice—pushed hard, and successfully, for the United States to go to war in Libya….
…[T]here was far more tension between the White House and the State Department under Clinton than is usually cited.
And on and on and on. What a strange narrative. The writers — Bob and Barbara Dreyfuss — seem very determined to keep Obie untarnished, and blame Hill for all the Bad Stuff.
Why? Who cares about Obie, that tiresome, overexposed, played-out lame duck? Is there some retrospective self-justification at work? Were Bob and Babs Obamanauts back in the day? Are they feeling a little… well… sheepish about it now?
I particularly loved the bit about how “President Obama” — as The Nation always refers to the God-Emperor — “resisted” Hillary’s push for war in Syria. I don’t remember it quite that way. I seem to remember Obie being balls-to-the-wall for war in Syria, until it became clear that not even the British House of Commons would go along with it. At that point, any fool could see the cause was lost.
For the time being, anyway. Don’t think it won’t be in the headlines again, probably as soon as the imbecile Ukraine adventure blows up in Hill’s — and Obie’s — face. Assuming it hasn’t already.