Trump Dangerous? Where is the New York Times on Hillary’s Catastrophic Judgment on War?

Trump Dangerous? Where is the New York Times on Hillary’s Catastrophic Judgment on War? March 2, 2016
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons

By Stephen Ryan


Mainstream media have crowned Donald Trump America’s Boogie man – according to The New York Times, he is a man we must fear. Trump is not fit to lead  America.

New York Times writes:

Mr. Trump’s foul statements and shallow ideas can and should be exposed through detailed, dispassionate analysis and smart debate, approaches that would lift his opponent as they diminish him.

On the Democratic side, Mrs. Clinton, who is pulling away in the contest with Bernie Sanders, should stick to the high ground.  Mrs. Clinton should continue to campaign on who she is and what she can do for middle-class Americans seeking leadership that reflects the best, not the worst, of political impulses.

Hillary Clinton should stick to the “High Ground”? I’m not buying it. What ground are they talking about?

Let’s be clear on a few things.  Donald Trump has said the Iraq invasion was a total disaster and that it led to the epic humanitarian crisis in Syria, upheavals in Europe caused by immigration,  and the rise of ISIS.  Trump has called out Hillary on her support of “Moderate” rebels in Libya and Syria. He asks “Just who are these moderates?”

Is Trump wrong on his foreign policy statements?

Now nuclear power Russia, led by Vladimir Putin, has emerged onto the world stage, bringing its sophisticated jets into the most violent place on earth.

Despite Trump’s unequivocal statements about the Middle East, Mainstream media claim that establishment republicans reject Trump’s views on the Iraq, the Middle East, and Russia.  The Times and the “Establisment” call Trump’s views dangerous. Weekly Standard calls Trump’s foreign policy ideas “naive’ and “nutty”.

This brings me to the question: Does the New York Times and other influential  media actually think through what they write about? Do they connect the dots?

The voices of establishment Republicans on foreign policy, we are told, are Lindsey Graham and John McCain.  Really? Lindsey Graham is without question the most delusional and dangerous man in America. It is astonishing that serious people listen to him. He, quite literally, has advocated for policies that would lead to WWIII by provocatively saying he would go to war against Russia if they did not do what they are told to do by America.

When The New York Time’s writes about “Establishment Republicans” do they consider what Lindsey Graham had to say in his withdrawal speech? Graham nearly wept for his failure to convince America that launching  and all out invasion of Syria was the sure path to protect America. It was a truly terrifying  speech,  particularly when you consider the New York Times and CNN view this man as a voice of reason and speaks for the Republican establishment. Mr. Graham is a buffoon, unhinged, and that CNN and Wolfe Blitzer continually invite him back onto their show calls into question the judgement of important journalistic voices like CNN.

Back to Hillary and her foreign policy expertise. Hillary has been a long time proponent of regime change. There is no other word to describe her consistent support of policies in Syria, Libya and her vote for the invasion of Iraq.  Hillary is a big  advocate for supporting so called “Moderate” rebels. Trump on the other hand, asks “Who the hell are these guys?”   Turns out most are ruthless mercenaries willing to kill for the highest bidder – the deep pockets of Suadia Arabia have footed the bill for most of Hillary Clinton’s “moderate rebels”  pursuing regime change.

Hillary robustly supported the Libyan rebels  even though she had know idea who they were. On television, she was asked about Libya and Muammar Gaddafi. She said. “We came, we saw,  he died.” She then burst out into laughter. Libya is now a failed nation overrun by ISIS. (See video below)

Hillary Clinton continues  to parse her views on what to do with the Middle East, especially Syria. She suggests something called a “No fly Zone” as a cure all.  She sees “no fly zones” as the answer to the humanitarian crisis. Hillary Clinton speaks of “No Fly Zones” as if they are some sophisticated inside the beltway State Department “wonk” speak.   Truth is  she has no idea what she is talking about and has no intentions of enforcing this “zone” if Russian jets trampled all over it.   But the New York Times continues to give her a pass by not asking her to explain, in detail,  what she would do if Russia challenged her policies on Syria.

The New York Times wants to convince us that Trump is dangerous for America, yet fails to responsibly discuss Hillary Clinton’s role in shaping our world.

I have no confidence that Hillary would make a good decision at a time of crisis.  Trump calls himself a master deal maker. Hillary talks about the 3:00 am phone call and who should we trust. That answer is clear and simple for me. I would trust Donald Trump – he would make a deal.

I am afraid Hillary would seek counsel from the experts, including the  voices of the establishment like Lindsey Graham and John McCain.

"The young woman is now well and that is wonderful. She must be thrilled as ..."

Young Woman Cured of Incurable Brain ..."
"I'm not surprised. If I wasn't warned not to judge our shepherds by our Lady, ..."

Was One of the Four Cardinals ..."
"I cant believe some Catholic publication is defending Trump. Have you read the Muller report? ..."

Catholic Media, Medjugorje, and the parallels ..."
"La Stampa!?! For real? HAHA! Might as well quote Wikipedia! When I said Rome, I ..."

Catholic Media, Medjugorje, and the parallels ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS More Voices
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment