It's interesting that former Secretaries of State George Shultz and William Perry were in the Clinton audience at Stanford, but Condi Rice (former provost of Stanford) was not.....
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/03/23/hillary-clinton-c...
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/03/23/hillary-clinton-c...
6
Regarding your assessment of the merits of Ms Clinton's position, all I can say is: Oh, Please!
8
We wouldn't be in this mess, if the Obama administration wouldn't have pulled out of Iraq and encouraged the overthrow of Aasad, in Syria. Everyone knows that unleashed ISIS on the world, by giving them a safe place to incubate their Islamic fascism. Hillary was in charge of the State Department, during that fiasco. So now she has a solution? She caused the problem!
8
NYT is praising Hillary for having offered nothing to help us fight terrorism.
All her talk about Republican positions is also pure politics - no serious proposals. Just look at those NYT claimed Hillary is offering.
1. "she laid out ways to work with allies to defeat terrorist groups". Any new from those used by Obama? Which we know have failed?
2, "She offered specific short-term steps:…. several European governments don’t automatically alert their neighbors when authorities intercept a suspected militant at an entry point, and that needs to change". So, let the bureaucrats communicate more - AFTER the fact. Where was she and Obama on this point before?
3. "United States government needs to work more closely with technology companies to counter extremist propaganda and to enable law enforcement to intercept information about violent plots". Mere platitudes, so obvious to everyone that the Republicans take all this for granted.
4 "military campaign against the Islamic State needs a new legal framework". Oh? Does she mean the one Obama is using? Which hasn't worked and resulted in more deaths? Yet she has insisted that Obama's approach to combating ISIS is correct.
The approaches proposed by Trump and Cruz certainly make more sense and are bolder steps. if we follow Hillary, it will be the old politics as usual and more people will die. Does the left really believe that ISIS will stop or be stopped by Hillary/Obama plans?
All her talk about Republican positions is also pure politics - no serious proposals. Just look at those NYT claimed Hillary is offering.
1. "she laid out ways to work with allies to defeat terrorist groups". Any new from those used by Obama? Which we know have failed?
2, "She offered specific short-term steps:…. several European governments don’t automatically alert their neighbors when authorities intercept a suspected militant at an entry point, and that needs to change". So, let the bureaucrats communicate more - AFTER the fact. Where was she and Obama on this point before?
3. "United States government needs to work more closely with technology companies to counter extremist propaganda and to enable law enforcement to intercept information about violent plots". Mere platitudes, so obvious to everyone that the Republicans take all this for granted.
4 "military campaign against the Islamic State needs a new legal framework". Oh? Does she mean the one Obama is using? Which hasn't worked and resulted in more deaths? Yet she has insisted that Obama's approach to combating ISIS is correct.
The approaches proposed by Trump and Cruz certainly make more sense and are bolder steps. if we follow Hillary, it will be the old politics as usual and more people will die. Does the left really believe that ISIS will stop or be stopped by Hillary/Obama plans?
5
AS much as I wish it were true, Ms. Clinton's actions did not lead to the creation of ISIS, nor did Mr. Obama's or Mr. (43) Bush's.
All 3 of them were barely in or out of High School yet in 1972 when Palestinian terrorists took the Israeli athletes hostage and killed 11 of them. Oh, right, that was caused by the formation of the state of Israel in 1948.
Then there was the Arab Revolt of 1916-1918, caused by accusations that the Young Turks were violating the sacred tenets of Islam and Arab Muslims were called to sacred rebellion against the ostensibly "impious" Ottoman government. Does this sound familiar?
All of the recent events are just the latest chapter in the Crusades that began almost a thousand years ago.
Anyone that thinks they have a plan to end this conflict, using any sort of logical means, is arrogant in the extreme.
Sometimes you just have to omit the logic and admit there is no solution. Especially since you're dealing with a highly illogical situation.
All 3 of them were barely in or out of High School yet in 1972 when Palestinian terrorists took the Israeli athletes hostage and killed 11 of them. Oh, right, that was caused by the formation of the state of Israel in 1948.
Then there was the Arab Revolt of 1916-1918, caused by accusations that the Young Turks were violating the sacred tenets of Islam and Arab Muslims were called to sacred rebellion against the ostensibly "impious" Ottoman government. Does this sound familiar?
All of the recent events are just the latest chapter in the Crusades that began almost a thousand years ago.
Anyone that thinks they have a plan to end this conflict, using any sort of logical means, is arrogant in the extreme.
Sometimes you just have to omit the logic and admit there is no solution. Especially since you're dealing with a highly illogical situation.
8
Militants beget militants. I am not a pacifist but the Republicans response to everything is always more war. "Kill them all". Kind of a 'Manifest Deshiny' approach to all problem. The US is bloody 'exceptional ' for God's sske! The issues and relationship are so complex it will take experience and intelligence to press forward to avoid a WWIII.
Bernie is a good man but the Times is right to endorse Hillary. Wake up folks or give it to Trumpet or Cruz the Maurader!
Bernie is a good man but the Times is right to endorse Hillary. Wake up folks or give it to Trumpet or Cruz the Maurader!
11
Obama and company believe that climate change causes terrorism so I guess shutting down the coal industry and coal fired power plant are the solution?
2
The terrorists will take comfort if Hillary is elected president for she will carry on the Obama administration's policy of inaction and the immigration of more and more potential terrorists into the U.S.
1
Hillary is certainly the last one (after Reagan, her husband, Bush junior, Blair, Obama, Sarkozy, Cameron, Berlusconi) to give sound advice on how to avoid upsetting notorious kegs of dynamite of whatever denomination.
The foundation of this oriental powder keg lies in the societies kept in immature religio-political oppression, whereby the political dictators give their opposition the best opportunity to rebel in changing what they can, under hand: the religious foundation which is seen perverted in a false pseudo-religious political system - see centers hereto in all the "islamic monarchies" like Saudia, but also Pakistan, Egypt, and Israel.
That these, first internal rebels turned towards "the great Satan USA" was simply their answer to the support these dictatorships received from the USA, which kept the oppression in place.
That they turned against Europe is their answer to the collaborators of the USA in their assistance for those oppressive rulers, for that is how Iraq was understood everywhere. Logically, the first targets were Britain and Spain.
No, France was the main hit, because of Sarcosy's leading role in Libya - and Brussels only happened there, because the effects of Paris had led to police actions in Belgium and stirred up the nest of hornets there.
Otherwise, the calm and quiet way of the EU capital would have stayed that way.
The problem of most people in and around Washington is that they don't know much beyond the periphery there - which caused all that
The foundation of this oriental powder keg lies in the societies kept in immature religio-political oppression, whereby the political dictators give their opposition the best opportunity to rebel in changing what they can, under hand: the religious foundation which is seen perverted in a false pseudo-religious political system - see centers hereto in all the "islamic monarchies" like Saudia, but also Pakistan, Egypt, and Israel.
That these, first internal rebels turned towards "the great Satan USA" was simply their answer to the support these dictatorships received from the USA, which kept the oppression in place.
That they turned against Europe is their answer to the collaborators of the USA in their assistance for those oppressive rulers, for that is how Iraq was understood everywhere. Logically, the first targets were Britain and Spain.
No, France was the main hit, because of Sarcosy's leading role in Libya - and Brussels only happened there, because the effects of Paris had led to police actions in Belgium and stirred up the nest of hornets there.
Otherwise, the calm and quiet way of the EU capital would have stayed that way.
The problem of most people in and around Washington is that they don't know much beyond the periphery there - which caused all that
2
Anything mentioned here that is referred to as specific is weak and will be ineffective in America if it applies at all. Hillary has no specifics on what to do about the military "framework" and has no plan for terrorism. As usual she talks a lot but says nothing. But that's good enough for the Times.
As for Obama he has done very little to stem the rising tide of the The Islamic State. In fact he's responsible for it. He has killed a few higher level terrorists and some hospitalized folks and a few people at a wedding party. These terrorists are now in nine countries and will pull off a incredible catastrophe sooner than later in Europe. They are responsible for Brussels and two other attacks on the African continent just this week.
Drones and extremely limited bombing sorties are not enough. He's just marking time until he's gone (incredibly good riddance). He just called it genocide this week after thousands and thousands of christians, muslims, and others have been sacrificed by him and millennia of christian artifacts have been destroyed. Through his complacency he has lots of blood on his hands and the loss of irreplaceable treasures at his doorstep. A huge failure of leadership.
As for Obama he has done very little to stem the rising tide of the The Islamic State. In fact he's responsible for it. He has killed a few higher level terrorists and some hospitalized folks and a few people at a wedding party. These terrorists are now in nine countries and will pull off a incredible catastrophe sooner than later in Europe. They are responsible for Brussels and two other attacks on the African continent just this week.
Drones and extremely limited bombing sorties are not enough. He's just marking time until he's gone (incredibly good riddance). He just called it genocide this week after thousands and thousands of christians, muslims, and others have been sacrificed by him and millennia of christian artifacts have been destroyed. Through his complacency he has lots of blood on his hands and the loss of irreplaceable treasures at his doorstep. A huge failure of leadership.
4
Let us all congratulate Obama for creating ISIS! Obama inherited a stable, ISIS-free Iraq (and ISIS-free Libya, Syria, etc). He then made the irresponsible decision to yank troops out too soon-against all advice- just for a few cheap temporary political points. As he was warned, ISIS filled the vacuum Obama created.
3
President Obama didn't create ISIS. That's ridiculous.
The forebears of ISIS go back to the late 1990s. Over time, different groups joined, including former Iraqi army officers who were released from the army with GW Bush's de-Ba'athification policy.
US troops left Iraq because we did not renew a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq. They wanted us out, and Americans wanted out too. This decision was made by GW Bush and his team, not Obama.
The forebears of ISIS go back to the late 1990s. Over time, different groups joined, including former Iraqi army officers who were released from the army with GW Bush's de-Ba'athification policy.
US troops left Iraq because we did not renew a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq. They wanted us out, and Americans wanted out too. This decision was made by GW Bush and his team, not Obama.
18
Larry, the whole region was destabilized by your hero GWB! Invading two countries when he could have just gone after the culprit for 9/11 was a criminal act. At no time was Iraq stable. The Shias and Sunnis were constantly at war after and during the "peace". You comment is revisionist history at best.
16
Yesterday, Judy Woodruff (PBS) was interviewing Bernie Sanders on what he would do about the ISIS problem. When pressed on his vague, generalized answers, he started to get angry and very loud, but still didn't have much concrete to offer beyond "working with a brand coalition." To my relief, Mrs. Clinton provided much more substance in her response, showing that Mr. Sanders is out of his depth in foreign affairs.
21
Exactly tanstaafl! Thank you for that timely comparison.
8
We should take to heart the words of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, president of Turkey: “Islam is Islam. There are no modifiers. Democracy is the train we ride to our ultimate objective.”
Our policies should be based upon recognizing the axiomatic truth of that statement.
Our policies should be based upon recognizing the axiomatic truth of that statement.
2
I'm starting to feel that the NY Times is as corrupt, and beholden to special interests as the politicians you cover. Your failure to mention Bernie Sanders in this article exhibits extreme bias toward Hillary Clinton, and undermines the high standards of truthful reporting to which all journalists should adhere. Rightfully so, you expressed your endorsement for Mrs. Clinton in an editorial some weeks ago, and actually made quite a compelling case for doing so. However, how are we, as readers and voters, now supposed to trust your choice, your words, when you so obviously are not interested in completely reporting the truth? This saddens me because I truly thought that the NY Times was the one last bastion of hope for our society to receive the best reporting possible. Now, like the very foundation of democracy, that ideal seems to be crumbling. Shame on you NY Times. Shame on you.
24
Welcome to receiving the clarity on how rigged our system is: political, economic, governance, media. Big money is so entrenched in our system that stealthily it has taken over our country. We the people have no say, no one is looking out for us, and lo and behold, once in a lifetime person like Bernie comes along! How fortunate are we!
12
Candidates have talked about counterterrorism at length. Is there anyone who reflects upon why the Islamic states (IS) attack mostly Western countries?
If a state is facing life and death prospect, a desperate remedy means hope against hope. This explains IS’ desperateness. The situation has not been changed since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. The invasion was the result of, among other things, the policy of safe-guard of Israel by the Western countries at all cost, including changing regimes in the Middle East at will. Unbalanced and unfair policies of the Western countries toward Islamic countries vs Israel have led to terrorist attacks and Western countries’ counter attacks. There will be no end in sight as long as the doomed-to-failure policies remain intact. IS’ military forces may be weak but that doesn’t mean Western countries can destroy IS any time soon. The longer it takes for the Western countries to wipe out their enemy's effective strength, the worse their soft power will suffer. IS can afford to wait the counterterrorism out when it loses dynamism.
Hillary Clinton, a pro-establishment politician, has her own political baggage urgently needed to be thrown away. The disastrous Obama-Clinton’s Libyan and Syrian policies have been haunting them so badly that either of them has any plausible turnkey solution in hand. She may indulge in verbiage; she can’t convince people that she is ready to deliver coup de maître. In fact, no one can.
If a state is facing life and death prospect, a desperate remedy means hope against hope. This explains IS’ desperateness. The situation has not been changed since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. The invasion was the result of, among other things, the policy of safe-guard of Israel by the Western countries at all cost, including changing regimes in the Middle East at will. Unbalanced and unfair policies of the Western countries toward Islamic countries vs Israel have led to terrorist attacks and Western countries’ counter attacks. There will be no end in sight as long as the doomed-to-failure policies remain intact. IS’ military forces may be weak but that doesn’t mean Western countries can destroy IS any time soon. The longer it takes for the Western countries to wipe out their enemy's effective strength, the worse their soft power will suffer. IS can afford to wait the counterterrorism out when it loses dynamism.
Hillary Clinton, a pro-establishment politician, has her own political baggage urgently needed to be thrown away. The disastrous Obama-Clinton’s Libyan and Syrian policies have been haunting them so badly that either of them has any plausible turnkey solution in hand. She may indulge in verbiage; she can’t convince people that she is ready to deliver coup de maître. In fact, no one can.
3
Why does the US need to do anything different than what we have been doing for the last 15 years? We are not the world's policemen. All these attacks are happening in Europe, not here in the US. I'm not saying we should bury our heads in the sand and ignore ISIS and potential threats to the nation, but we don't need to freak out over attacks in other lands.
2
The problem is Clinton is a war mongering Republican too. She just won't admidit it, nor will the Times.
Sanders is the only rational choice for 99% of the electorate.
Sanders is the only rational choice for 99% of the electorate.
17
As a firm supporter of Hillary Clinton I would like to see the Times include Bernie Sanders in every article remotely connected with the campaign. I don't want to hear any more about how Bernie's "never mentioned'.
14
Trum and Cruz answers to global terrorism show that they don't
have a clue about what should be a comprehensive foreign policy
agenda to successfully weaken ISIS and others. As pointed out by
Mrs. Clinton the carpet-bombing approach will not only be a
"serious mistake" but a dangerous one. First it legitimise a
wannabee caliphate into a fully fledged country if America decide
to got to war frontally. ISIS is just waiting for that to happen.
America will then become a high priority target for terrorist
attacks taking the role of the "big satan" for fundamentalists
dreaming of a global clash of civilisations. The situation in the
middle east is a complex one involving so many countries,
a unilateral response such as the Irak's war debacle initiate by
Bush will be the worse possible scenario.
have a clue about what should be a comprehensive foreign policy
agenda to successfully weaken ISIS and others. As pointed out by
Mrs. Clinton the carpet-bombing approach will not only be a
"serious mistake" but a dangerous one. First it legitimise a
wannabee caliphate into a fully fledged country if America decide
to got to war frontally. ISIS is just waiting for that to happen.
America will then become a high priority target for terrorist
attacks taking the role of the "big satan" for fundamentalists
dreaming of a global clash of civilisations. The situation in the
middle east is a complex one involving so many countries,
a unilateral response such as the Irak's war debacle initiate by
Bush will be the worse possible scenario.
3
Hillary is undoubtedly the best of a rather poor selection. The reason why her pedestrian approach to fighting Da'esh approach sounds like a voice of sanity among the ravings of the GOP is that the US has not internalized the magnitude and the nature of the threat yet. The threat is not terrorism per se. I grieve for the innocent victims but the West is not going to be brought to its knees by airport bombings. The fight is ideological: a confrontation between two different cultures, world views, and ways of life. It is similar in this sense to the Cold War but also different because the ideology of radical Islam can call upon the unlimited reserves of religious fanaticism, far more so than Communism ever could. It cannot be defeated by drones and bombs alone but only by a combination of covert operations, financial pressure and propaganda. Obama's mistake was his refusal to speak out against radical Islam in a clear and authoritative way. I hope that Hillary will not repeat this mistake; her condemnation of the retrograde, fanatical, fundamentalist religion will have even more resonance because it'll be spoken by a woman. As for Cruz' and Trump's responses: one of them is a theocrat who has more in common with Da'esh than with the ideals of the Enlightenment, the other - a buffoon. Sanders was on the wrong side in the Cold War, why would he be on the right side in this one?
4
I believe the Times Editorial Board to be correct in staying the course of a liberal, humanitarian take on this disaster, but at the same time I believe some of the rhetoric of the Republican front-runners to be correct in voicing the rage and pulse-pounding fear of the great American moderate middle, those good sensible common-sense folks who make the difference in Presidential election year politics. May the best (most righteous) ideology win, I say.
1
If we elect anyone other than Hillary, I am extremely fearful for our future. She understands how to work with our allies and the rest of the world to defeat terrorism and the maddening politics of the Middle East. She also understands that the era of "bombing" our way out of a crisis is over.
10
Terrorists commit terror because they want their enemies to be terrorized and act accordingly. The best response is stealthy, small-footprint operations that degrade their capabilities. If we give them 24/7 news coverage of their latest act of terror, we give them what they want. If we respond with public bluster we give them what they want. And if we respond with stupid actions in order to feel like we have done something useful, we give them what they want. Don't give them what they want. Keep the pressure on, like a python strangling its prey, not like a big game hunter shooting a rhino with his really neat rifle and scope.
7
Cowards. One attack, by 4 people, thousands of miles off-shore, and the Republican candidates run for shelter behind walls and belligerent words.
The proposed Republican cure: treating our only sources of good information as spies and filth will make much more of the jihadist activity "go dark" than is true today. Also shouting very loudly. Also blowing up a lot of innocents--every report shows that most of the population of Mosul and Raqqa hate ISIS--but the one sure way to force them to support ISIS is to bomb indiscriminately.
It takes a fully functioning adult to deal with adversity in a way to minimize damage, including self-inflicted damage. Too bad we have a party lead by scared regressed chronological adults.
My daughter teaches 5th grade. Her class went to a local "Science Camp" with overnight camping. One of the girls got a tick. Two of the teachers panicked, calling for medical backup and a different teacher to help deal with "the problem" (any surprise that these teachers support Trump?). The "victim", calmly noted that she had had ticks before. When the first attempt to remove the tick failed, the girl calmly noted: "Oh, he's attached to me." with a smile. The removed tick, still alive, resisted being put in a specimen bag causing the girl to comment with a smile: "He misses me!"--and eagerly returned to her class in time for a turkey sandwich.
Republicans need to move up to the standards of grace under fire shown by a 5th grade girl.
The proposed Republican cure: treating our only sources of good information as spies and filth will make much more of the jihadist activity "go dark" than is true today. Also shouting very loudly. Also blowing up a lot of innocents--every report shows that most of the population of Mosul and Raqqa hate ISIS--but the one sure way to force them to support ISIS is to bomb indiscriminately.
It takes a fully functioning adult to deal with adversity in a way to minimize damage, including self-inflicted damage. Too bad we have a party lead by scared regressed chronological adults.
My daughter teaches 5th grade. Her class went to a local "Science Camp" with overnight camping. One of the girls got a tick. Two of the teachers panicked, calling for medical backup and a different teacher to help deal with "the problem" (any surprise that these teachers support Trump?). The "victim", calmly noted that she had had ticks before. When the first attempt to remove the tick failed, the girl calmly noted: "Oh, he's attached to me." with a smile. The removed tick, still alive, resisted being put in a specimen bag causing the girl to comment with a smile: "He misses me!"--and eagerly returned to her class in time for a turkey sandwich.
Republicans need to move up to the standards of grace under fire shown by a 5th grade girl.
4
The presidency may just be too difficult for any person. After eight years of watching Mr. Obama struggle to get up to speed, he still working at it. Hillary did not use the words liberties, spying or transparency. Americans don't trust their government. She needs to wake-up, and drop her apparent aura of entitlement.
3
Fast forward a year when Trump (or Cruz) could be our President and imagine what their responses would be to a terrorist attack. Well, now we know. They will send tanks and troops into neighborhoods with high Muslim population and start ripping people - men, women, children - from their homes. Trump will probably have a traveling water board station for just the use. I know for some it's a vision they crave and that's why they support Trump. Scares the hell out of me.
11
I think that we need to view this as a worldwide problem
rather than isolated in the middle east.
what I mean is we in the west fight and kill in the name of democracy
while Isis fights and kills in the name of Islam.
the illusion of the west being if you like the fighters of freedom is a shattered illusion
especially when we stop to look at the arms trade and the relentless death toll caused by the cigarette business.
how is it we stand open mouthed when we hear of sad bad people strapping bombs to their bodies and detonating them in airports and tube stations,
but we barely blink an eye at the lives that are needlessly destroyed by the cigarette business and by means of arms sold by western governments?
we never forget to supposedly honor god's son every December 25th by eating turkey and buying presents no one needs
while we conveniently forget that as supposed christian nations we are obliged to live by Christian Principles?
a nation truly educated and shaped by Christian principles is not manifested by a death dealing money loving cigarette business.
neither is it manifested by an arms trade.
the lives destroyed by the recent terrorist attacks will be restored by the god we claim to serve and honor.
it is right that we try to reach the hearts and minds of misguided Islamists,
but we need to remember that we need to get on the right path as well
if peace is to grow.
but it won't cause we love money cigarettes and trading arms more than people and god.
rather than isolated in the middle east.
what I mean is we in the west fight and kill in the name of democracy
while Isis fights and kills in the name of Islam.
the illusion of the west being if you like the fighters of freedom is a shattered illusion
especially when we stop to look at the arms trade and the relentless death toll caused by the cigarette business.
how is it we stand open mouthed when we hear of sad bad people strapping bombs to their bodies and detonating them in airports and tube stations,
but we barely blink an eye at the lives that are needlessly destroyed by the cigarette business and by means of arms sold by western governments?
we never forget to supposedly honor god's son every December 25th by eating turkey and buying presents no one needs
while we conveniently forget that as supposed christian nations we are obliged to live by Christian Principles?
a nation truly educated and shaped by Christian principles is not manifested by a death dealing money loving cigarette business.
neither is it manifested by an arms trade.
the lives destroyed by the recent terrorist attacks will be restored by the god we claim to serve and honor.
it is right that we try to reach the hearts and minds of misguided Islamists,
but we need to remember that we need to get on the right path as well
if peace is to grow.
but it won't cause we love money cigarettes and trading arms more than people and god.
4
Under Obama and Hillary Clinton torture was indeed used. Not so much against any Muslim but rather US soldier and citizen Bradley Manning.
Manning was denied clothing, sheets, a pillow, was forced to live in a cell with a metal bed where the lights never went off, was not allowed to exercise in his cell, was denied reading material of any kind, was not allowed visitors or contact with the outside world etc etc. what should alarm voters is not that Trump claims he would use torture but rather that Clinton has been a part of an administration that actually used torture and assassination against their own citizens. We do not know exactly what any other candidate would do, we do know what Clinton has done. So yes, vote Clinton because she will not do harm to anybody unless they are US citizens whom she will torture and assassinate via some twisted Democrat interpretation of the Constitution. Sounds good to me!
Manning was denied clothing, sheets, a pillow, was forced to live in a cell with a metal bed where the lights never went off, was not allowed to exercise in his cell, was denied reading material of any kind, was not allowed visitors or contact with the outside world etc etc. what should alarm voters is not that Trump claims he would use torture but rather that Clinton has been a part of an administration that actually used torture and assassination against their own citizens. We do not know exactly what any other candidate would do, we do know what Clinton has done. So yes, vote Clinton because she will not do harm to anybody unless they are US citizens whom she will torture and assassinate via some twisted Democrat interpretation of the Constitution. Sounds good to me!
3
Another diversion from reality and the truth. The reality and the truth is we have created every enemy for some time now. War is the name of the game.
4
the effectiveness of the Russian bombing campaign in support of the Assad regime is often pointed to by republicans to illustrate the weakness of President Obama's approach to fighting terrorism. but if the US was willing to indiscriminately bomb civilian populations and commit war crimes (which apparently the republicans have no problem with doing) we could have done a much better job of it that the Russians. Or as trump might put it: Trust me, we would be the best war criminals of all time.
3
Hearing Mrs. Clinton's ideas was actually quite calming for me. What she said gave me the impression that she is wiser than anyone else who is running for president. What is important to state is that bluster and bravado are what terrorists count on from the US. Mr. Obama has done well with his quiet strategy. If the standard that Republicans apply is that the US and Europe have no attacks during Democratic administrations, then Mr. Obama failed. But it isn't a viable standard given the nature of the threat. Because the threats are from within and outside the society, careful intelligence work well shared with cooperative governments, is the foundation. Positive relationships with Muslim communities within our borders will weaken the hold that extremists can have. Limited actions by special forces can play a role. Wholesale invasions, indiscriminate bombing are bad news. Not only are such actions ineffective. They feed the narrative of the terrorists, providing fodder for recruitment. While the public may buy the lines of Donald Cruz or Ted Trump for a while, Hillary will have the backing of the State Department and the military.
11
I agree with your timely editorial. I was fortunate to catch HRC's Stanford speech and thought that she displayed the maturity that one would expect from a former Secretary of State. She wisely put terrorism in perspective. I sort of hoped she would have used the occasion to reflect more strongly on the avoidance of the use of violence & concentrated more of the need for a stronger commitment to diplomacy by the leaders of the theocratic states.
My thoughts are tied to the number #1 security challenge of our time: global warming & the threat and opportunity it provides the modern world. This will not be easy but if our human society has any sense it will keep this issue as the top priority & also the means to evolve the world away from fossil fuels.
You did not mention Senator Sanders, who has given Global Warming and its impact on Climate his #1 priority. I also noted at the Stanford gathering George Schultz was on the front row & also note that he is one of the few Republican leaders who has called for action on Global Warming.
We can concurrently phase out fossil energy by creating very cheap electricity from solar satellites in geosynchronous orbit with a Maglev launch system that can launch reliably for less than 1% of chemical rocket cost. With a portion of the cheap electricity we can create gasoline, diesel, & jet fuel at a competitive price for air, truck, & auto mobility from air & water. 350 mph Maglev can also supply the needs of 9 Billion urban humans.
My thoughts are tied to the number #1 security challenge of our time: global warming & the threat and opportunity it provides the modern world. This will not be easy but if our human society has any sense it will keep this issue as the top priority & also the means to evolve the world away from fossil fuels.
You did not mention Senator Sanders, who has given Global Warming and its impact on Climate his #1 priority. I also noted at the Stanford gathering George Schultz was on the front row & also note that he is one of the few Republican leaders who has called for action on Global Warming.
We can concurrently phase out fossil energy by creating very cheap electricity from solar satellites in geosynchronous orbit with a Maglev launch system that can launch reliably for less than 1% of chemical rocket cost. With a portion of the cheap electricity we can create gasoline, diesel, & jet fuel at a competitive price for air, truck, & auto mobility from air & water. 350 mph Maglev can also supply the needs of 9 Billion urban humans.
17
Bernie Sanders is running for President of the United States. On Monday, he won 78% of the vote in Idaho and 79% of the vote in Utah -- about four times as many votes as Hillary Clinton. Strangely, people think he is the candidate who cannot win, the one who should step aside, an annoyance interfering with the One True Candidate (Hillary Clinton). In the New York Times, he isn't even one of "the Other Candidates." You are failing as a news organization. You are failing our democracy.
15
Look at the numbers. For Utah, Idaho and Arizona Hillary outperformed Bernie by 13,055 votes. Not a conspiracy just a fact. Also please research total votes in the democratic primaries. Hillary is outperforming once again. This ongoing Hillary bashing by Bernie supporters must stop. Use your energy against the GOP. Remember the Supreme Court and Roe vs Wade.
6
HILLARY is light years ahead of all the other presidential hopefuls. Cruz and Trump cannot even form a coherent sentence about their foreign policies beyond four letter words, those being bomb, Bomb and BOMB! A single word does not a foreign policy make. Kasich speaks reasonably, but has little to no foreign policy experience. Bernie is a good guy, who's got an energizing style. He sticks to his standard argument, defining a problem and then saying, So here's what we must do. It a good rallying cry, but has none of the massive success with worldwide foreign policy that Hillary established during her years as Secretary of State. And the GOP is, as usual, doing the most superficial, counterproductive thing by sniping at Hillary while offering only the bitter fruits of the culture of complaining and whining that have become the rallying cry of the GOP. We've all caught on to their idea that endless criticism and attacking will build a stronger nation. On all levels that approach has produced cataclysmic failures. Lying about the need to go to war in Iraq; neglecting to supervise financial gamblers who caused the Great Recession and now focusing on their unending battle against a woman's right to choose, same-sex marriage and, what is most dangerous, attempting to change the US in to a Christian nation. Most definitely that was the idea that the Founding Fathers fought in bringing about the Revolutionary war. Establishing a thriving secular society is our success.
17
@John Smith:
Comparing her plans as outlined in this article with those I heard from Republicans, I would say she is light years behind.
Comparing her plans as outlined in this article with those I heard from Republicans, I would say she is light years behind.
3
Compare the reactions of French and Belgian citizens - who right away understand that to cower in fear is to let the terrorists win - to GOP fear-mongering presidential candidates. It's obvious to me that Cruz and Trump want to encourage voters to "be afraid, be very afraid". Why? In order to then appear as the Strong Man they need to protect them.
The encouragement of fear is at the basis of the stockpiling of weapons by too many Americans. It is the basis of dictatorships, which promise civilian security - at the price of a police state.
Why trade one type of police state (ISIS) for another (Facism)? What price do we pay when politicians gin up fear? Especially fear of religion - all of which encourage peace, not war.
Here's the problem with Facism. It actually spawns violence - against it! Small cells of people develop to try and regain democracy. Some who resist Facism do so peacefully. Others plot violence - think Bonhoeffer, a holy man, yet he plotted to kill Hitler. So you just trade one type of terror cell for another - if you turn to Fascism.
Hillary Clinton is not perfect. But she's been Secretary of State. She's been thinking about foreign relations, among other things, for decades!
Trump has already been branded by the "Economist" as one of the top 10 world dangers! At this point, Cruz cannot be far behind.
Between Hillary and the GOP alternatives, there is no contest. Full stop!
Thank you, Times, for keeping your eye on the ball!
The encouragement of fear is at the basis of the stockpiling of weapons by too many Americans. It is the basis of dictatorships, which promise civilian security - at the price of a police state.
Why trade one type of police state (ISIS) for another (Facism)? What price do we pay when politicians gin up fear? Especially fear of religion - all of which encourage peace, not war.
Here's the problem with Facism. It actually spawns violence - against it! Small cells of people develop to try and regain democracy. Some who resist Facism do so peacefully. Others plot violence - think Bonhoeffer, a holy man, yet he plotted to kill Hitler. So you just trade one type of terror cell for another - if you turn to Fascism.
Hillary Clinton is not perfect. But she's been Secretary of State. She's been thinking about foreign relations, among other things, for decades!
Trump has already been branded by the "Economist" as one of the top 10 world dangers! At this point, Cruz cannot be far behind.
Between Hillary and the GOP alternatives, there is no contest. Full stop!
Thank you, Times, for keeping your eye on the ball!
13
Worldwide muslim terrorists attacks continue. When the Brussels Belgium muslim terrorists bombings occurred, one news reporter said “it feels like its groundhog day again.” The carnage continues you’re not going to figure out the methodology used by muslim terrorists. Why do they call (police, FBI or military) intelligence agencies when they are always scratching their heads saying “Duh” after the muslim terrorists attacks? Intelligence should mean figuring out something before it happens.
1
Bernie supporters never stop looking for conspiracies to explain the fainter and fainter hope they hold for their knight in shining armour. But the only conspiracy surrounding Bernie is the one that's been largely responsible the limited success he's thus far enjoyed. The 'hands off Bernie' conspiracy is a lot bigger than Bernie supporters realize. The object of this conspiracy isn't to get Bernie nominated, but to weaken Hillary by making her less attractive to far left and centre right voters. Seems to be working like a charm, too.
12
She articulated a what?
Wasnt she the Secretary when we pulled out of Iraq and left the fledgling government in the breeze and allowed the former Baathists to become what is now commonly referred to as isis to come into existence?
Bush got us into Iraq. Obama and Clinton graciously gave us ISIS.
Wasnt she the Secretary when we pulled out of Iraq and left the fledgling government in the breeze and allowed the former Baathists to become what is now commonly referred to as isis to come into existence?
Bush got us into Iraq. Obama and Clinton graciously gave us ISIS.
2
More important than jobs programs, education reform, water infrastructure, and climate change: Does Cruz have a dog? If so, where does the dog ride on trips?
6
Christmas at the Kremlin? they do not celebrate it.
Dealing with Trump is more like Halloween -- a scary toy that look increasingly real: almost real.
Get Trump? Go Bernie!
Dealing with Trump is more like Halloween -- a scary toy that look increasingly real: almost real.
Get Trump? Go Bernie!
2
I think you're 25 years off in your comment. They're extremely devout at the Kremlin these days. :)
1
If people and nations have to secure their own communities, then why is Europe allowing those refugees in? Our Administration must push for an autonomous Kurdish region in Syria; ditto for Iraq. Eventually, also a moderate Sunni state encompassing part of Syria plus Iraq. And if moderate Shiites wish to join them, avoiding Assad's rule, even better. Draw rings around that despot's fiefdom and let him suffer the consequences.
I hear people saying "the Obama administration's foreign policy has been a mess."
You know what was a mess? The GWB administration starting a war in Iraq. That was a mess. Obama realizes that we can't do everything, and in fact we often harm ourselves in the long run, by jumping into things we can't ultimately control:
Remember GWB's "Mission Accomplished" banner?
Even the NYTimes is drumming up anger that we haven't invaded Syria. It's so depressing to see us fall into the same trap, over and over again.
Terrorism deaths in Europe since the '70s have actually been trending down, if you look at the numbers:
http://qz.com/558597/charted-terror-attacks-in-western-europe-from-the-1...
You know what was a mess? The GWB administration starting a war in Iraq. That was a mess. Obama realizes that we can't do everything, and in fact we often harm ourselves in the long run, by jumping into things we can't ultimately control:
Remember GWB's "Mission Accomplished" banner?
Even the NYTimes is drumming up anger that we haven't invaded Syria. It's so depressing to see us fall into the same trap, over and over again.
Terrorism deaths in Europe since the '70s have actually been trending down, if you look at the numbers:
http://qz.com/558597/charted-terror-attacks-in-western-europe-from-the-1...
8
Yet again, the Times completely ignores Bernie Sanders. Not even bothering to offer anything he might have said. Pitiful.
10
You failed to mention the other Republican candidate -- John Kasick, who was equally outraged by the comments of Trump and Cruz. Kasick has been ignored by the NY Times for far too long. He seems to be the preferred candidate in a general election, the only Republican that has a chance to actually win the election.
Shine the spotlight on the man who "will not take the low road to the highest office in the land."
Shine the spotlight on the man who "will not take the low road to the highest office in the land."
4
Hillary Clinton probably has been bought and sold by the terrorists through the Clinton Foundation.
6
You rail against "repugnant ideas" from Trump and Cruz, Times Editors, but express no contempt for the acts of unspeakable cowardice and cruelty committed by Islamic terrorists against innocent people. No mention of the repugnant ideas that drive Islamic terrorists. No mention of Islam. Yes, against babies, children, and mothers these brave Muslim warriors are unstoppable. But worry not, you say your candidate Mrs. Clinton wants us to, uh, "work more closely with technology companies to counter extremist propaganda." That's great. No, we don't want to risk offending Muslims but let's have a nice meeting with Tim Cook. Since when is "stupidity" an American value?
3
Excellent editorial.
6
Speeches are easy, decisions are hard. I think you should look at a candidate's record of past decisions more so than any recent speeches. So what is Hillary Clintons' record? Support for NAFTA, support for the repeal of Glass-Steagall/deregulating the banks, support for the Iraq war, support for the intervention to destabilize Libya. And that doesn't begin to evaluate the wisdom of having high level government business on a private server in her HOUSE! It's a question of her judgment.
7
If we are going to routinely hold Hillary Clinton responsible for everything that happened in her husband's administration, then let's start scrutinizing actions taken by the spouses of other candidates. Oh yeah, twenty years ago.
4
When she ran against then Senator Obama in 2007, both Clintons made the case that theirs was a co-presidency. In her particular case it's fair to hold her responsible.
3
Look. We know the New York Times. We know what the purpose of this editorial is.
While I agree that Republicans are just posturing and saber-rattling to get votes, to claim that any US expert, let alone politician, has an answer to Barbarism and cultural decline in the Middle East is, at best, fantasy.
We are dealing with a problem not yet answered.
While I agree that Republicans are just posturing and saber-rattling to get votes, to claim that any US expert, let alone politician, has an answer to Barbarism and cultural decline in the Middle East is, at best, fantasy.
We are dealing with a problem not yet answered.
3
Perhaps the reason Bernie was left out is that his proposal regarding how we deal with ISIS is the most ridiculous of all the candidates. He says that a coalition of Muslim nations should take care of the problem, and that we can support them without engaging in military action of our own. How could anyone take this notion as a serious reaction to a very serious problem? It is just a matter of time before biological and radioactive weapons are used against us. We should have boots on the ground in Libya and Iraq now to support the Kurds and Tunisians. I see now we should never have left Iraq, but instead instituted decades of occupation like we have with Japan, Korea and Germany. This is what works, and we have to get back to it, and use their resources to pay for it. And ultimately they will prosper like Japan, Korea and Germany. The worms-in-the-head disease needs to be addressed, and let's not forget that the Japanese and the Germans had worms-in-the-head before we had to come in and fix their societies for them.
3
Let’s face it – The Republicans love going to war to prove the U.S. is the most powerful nation in the world. Bush and Cheney by declaring war to Iraq caused an implied hate but most alarming, the appearance of Isis whose apocalyptic belief, has turned sectarian groups into Jihadi militants ready to fight and die for his cause
As always, the Republicans are projecting President Obama and Hillary Clinton approach against terrorism, as weak. It seems the loss of over 4000 lives in Iraq is not sufficient.
Mr. Trump continues inciting Isis without realizing he’s endangering our nation. Like an executioner, he wants to use waterboarding technique as a minimal use for interrogating. He pretends to be a Knight, in full body armor on a horseback ready to solve our problems here and in the Middle East.
Ted Cruz wants to police the Muslim neighborhoods to identify Jihadist; even without cause. Muslims arrived in this country looking for financial opportunities and democratic freedom. The senator, a constitutional scholar has forgotten what he wants to champion is against the Constitution.
As always, the Republicans are projecting President Obama and Hillary Clinton approach against terrorism, as weak. It seems the loss of over 4000 lives in Iraq is not sufficient.
Mr. Trump continues inciting Isis without realizing he’s endangering our nation. Like an executioner, he wants to use waterboarding technique as a minimal use for interrogating. He pretends to be a Knight, in full body armor on a horseback ready to solve our problems here and in the Middle East.
Ted Cruz wants to police the Muslim neighborhoods to identify Jihadist; even without cause. Muslims arrived in this country looking for financial opportunities and democratic freedom. The senator, a constitutional scholar has forgotten what he wants to champion is against the Constitution.
6
The first step is to acknowledge that we are at war. A real all out war. The second step is to act like we are at war.
These debates about what is a battle field and what is not, who could be assassinated and who can not, what methods should we use to get the indigence we need- all play into the hands of the terrorists.
The civillians we should worry about are the ones in our countries, not the ones in Syria, Tran, Iraq, Yemen or Libya. Our security forces don't work for those civilians, they work for us.
Our technology and expertise is not going to defeat the enemy so long as we are more afraid of hurting people than they are. When Germany attacked British civilians, even accidentally, Churchill sent RAF bombers after German civilians. When French factories making munitions for the Germans were bombed, they were full of Frenchmen.
It is unfortunate- but it is war. The most important thing about being in a war is winning it. I am not condoning torture- but I am not condemning it either. I am not saying we should target civilians, but we should not be shy of attacking legitimate targets when civilians are present.
Our enemy is ruthless. We need to be ruthless too. What is the alternative, really?
These debates about what is a battle field and what is not, who could be assassinated and who can not, what methods should we use to get the indigence we need- all play into the hands of the terrorists.
The civillians we should worry about are the ones in our countries, not the ones in Syria, Tran, Iraq, Yemen or Libya. Our security forces don't work for those civilians, they work for us.
Our technology and expertise is not going to defeat the enemy so long as we are more afraid of hurting people than they are. When Germany attacked British civilians, even accidentally, Churchill sent RAF bombers after German civilians. When French factories making munitions for the Germans were bombed, they were full of Frenchmen.
It is unfortunate- but it is war. The most important thing about being in a war is winning it. I am not condoning torture- but I am not condemning it either. I am not saying we should target civilians, but we should not be shy of attacking legitimate targets when civilians are present.
Our enemy is ruthless. We need to be ruthless too. What is the alternative, really?
1
Does insisting that we call it an old fashioned war mean you really really care? I think that an all-out war is posturing and overkill and too provocative a response- that we create problems when we charge in and occupy, that surgical precision (currently being used) is proportional and appropriate and effective. This isn't Hitler and a mobilized effort to take over the world: Its much different. Sometimes a properly scaled engagement is ten times more effective.
3
The terrorist threats ahead and the actual attacks behind remind me of a mole infestation in your lawn. You come out to get the paper and see tunnels and mounds everywhere. Like any garden warrior, you reach for the torture and might makes right kits. Smoke bombs, poisons, traps, and maybe even little voodoo alters. And does any of that work? If you have fought the moles, you already know the answer.
The only way to beat the moles is to remove their environment. Get rid of the trees and habitats around your house, maybe get rid of your grassy lawn itself. Poison may end up killing your pets or your neighbor's, or sickening children and worse. Traps make you feel better, and assault rifles better still. But there will still be moles.
Terrorism is not going to be eliminated as long as the neighborhoods of poverty and oppression exist and drive frustrated youths toward radicalization by zealot manipulators. Both Bernie and Hillary (along with real experts in combating terrorism) acknowledge we can't be 100% safe, but we can minimize the risks. We don't expect to be 100% safe when we drive or fly or even wake up in the morning, but there is a reasonable chance that we are.
Too many of us are irrationally frightened on the one hand and irrationally optimistic on the other: scared that lighting will strike us or convinced we can win the lottery.
Some pols are using both to whip up fear and then ward it off. Too few are willing to discuss it realistically.
The only way to beat the moles is to remove their environment. Get rid of the trees and habitats around your house, maybe get rid of your grassy lawn itself. Poison may end up killing your pets or your neighbor's, or sickening children and worse. Traps make you feel better, and assault rifles better still. But there will still be moles.
Terrorism is not going to be eliminated as long as the neighborhoods of poverty and oppression exist and drive frustrated youths toward radicalization by zealot manipulators. Both Bernie and Hillary (along with real experts in combating terrorism) acknowledge we can't be 100% safe, but we can minimize the risks. We don't expect to be 100% safe when we drive or fly or even wake up in the morning, but there is a reasonable chance that we are.
Too many of us are irrationally frightened on the one hand and irrationally optimistic on the other: scared that lighting will strike us or convinced we can win the lottery.
Some pols are using both to whip up fear and then ward it off. Too few are willing to discuss it realistically.
6
The surest way to tarnation is poor public education. I blame funding cuts caused by reduced taxes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.
7
She had the least useful of the ideas shared. It's time to get tough and practical.
2
Clinton can stump and say what she wants, but when your enemy does not play by the rules, we must fight on equal footing. Trump and Cruz are right: one must stop the flow of the refugees. We need policing in Muslim areas. Simply put, no one is coming forward to inform authorities. We must inform ourselves.
Merkel is highly criticized for her previous tone of "Europe accepts everyone!', and as the West has seen, the fall out has been immense. The rise of her opposition is a direct rebuff on her weak immigration policy.
The true downfall of America will be worrying about not hurting feelings. Some people don't work as hard, some people aren't born smart, some people have a penchant for terror. The disconcerting fact is a lot of the same people fall into the same categories, even though it hurts feelings to say. Young Muslim men are almost always the culprits.
Trump states it like it is; Clinton/Obama are too busy making sure everyone plays nice. Sometimes, nationalism is not evil , and protecting the many may come at the expense of the few.
Merkel is highly criticized for her previous tone of "Europe accepts everyone!', and as the West has seen, the fall out has been immense. The rise of her opposition is a direct rebuff on her weak immigration policy.
The true downfall of America will be worrying about not hurting feelings. Some people don't work as hard, some people aren't born smart, some people have a penchant for terror. The disconcerting fact is a lot of the same people fall into the same categories, even though it hurts feelings to say. Young Muslim men are almost always the culprits.
Trump states it like it is; Clinton/Obama are too busy making sure everyone plays nice. Sometimes, nationalism is not evil , and protecting the many may come at the expense of the few.
1
Two observations and a question:
1. Republicans have concluded that only Bernie as an opponent can save them from serious losses in the general election.
2. Therefore, the Hillary-bashing/voter suppression sock puppets are working overtime. ("I'm a lifelong Democrat but the Times blah blah and I'm! Just! Not! Voting! if Hillary is the choice." And so on.)
The question: Do these sock puppets actually get *paid* overtime, since they work for Republicans?
1. Republicans have concluded that only Bernie as an opponent can save them from serious losses in the general election.
2. Therefore, the Hillary-bashing/voter suppression sock puppets are working overtime. ("I'm a lifelong Democrat but the Times blah blah and I'm! Just! Not! Voting! if Hillary is the choice." And so on.)
The question: Do these sock puppets actually get *paid* overtime, since they work for Republicans?
14
What about Bernie Sanders' stance?
Once again, the New York Times acts as the press arm of the Clinton campaign.
The Times' editorial page (unlike its news pages) is entitled to ignore Senator Sanders, but its bias remains striking.
Once again, the New York Times acts as the press arm of the Clinton campaign.
The Times' editorial page (unlike its news pages) is entitled to ignore Senator Sanders, but its bias remains striking.
11
Maybe because neither Kasich nor Sanders has any significant chance at a nomination. That may be hard to hear, but it is reality based.
If you want news based on desire instead of fact, try FOX.
If you want news based on desire instead of fact, try FOX.
1
And AGAIN, NYT ignores Sen. Bernie Sanders. Yes, Sec. Clinton has offered sanity versus Trump&Cruz war drum thumping and threats of torturing people even before they've been convicted of any crime. But Sen. Sanders talked on Tues. (Jimmy Kimmel Live) and said much of the same things that Clinton is quoted as saying in this article. One other note: in a compilation of polls listed on RealPolitics, while Clinton leads Trump by 11 points, Sanders leads Trump by 17.5 points. It's time the Times started reporting on Bernie Sanders rather than ignoring him.
12
Every time I hear Bernie Sanders speak, I get turned off. He only seems to have one volume (loud) and seems very irritated and angry when he talks.
7
Senator Sanders did not say much the same thing. He just said other countries had to do what we want and had to supply all the troops to do it. Because,m yes, he thinks troops on the ground are needed, just not ours -- and then fails to suggest a road to that other than more magical thinking. He didn't belong in this article because he added nothing to the situation on either side.
8
... and yet, not a word about Bernie Sanders or John Kasich ...
15
Maybe because neither of them has any significant chance at the nomination. Hard to hear, but reality based.
6
The most logical approach to terrorism is to institute travel and trade bans on all nations known to finance or harbor terrorists Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria et al . When the corrupt and vicious medievalist elites that run these nations can not get any money to buy fancy cars or vacation and shop or launder their plunder money in developed nations, or gamble in resorts in the USA and Europe they will clean up, do progressive change their own societies. Until then they should be isolated and treated like the murderous savages they are. They should not be allowed to bail out like cowards, "go for the money" in the west, and contaminate our societies with their tribal hatreds and fantasies about magic heavens full of virgins. Only when they have reformed, turned into civilized societies should we allow them to travel to our nations and associate with us.
5
Only a good idea if every other country in the world is willing to do the same.
1
There are a few things I'd like to ask commentors.
1. If the point of terrorism is to create terror, why exactly is it a good idea for politicians to express terror, and to whip up terror?
2. Why exactly does anybody want a politician to hold their hand, pat them on the head, and read them a bedtime story?
3. If you're supporting Trump or Cruz on the theory that after all, they won't really do the things they say they'll do, why exactly are you always ranting about the ways politicians say one thing and do another?
4. If you're supporting Trump or Cruz on the theory that torture and ghettoization is exactly what we need, what exactly is your theory about what the Declaration meant when it said that everybody had certain unalienable rights? What's your theory of the First and Fifth Amendments?
5. Can anybody offer an example of a time when we've bombed the hades out of a guerilla army, tortured the hell out of anybody we caught, punished the families of the people we're fighting, and it's a) actually worked, b) been something we're proud of?
1. If the point of terrorism is to create terror, why exactly is it a good idea for politicians to express terror, and to whip up terror?
2. Why exactly does anybody want a politician to hold their hand, pat them on the head, and read them a bedtime story?
3. If you're supporting Trump or Cruz on the theory that after all, they won't really do the things they say they'll do, why exactly are you always ranting about the ways politicians say one thing and do another?
4. If you're supporting Trump or Cruz on the theory that torture and ghettoization is exactly what we need, what exactly is your theory about what the Declaration meant when it said that everybody had certain unalienable rights? What's your theory of the First and Fifth Amendments?
5. Can anybody offer an example of a time when we've bombed the hades out of a guerilla army, tortured the hell out of anybody we caught, punished the families of the people we're fighting, and it's a) actually worked, b) been something we're proud of?
16
As to (5)(a) of course it has many times. Americans might be most familiar with the U.S. war against the native Americans and also the successful war by the U.S. against the Philippines (1899-1902).
2
The Times in fact did allow a commenter or two give links to Sanders speaking about it. So why all the complaints.
7
Suppose this editorial gave 8 paragraphs to Sanders' thoughts and comments on terrorism, with no mention of Clinton.
But the Times did "allow" 1 or 2 of some 600 comments to provide links to Clinton speaking about it.
Would that be OK with you?
But the Times did "allow" 1 or 2 of some 600 comments to provide links to Clinton speaking about it.
Would that be OK with you?
10
Really?! Is that how you measure open and fair reporting?
There is a substantial difference in the number of readers between an op-ed that appears both in print and the online op-ed and an online comment.
There is a substantial difference in the number of readers between an op-ed that appears both in print and the online op-ed and an online comment.
2
I was trying to be ironic. Showing how asinine their rationalizations were. Sorry it came out in a way that was mis-understood.
4
I share the view that Trump and Cruz reach for the basest instincts in their supporters. Hillary Clinton certainly is better on the issue. Her history for intervention indicates that either she has learned her lessons for failure or more likely has learned the lesson of keeping her plans to herself. Certainly President Obama has made numerous mistakes with intervention. NYTs pundits are all over the map first wanting to attack Assad then after the Belgium atrocity for destroying ISIS. There is no easy solution.
4
Oh please. Hillary is as much of a hawk as any Republican, and she will ensure that the military-industrial complex will continue to retain its stranglehold over our economy and People. Her advisors and hired writers came up with that speech to hit every button her tested messaging indicated would get her some publicity and emotional support. Craft and gamesmanship, abetted by modern technology using crowd-think techniques developed by Goebbels. Hilary wants us to forget she had a HUGE hand in making the Middle East the hell it is today with bad decisions, most of which were based on consideration of her future political moves. Trump and Sanders should BOTH run as independents, and maybe once and for all we will break the 2-Party system that has allowed the oligarchy to control our country for the last three decades.
14
You won't be breaking anything. You probably won't even vote at all.
4
She will be a very good president.
33
The Republican candidates think and act as if you can turn the volume to 11: No matter what Obama proposes or does--it's not good enough, no wait it's dangerously inadequate! No it's deliberate sabotage and collaboration with the enemy!
As for Bernie Sanders--he is AWOL on foreign policy in general. So the Bernie supporters, here in the comments section direct the same vitriol towards Hillary and the Times Editorial Board as they do towards the top 1/10th % of income earners (who totally deserve it).
If I have to choose among a bunch of whack jobs on the right and a candidate who seems to have to be dragged kicking and screaming to take more than a vague position on every foreign policy question, I gotta go with Hillary.
With all of her flaws, awkwardness and sour notes she--like Obama--knows that a pragmatical and improvisational approach to solving the ISIS problem is the only option.
The Sanders movement needs to keep pushing Hillary on domestic policy, turn out the vote and start getting Congress-men/women elected. Expending your last drops of blood trying to bring Hillary down wastes every opportunity to move the Sanders agenda forward and expand the Democratic Party by keeping it a truly progressive
one.
Sanders supporters have earned a place at the table. Walking away would be as foolhardy as the disaffected Gene Mcarthy supporters were. Humphrey would have been better than Nixon. Hillary will be better than Trump!
As for Bernie Sanders--he is AWOL on foreign policy in general. So the Bernie supporters, here in the comments section direct the same vitriol towards Hillary and the Times Editorial Board as they do towards the top 1/10th % of income earners (who totally deserve it).
If I have to choose among a bunch of whack jobs on the right and a candidate who seems to have to be dragged kicking and screaming to take more than a vague position on every foreign policy question, I gotta go with Hillary.
With all of her flaws, awkwardness and sour notes she--like Obama--knows that a pragmatical and improvisational approach to solving the ISIS problem is the only option.
The Sanders movement needs to keep pushing Hillary on domestic policy, turn out the vote and start getting Congress-men/women elected. Expending your last drops of blood trying to bring Hillary down wastes every opportunity to move the Sanders agenda forward and expand the Democratic Party by keeping it a truly progressive
one.
Sanders supporters have earned a place at the table. Walking away would be as foolhardy as the disaffected Gene Mcarthy supporters were. Humphrey would have been better than Nixon. Hillary will be better than Trump!
82
Bernie Sanders has been "AWOL on foreign policy"? Let's review, John. It was Bernie Sanders who voted AGAINST the disastrous invasion of Iraq, while it was your candidate, Hillary Clinton, who thought invading Iraq was a great idea. It was Barack Obama who knew that we should set a "date certain" for getting out of that quagmire, while your candidate, Hillary Clinton, refused to say when, or even if, she would end the war in that country. It was your candidate, Hillary Clinton, who pushed President Obama into using force in Libya, a move that the president clearly regrets. And it was your candidate, Hillary Clinton, who advocated for establishing a "no-fly zone" over Syria, ignoring the fact that it would bring the United States into open conflict with Russia.
Bernie Sanders' advocating for caution in applying military force in ambiguous overseas conflicts is not being "AWOL," it's being prudent, wise, and showing respect for American lives. I'll take that any day over Hillary Clinton's chronic foolishness.
Bernie Sanders' advocating for caution in applying military force in ambiguous overseas conflicts is not being "AWOL," it's being prudent, wise, and showing respect for American lives. I'll take that any day over Hillary Clinton's chronic foolishness.
16
I'd rather go with Bernie than Hillary. Hillary's foreign policy leads to diplomats being dragged kicking and screaming through the streets.
5
Bernie Sanders knows a lot about foreign policy and he has the votes in Congress to prove it. If Hillary Clinton is brought down it will be due to her record, her lack of clarity (ability to give straight answers), her monied connections to Wall Street and her advocacy of the bad trade policies that have laid waste to the American Working Class and Middle Class. That said, I will vote for the candidate of the Democratic Party in November. I will support Bernie Sanders as long as he is in the running. It the DNC wants a winner in November it too will endorse Bernie.
2
ISIS needs two bedrocks: territory to support the narrative of a new caliphate, and recruits to fight especially from within other countries to execute terrorist attacks. These two require different responses.
They must be denied territory by military force. The debate is how to garner that force such that it can achieve a sustainable victory ( as we clearly failed to do in Iraq).
They must be denied recruits, by a concerted effort to win, retain the hearts and minds of those ISIS might convert.
This is where Terrorism is winning: it is driving a wedge between people based upon religion, and the hammer is being swung by sound-bite politicians amplifying the engineered by our enemy.
They must be denied territory by military force. The debate is how to garner that force such that it can achieve a sustainable victory ( as we clearly failed to do in Iraq).
They must be denied recruits, by a concerted effort to win, retain the hearts and minds of those ISIS might convert.
This is where Terrorism is winning: it is driving a wedge between people based upon religion, and the hammer is being swung by sound-bite politicians amplifying the engineered by our enemy.
2
The problem is that using military force to accomplish #1 would defeat the purpose of #2. ISIS knows that it will get tons of recruits if the U.S. invades ISIS-controlled territory. That would legitimize the caliphate, which its followers believe is fated to be involved in an epic war with a major power like the U.S. The best solution is to appear to ignore them while killing them off one at a time, as President Obama is doing.
How can this supposed "newspaper" totally disregard a legitimate candidate for president. As far as "the disastrous wars President George W. Bush began.", I believe both the NY Times and Mrs. Clinton supported the war. When real leadership and foresight was needed most both the Times and Mrs Clinton took the low road. I don't need to speak about the republican candidates as they are truly fascist men with no compassion. Scary situation when the most thoughtful candidate for president is denied coverage in one of the most important "liberal" newspapers in the country. You should be ashamed.
10
No they shouldn't. This is not a article in which a tepid isolationist belongs.
2
I listened to this entire talk. Hate her or love her, I don't care. It was the right message at the right time.
31
Once again, the NYT does not respect all of the supporters of Bernie Sanders. No surprise in the slanted journalism of the NYT?
14
Bravo! Well put. Hillary Clinton is the only candidate prepared to deal with this situation.
26
Let the Sunnis have their caliphate. The Allies destroyed it during the First World War, when the defeated Ottoman Empire, which kept the Middle East in check, was dissolved and the West gobbled up its provinces like spoils. The world gave the Jews Israel—why not Muslims their caliphate?
Where are Bernie Sanders' comments?
No, seriously, where are they?
As much as I love hearing the woman who singlehandedly drove Libya into the mud declared to be the last hope for foreign policy reason, I'd like to hear what Senator Sanders has to say, too. Perhaps he'd mention that we should clean up our own mess and stop getting into regime change.
Ah, now I see. That might suggest to your readers that there are good ideas out there not coming from Hillary Clinton. Better ideas than hers, in fact. Ones backed up by the candidate's record and actions.
Please, NYTimes, for your readers, at least pretend to have some semblance of journalistic objectiveness. It truly is getting disgusting.
No, seriously, where are they?
As much as I love hearing the woman who singlehandedly drove Libya into the mud declared to be the last hope for foreign policy reason, I'd like to hear what Senator Sanders has to say, too. Perhaps he'd mention that we should clean up our own mess and stop getting into regime change.
Ah, now I see. That might suggest to your readers that there are good ideas out there not coming from Hillary Clinton. Better ideas than hers, in fact. Ones backed up by the candidate's record and actions.
Please, NYTimes, for your readers, at least pretend to have some semblance of journalistic objectiveness. It truly is getting disgusting.
10
Sanders comments are right here, on his website. 2 sentences. Not much for the Editorial Board to chew on.
https://berniesanders.com/press-release/sanders-statement-brussels-bombi...
https://berniesanders.com/press-release/sanders-statement-brussels-bombi...
9
"Hillary Clinton and Other Candidates..."
Thanks, Times. The headline perfectly reflects the article's bias - and the paper's. I suppose something more along the lines of "The Candidates' Thoughts on..." was never considered.
Thanks, Times. The headline perfectly reflects the article's bias - and the paper's. I suppose something more along the lines of "The Candidates' Thoughts on..." was never considered.
11
The New York Times has become dangerously Clintonist and Trumpeting. It is a danger to free speech that all your editorials and even articles omit mention of Sanders. It is as if you have become Pravda with regard to suppressing news of Sanders.
You have been reminded daily that he is running, but give much more coverage to Trump, Kasich and Cruz than Sanders. I wonder how the Times will emerge after this truth crisis. Or if it will emerge at all. The New York Times as it was known-- "all the news that's fit to print," is dead. There is no trial in sight for this murder by editor.
You have been reminded daily that he is running, but give much more coverage to Trump, Kasich and Cruz than Sanders. I wonder how the Times will emerge after this truth crisis. Or if it will emerge at all. The New York Times as it was known-- "all the news that's fit to print," is dead. There is no trial in sight for this murder by editor.
12
Once again Hillary shows her rational understanding of terrorism and the NYT's recognition of her uncommon ability to discern how to deal with the unrelenting hateful distemper in the world.
22
Part Three of their vaudeville routine:
Margaret Sullivan: I've gotten thousands of angry emails from readers saying Bernie Sanders was not even mentioned in an editorial about candidates' response to the terror attacks in Brussels. My staff and I studied every word in the editorial and I have come to the conclusion they are right.
I asked Dean Baquet about this. Mr. Baquet's response was "Including Sen. Sanders would only confuse things. In addition there are two links to Sen. Sanders' statements in the comment section. So I think the criticism is both predictable and patently unfair."
Margaret Sullivan: I've gotten thousands of angry emails from readers saying Bernie Sanders was not even mentioned in an editorial about candidates' response to the terror attacks in Brussels. My staff and I studied every word in the editorial and I have come to the conclusion they are right.
I asked Dean Baquet about this. Mr. Baquet's response was "Including Sen. Sanders would only confuse things. In addition there are two links to Sen. Sanders' statements in the comment section. So I think the criticism is both predictable and patently unfair."
11
Hilary Clinton was secretary of State when ISIS came to power and she didn't do anything to stop them.
This Editorial continues the mistaken belief that posturing is more effective than action. This approach will result in two things:
1) more innocent deaths,
2) greater power for terrorist organizations.
It is unbelievable that the Editors continue to have more contempt for Republicans than for murderers.
This Editorial continues the mistaken belief that posturing is more effective than action. This approach will result in two things:
1) more innocent deaths,
2) greater power for terrorist organizations.
It is unbelievable that the Editors continue to have more contempt for Republicans than for murderers.
7
Hillary Clinton did not give a "reasoned response" to the latest terrorist incident in Belgium. She iterated a bunch of talking points designed for the stump. As Secretary of State she was less than brilliant, and I guess I can't give her much credit for being an adult--we all expect that. I think Bernie Sanders, while not an isolationist, speaks more significantly about the troubles in the Middle East insisting that change will come about only through coalitions of governments and not interfering militarily as a "policy." We can throw bombs until the cows come home, but that is not going to change the behavior of the jihadists. What a mess George Bush, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and Secretary Rice have made!
9
He is an isolationist.
3
Hillary Clinton is the last person who should be listened to regarding terrorism. From her insistence on arming the rebel (terrorist) factions in Syria to her creation of a failed state and terrorist haven from what was a functional government in Libya as extensively documented by the NY Times in its Libya report. Now that she is out of the way, actual diplomacy is being conducted by Sec. of State Kerry, in conjunction with his Russian counterpart, to bring peace Middle-East for the first since George W. Bush's disastrous war on Iraq in 2013. which was endorsed by HRC and led to the creation of Al-Nusra and ISIS where it never existed before.
12
The headline said "candidateS", yet there were Trump and Cruz in one paragraph, and no mention at all about how Kasich or Sanders responded. Again, the NYT is acting as a stage for the Hillary campaign. Maybe I wouldn't have been aa put off if the headline had indicated the Editorial Board was evaluating Hillary's position. We are 8 months out from the elections, and yet months away from either party's convention, yet the NYT is still not reporting, or even commenting in a meaningful way on all the viable candidates. This is so disappointing.
9
I don't know what's going on with the reporting of terrorist attacks but the stories seem incomplete & poorly covered. It might be these new wave of terrorists, as well, what's their purpose? Why are they blowing up stuff? Who are they? Who are their friends & family? I thought I understood why extremists do what they do, but from recent wave of terror attacks, I am not sure what's accomplished for them by what they have done in Paris Brussels etc.
1
she has no idea now or when secretary of state
4
Gonzo, Fear, Loathing, and the New York Times. I open the Times with trepidation each morning during this election cycle because I know, from experience, what I am about to read. On 03/23/2016, H. Clinton gave a speech broadcast by at least two of the 24-hour news networks. The POTUS also spoke that same day and many of their sentences were identical. Coincidence?
I have this sinking feeling of a Democracy that is dead. A feeling that is affirmed when reading the coverage in one of our most regarded sources for news. Those at the paper: reporters, section editors, copy editors, graphics dept., managing editors, & the editorial board cannot be unaware of their biases. Can they? They cannot all be blind to inequity and their lack of neutrality.
As a prophylactic, let me make clear the stench of dead Democracy has nothing to do with my ideological desires or disagreement. The clear bias of ‘the Times’ would not be palatable if it were in regard to Trump, Clinton, or Cruz.
The fourth estate is instrumental in channeling information to the voter so that they can exercise their responsibilities as informed members of a society; Democracy finds a coffin without it.
Could it be that Sen. Sander’s open condemnation of consolidation in banking & the media frightens our flourishing plutocracy? Of course it is.
Hunter S. Thompson at least made his Gonzo Journalism transparent. It is now time for the Times to do the same – admit to tacit Fear and Loathing of American Democracy.
I have this sinking feeling of a Democracy that is dead. A feeling that is affirmed when reading the coverage in one of our most regarded sources for news. Those at the paper: reporters, section editors, copy editors, graphics dept., managing editors, & the editorial board cannot be unaware of their biases. Can they? They cannot all be blind to inequity and their lack of neutrality.
As a prophylactic, let me make clear the stench of dead Democracy has nothing to do with my ideological desires or disagreement. The clear bias of ‘the Times’ would not be palatable if it were in regard to Trump, Clinton, or Cruz.
The fourth estate is instrumental in channeling information to the voter so that they can exercise their responsibilities as informed members of a society; Democracy finds a coffin without it.
Could it be that Sen. Sander’s open condemnation of consolidation in banking & the media frightens our flourishing plutocracy? Of course it is.
Hunter S. Thompson at least made his Gonzo Journalism transparent. It is now time for the Times to do the same – admit to tacit Fear and Loathing of American Democracy.
5
Once again, the NY Times keeps with its theme of complete media blackout of Bernie Sanders. Cruz, and until recently Rubio with tiny amounts of public support get lots of coverage, and Sanders is he who shall not be named. Regardless of your political orientation, this is journalistic malpractice, and I understand why my generation is turning away from the Times.
6
Most of the comments here are focused on the brawl among some of the Clinton - Sanders supporters. Does anyone give a hoot about the insanely destructive, knee jerk, reactionary foreign policy "ideas" of Trump and Cruz? Clinton or Sanders, either Democrat is miles ahead of any of the ignorant, macho, posturing GOP candidates. Wake up Democrats: stop fighting each other. Save your venom for the GOP. This election is ours to lose. Keep up the sniping at each other and lose it we will.
12
I'm with all the readers who notice the glaring omission of Bernie Sanders in this article. I find the blatant partiality both disturbing and bizarre.
9
Remind me again of how great a law student Cruz was?
It's time for Harvard Law to request back its diploma.
It's time for Harvard Law to request back its diploma.
10
Right On Madam President! I can't wait for you to get started.
11
Due to geographical and demographic vulnerabilities compounded by the migrant crisis while Europe has to bear the brunt of the Middle East originating Jihadi terror attacks, not only the US is relatively safe due to its strong homeland security apparatus and Obama's sensible policy course on foreign wars and the Middle East conundrum. Still the pronounced lack of informed debate in the Presidential election campaign and provocative rhetoric by the GOP camp contrasted by only the ambiguous and non-committal counter-terrorism policy course advocated by the Democratic aspirants seems not only intriguing but not in the US interest also if US really wants to be relevant in the global counterterrorism drive.
2
With all due respect , NYT Editorial Board, the title of this piece should be amended to 'Hillary Clinton and Some Other Candidates on Counterterrorism' as commentary has omitted other candidates including Senator Bernie Sanders and Governor Kasich, both of whom are very actively engaged in the campaign. To omit Sanders and Kasich reveals the paper's bias and diminishes your journalistic standing.
Clearly, with the events this week in Brussels, the policy concerning counterterrorism of all those running for President of the United States is relevant and should be covered.
We get the strong endorsement by the paper for Ms. Clinton and even earlier on also for Mr. Kasich but this biased editorial is just another op-ed or rally poster for your candidate of choice.
C'mon NYT you can do better than this in these troubled times.
Clearly, with the events this week in Brussels, the policy concerning counterterrorism of all those running for President of the United States is relevant and should be covered.
We get the strong endorsement by the paper for Ms. Clinton and even earlier on also for Mr. Kasich but this biased editorial is just another op-ed or rally poster for your candidate of choice.
C'mon NYT you can do better than this in these troubled times.
11
I like all those ideas. Wait, what were they again? Vague and opaque answers and mystery solutions are a politicians greatest asset. For those of us with a brains those same answers mean that the individual has no clue. And by the way, We have another groind war in Iraq, we lost some lives there just a day or so ago. And, we have troops in Libya. Lessons learned? Hardly.
3
‘’Write In’’ Bernie Sanders!
In November
We can create the possibility of a Sen. Sanders win in November using the power of our ‘write in’ vote(s). I see no other mechanism to get around establishment politics and entrenched corporate interests. The downside is we take our chances with a Donald Trump Presidency. But, at least we can vote our conscience which seems to offer the only choice left.
In November
We can create the possibility of a Sen. Sanders win in November using the power of our ‘write in’ vote(s). I see no other mechanism to get around establishment politics and entrenched corporate interests. The downside is we take our chances with a Donald Trump Presidency. But, at least we can vote our conscience which seems to offer the only choice left.
5
You would only be giving support to trump or cruz. Do you really dislike our country enough to do that? You might as well vote outright for the repubs.
2
For all the people wondering where Bernie's response to the attacks in Belgium is, it's on his website- two sentences long. He was the last candidate to make a statement.
“We offer our deepest condolences to the families who lost loved ones in this barbaric attack and to the people of Brussels who were the target of another cowardly attempt to terrorize innocent civilians. We stand with our European allies to offer any necessary assistance in these difficult times.
“Today’s attack is a brutal reminder that the international community must come together to destroy ISIS. This type of barbarism cannot be allowed to continue.”
https://berniesanders.com/press-release/sanders-statement-brussels-bombi...
“We offer our deepest condolences to the families who lost loved ones in this barbaric attack and to the people of Brussels who were the target of another cowardly attempt to terrorize innocent civilians. We stand with our European allies to offer any necessary assistance in these difficult times.
“Today’s attack is a brutal reminder that the international community must come together to destroy ISIS. This type of barbarism cannot be allowed to continue.”
https://berniesanders.com/press-release/sanders-statement-brussels-bombi...
12
And now we know why the New York Times didn't cover Sanders' views on counterterrorism.
Because he didn't express any, unsurprisingly.
Because he didn't express any, unsurprisingly.
3
"Hillary Clinton articulated a sensible approach to counterterrorism."
Actually Hillary Clinton provided a banal boilerplate platform about nothing, basically regurgitating the status quo. No thanks.
Actually Hillary Clinton provided a banal boilerplate platform about nothing, basically regurgitating the status quo. No thanks.
6
NYT, I realize this is an editorial and that you've endorsed Clinton but, honestly, with a headline like this one and no mention at all of Sanders what are your readers to think except that the NYT is holding up the center pole of the mainstream media's black out of Sanders' campaign. Until the last few months, the NYT was my go-to source of news (despite your dismaying decision many months ago to dismantle the environmental/climate news desk in the face of rising evidence that we're facing the biggest challenge on that front that humans have ever faced.) Now...several times a week I ask myself if it's worth the subscription. You're losing me.
8
I don't think it even matters what happens between now and the fall. With an unstintingly enthusiastic endorsement like this (overlooking her lack of original ideas and rather unimpressive record as secretary of state), there's really no question whom the NYT is going to endorse in the general campaign. The editorial board has really drunk the Kool-Aid.
6
The girl from land locked Arkansas has the right tune?
May I suggest the NYT editorial board spend some time with grandmothers along our coast.
May I suggest the NYT editorial board spend some time with grandmothers along our coast.
2
I did listen carefully to Hillary Clinton's talk at Stamford University. The only thing that I noticed was that there were all sorts of nos. We're not going to do that, we're not going to do this. OK that is obvious, but what are we going to do. Last evening on PBS News Hour Bernie Sanders was interviewed and he really articulated his ideas in a much more intelligent way. He speaks straight, without the flourish of embellishment that just gets in the way. Straight talk, we are going to do this and that. Work with King Abdullah, get Arab nations to help, it isn't going to be easy. It's going to be extremely difficult and take a long time. We are going to succeed. It's not a quick fix, and if anyone knows or thinks they know what the cure is, they are kidding themselves.
54
You are exactly right, she did not come up with anything. She was listing the things we should not be doing, that dos not need any brain. Still she is being applauded by NY Times as if she has discovered something new.
6
Funny I listened to the same interview and came away with the clear sense that Bernie was vague and nonspecific. I seem to recall countless attempts to brow beat and encourage our "allies" in the Middle East (not Israel) to pick up their end to no avail. We have done much the same with our real allies in Europe with limited success. What will change when Bernie is president? As far as Cruz and Trump are concerned, we have tried the big boots, shock and awe, torture and chaos approach which has much to do with where we find ourselves today. Secretary Clinton rattled off very specific steps mentioned here that are on a continuum of policies that require patience, determination and courage to reach fruition. In a country accustomed to getting its way and unused to immediate and real threats, not to mention the distant and imagined ones, it comes as no surprise the careful and reasoned approach comes under fire.
7
I listened to the same interview. I felt he had nothing substantive to offer and when Judy Woodruff kept pressing him for more specifics, he began to lose his cool and started to bluster and shout at her. Not really the coolest head in the room.
8
Mrs. Clinton supported the Iraq war and supported the removal of Kaddafi. The CIA supported and armed the Sunni's many of whom now make up ISIL. The Obama administration has stepped up drone assassination and support for the Saudi's war on Shite's along with supporting Turkey and Saudi Arabia on the attempted removal of Assad in Syria backed with US weapons and training, drone attacks and active air attacks.
The refugee crisis, the trained and armed terror networks are largely the results of bi-partisan support for US involvement in military operations in Iraq, Syria and Libya all of which have fingerprints belonging to Mrs. Clinton.
The refugee crisis, the trained and armed terror networks are largely the results of bi-partisan support for US involvement in military operations in Iraq, Syria and Libya all of which have fingerprints belonging to Mrs. Clinton.
2
And Senator Sanders said what on this subject?
I must have missed that part of the editorial.
I must have missed that part of the editorial.
8
It is vital to understand and acknowledge that liberal stupidity and ignorance is no less dangerous than conservative stupidity and ignorance, and may be even more so because it often comes disguised as the high road. One would not surveil the Italian Mafia in German neighborhoods, nor potential German saboteurs (during the world wars) in Polish neighborhoods, nor the Russian Mafia in Italian neighborhoods. Nor does one seek to find radical Islamic terrorists in Greek neighborhoods. The reprehensible nature of the Republican candidates' voicing the need to focus on finding radical Islamic terrorists in Muslim neighborhoods in a despicable tone of racism and demagoguery, does not mean that a Muslim neighborhood is not the place where radical Islamic terrorists are most likely to hide. Ignoring this fact because it may seem like intolerance or racial profiling on the surface is nothing less than hypocritical foolishness of the most dangerous kind. Would surveilling extremist white neighborhoods rather than black neighborhoods to find potential Ku Klux Klan terrorists be racial profiling? Of course not! Because you are starting with a credible description of likely suspects based on real facts, rather than starting with a particular ethnic or religious group because of prejudice rather than real facts about actual suspects.
1
I would not fault Bush for beginning the war in Afghanistan. To not have done so would have been weak and delusional.
Terrorism means creating terror. They have succeeded. The problem with Hillary's response is that is ignores the fear and anger that people are feeling and like everything else gives a detailed, but non-emotional response.
It would help if she would at least say, I know people are afraid, but this is what I would do to make people less afraid.
What I personally am most afraid of is that there will be an attack from ISIS here before the November election, that it would result in a Republican being elected. Even if that doesn't happen, and even if the Democrats win, I totally believe that 8 more months of Republicans saying anti-Muslim things will damage all our relationships with Muslim nations.
It would help if she would at least say, I know people are afraid, but this is what I would do to make people less afraid.
What I personally am most afraid of is that there will be an attack from ISIS here before the November election, that it would result in a Republican being elected. Even if that doesn't happen, and even if the Democrats win, I totally believe that 8 more months of Republicans saying anti-Muslim things will damage all our relationships with Muslim nations.
Has it occured that if terrorism is all about creating terror, refusing to be terrified or to pander to the terrified just to get elected is what we grownups like to call the right response?
5
Thankfully, we have Republicans, all of them adults, in the race with sound, realistic, practical, effective ideas. The deadly Democratic approach is to close our eyes and pretend the threat isn't real and doesn't exist. Ignore the rising body count, keep dancing, do the wave, and raise taxes!
1
Fine by me--as long as YOU agree to go fight, and as long as YOU are the guy in the room drowning prisoners over and over, yanking out their fingernails with a pair of rusty pliers, and threatening their kids.
YOU have to go do it yourself, not cheerlead for insane wars and torture from a nice, comfy distance.
YOU have to go do it yourself, not cheerlead for insane wars and torture from a nice, comfy distance.
5
As a female candidate who might, at times, act against type, we see logic over emotion in Hillary Clinton's comments. Male candidates are freer to evoke anger, and can can get away with suggesting the absurd, but revenge-satisfying tactics, that play to the moment.
9
The NYT is beyond appalling in its efforts to whitewash Senator Sanders from any conversation. We have views from the two leading republicans, but only one democrat.
You media blackout has done nothing more than anger Sanders supporters who you imagine will vote for Clinton if she is the nominee because we lean Democratic. While you may think Senator Sanders proposals are pipe dreams, they are really nothing more than what supposedly lesser countries provide.
I don't view Clinton as even being a Democrat. Her views and actions have always mostly been oriented to the right..with her hawkishness, her corporate sponsorship, and many other things available to anyone who looks. You have dismissed the only candidate since I've been voting starting in 1974 that has stood fast to his decent and fair message, and does not play dirty politics -- unlike Clinton whose campaign said Bill didn't disparage Obama even though we all heard it, but said only Sanders does.
Clinton voters will be sorry if she gets elected because she will renege on all the left-leaning talk (to co-opt Sanders), and goes right back to where she actually stands. Do you think she will be held accountable for what she says campaigning? By who ??
You media blackout has done nothing more than anger Sanders supporters who you imagine will vote for Clinton if she is the nominee because we lean Democratic. While you may think Senator Sanders proposals are pipe dreams, they are really nothing more than what supposedly lesser countries provide.
I don't view Clinton as even being a Democrat. Her views and actions have always mostly been oriented to the right..with her hawkishness, her corporate sponsorship, and many other things available to anyone who looks. You have dismissed the only candidate since I've been voting starting in 1974 that has stood fast to his decent and fair message, and does not play dirty politics -- unlike Clinton whose campaign said Bill didn't disparage Obama even though we all heard it, but said only Sanders does.
Clinton voters will be sorry if she gets elected because she will renege on all the left-leaning talk (to co-opt Sanders), and goes right back to where she actually stands. Do you think she will be held accountable for what she says campaigning? By who ??
6
The "Readers' Picks" are, once again, dominated by the echo chamber of Bernie Sanders supporters ranting about how their candidate of choice isn't getting enough airtime in the NYTimes.
Frankly, if all that is standing in the way of Bernie Sanders during the primary season is a single media outlet that is based in New York City and whose primary audience is a metropolitan area that hasn't voted yet, then perhaps he's not that strong of a candidate after all.
Frankly, if all that is standing in the way of Bernie Sanders during the primary season is a single media outlet that is based in New York City and whose primary audience is a metropolitan area that hasn't voted yet, then perhaps he's not that strong of a candidate after all.
14
We simply have to hope enough common sense remains among the American electorate to put the idiotic responses of the right where they belong: in the trash.
6
Let me cut to the chase for a large segment of people here:
Bernie is not mentioned in this editorial. For good reason. Sanders is not mentioned because his unicorns-and-rainbows rhetoric is not the language of the presidency. End of story.
Bernie is good for one thing this election season and one thing only. He is good at promoting a progressive agenda that the better candidate, Hillary, will seek to enact in the White House from Day 1 in November.
Bernie Sanders is not electable. He has served a vital role in this election by raising progressive issues that we will hold Hillary to as president but he will never, in a million years, be president.
Please, Bernie supporters--stop attacking the only viable, the only real Democrat in the race for the White House. Please get behind Hillary. This continued dragging down by Sanders remaining in the race when he should have already removed himself is potentially damaging to our ability to get a much-needed Democrat in the White House (and in Congress and in state and local political offices).
Bernie is not mentioned in this editorial. For good reason. Sanders is not mentioned because his unicorns-and-rainbows rhetoric is not the language of the presidency. End of story.
Bernie is good for one thing this election season and one thing only. He is good at promoting a progressive agenda that the better candidate, Hillary, will seek to enact in the White House from Day 1 in November.
Bernie Sanders is not electable. He has served a vital role in this election by raising progressive issues that we will hold Hillary to as president but he will never, in a million years, be president.
Please, Bernie supporters--stop attacking the only viable, the only real Democrat in the race for the White House. Please get behind Hillary. This continued dragging down by Sanders remaining in the race when he should have already removed himself is potentially damaging to our ability to get a much-needed Democrat in the White House (and in Congress and in state and local political offices).
16
EDF, a presidential candidate is a presidential candidate is a presidential candidate, you may not like him, but he is a candidate beloved to millions.
4
Bravo New York Times for pointing out that Hillary Clinton is the clearest, smartests, and most experienced voice on foreign policy and how to combat the threat of terrorism. Thank you for an informed and articulate editorial. I would have given Obama some of the credit.
The Bernie Bros have a point that Saint Sanders deserved at least an honorable mention. I took seriously the complaint of one commentator, that Hillary Clinton caved in to the Jewish lobby with ignorant pandering at Aipac. I am outspoken in my condemnation of Israel for their illegal land grabs using settlers. So I looked up Hillary's speech, and her words are not ignorant, or uninformed, or giving the Netanyahu government the cover they crave for their disgraceful behavior.
Hillary said: "And here is a third choice. Will we keep working toward a negotiated peace or lose forever the goal of two states for two peoples? Despite many setbacks, I remain convinced that peace with security is possible and that it is the only way to guarantee Israel’s long-term survival as a strong Jewish and democratic state.
It may be difficult to imagine progress in this current climate when many Israelis doubt that a willing and capable partner for peace even exists. But inaction cannot be an option. Israelis deserve a secure homeland for the Jewish people. Palestinians should be able to govern themselves in their own state, in peace and dignity. And only a negotiated two-state agreement can survive those outcomes."
The Bernie Bros have a point that Saint Sanders deserved at least an honorable mention. I took seriously the complaint of one commentator, that Hillary Clinton caved in to the Jewish lobby with ignorant pandering at Aipac. I am outspoken in my condemnation of Israel for their illegal land grabs using settlers. So I looked up Hillary's speech, and her words are not ignorant, or uninformed, or giving the Netanyahu government the cover they crave for their disgraceful behavior.
Hillary said: "And here is a third choice. Will we keep working toward a negotiated peace or lose forever the goal of two states for two peoples? Despite many setbacks, I remain convinced that peace with security is possible and that it is the only way to guarantee Israel’s long-term survival as a strong Jewish and democratic state.
It may be difficult to imagine progress in this current climate when many Israelis doubt that a willing and capable partner for peace even exists. But inaction cannot be an option. Israelis deserve a secure homeland for the Jewish people. Palestinians should be able to govern themselves in their own state, in peace and dignity. And only a negotiated two-state agreement can survive those outcomes."
10
"Bravo New York Times for pointing out that Hillary Clinton is the clearest, smartests, and most experienced voice on foreign policy and how to combat the threat of terrorism. '
Sure. That is why she left the middle east in flames among fantasies of an "Arab Spring". Instead we got Libya in chaos, the Syrian civil war, ISIS and Iraq in chaos.
Sure. That is why she left the middle east in flames among fantasies of an "Arab Spring". Instead we got Libya in chaos, the Syrian civil war, ISIS and Iraq in chaos.
5
Dear Bernie fans - Hillary gave a foreign policy speech at Stanford University yesterday. Did you miss it? This is what the Times editorial is talking about. When Bernie gives a major speech I'm sure the Times will report on that. Right now all we have is yesterday's timely and masterful response to terrorism by Hillary.
14
“If we’ve learned anything from Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s that people and nations have to secure their own communities.”
Securing their own communities is not going to happen. Just imagine if in the US you live in a secure gated community but a small group of bullies move in. They do not mow their lawns, park their trucks on the street where parking is not permitted, and have loud noisy parties to all hours of the night. Now you are just a resident just just likes to go about your business and approach one of these unruly neighbors and beats the stuffing out of you. In this fantasy there is no credible law enforcement for you to call. What do you do? Most likely you keep your mouth shut and try to ignore them or move. These people that you are telling to secure their own community are in this position. They are powerless to act. Bullies only respond to one thing. Punch them in the face and punch hard. Trump may be the only candidate that understands this. He is a bully.
Securing their own communities is not going to happen. Just imagine if in the US you live in a secure gated community but a small group of bullies move in. They do not mow their lawns, park their trucks on the street where parking is not permitted, and have loud noisy parties to all hours of the night. Now you are just a resident just just likes to go about your business and approach one of these unruly neighbors and beats the stuffing out of you. In this fantasy there is no credible law enforcement for you to call. What do you do? Most likely you keep your mouth shut and try to ignore them or move. These people that you are telling to secure their own community are in this position. They are powerless to act. Bullies only respond to one thing. Punch them in the face and punch hard. Trump may be the only candidate that understands this. He is a bully.
There is but one candidate - Republican or Democrat - that elicits any characteristics of trust and integrity. With their constant omission of coverage of that candidate - unfortunately - the New York Times has lost the trust and integrity to which this independent was once attracted.
Welcome to the FOX news of the left, where fair reporting is a thing of the past.
Welcome to the FOX news of the left, where fair reporting is a thing of the past.
2
Hillary wants an online battle with ISIS! Kerry wants a TV miniseries to fight ISIS! Obama thinks the wave with Castro and dancing in Argentina are the way, The deadly incompetence and naiveté of the left is the best ally ISIS has
1
And what did Senator Sanders say? He said quite a bit, actually. As with Clinton, he articulated an international approach based on intelligence gathering and police work.
I believe I also heard Kasich break the Cheney rule and propose law enforcement instead of military solutions. But if he had the say so I wouldn't trust him to keep to that tack. Like all republicans he seems to believe in military solutions first and foremost.
That republicans want to go to full on war with a cult while the republican congress can not even manage a vote to authorize what the President is doing at present.
What ground operations there may be in the Middle East to destroy Daesch have got to be comprised of soldiers from Middle East countries under the command of Middle East generals, with air support from NATO.
We the People are tired of seeing our children used as cannon fodder for the military industrial complex and the war profiteers.
I believe I also heard Kasich break the Cheney rule and propose law enforcement instead of military solutions. But if he had the say so I wouldn't trust him to keep to that tack. Like all republicans he seems to believe in military solutions first and foremost.
That republicans want to go to full on war with a cult while the republican congress can not even manage a vote to authorize what the President is doing at present.
What ground operations there may be in the Middle East to destroy Daesch have got to be comprised of soldiers from Middle East countries under the command of Middle East generals, with air support from NATO.
We the People are tired of seeing our children used as cannon fodder for the military industrial complex and the war profiteers.
1
I see that the chest-thumpers who want us to go kill somebody as long as they don't have to go, the put-gawd-back-in-Washington so we can blow up a violent theocracy types, the waterboarders who like to yack about the Constitution, the guys who like the word "feckless," a lot, the psychic right-wingers possessed of the power to see into Hillary Clinton's soul, and the folks whose historical knowledge appears to have come off a Dr. Brouner Peppermint Castile Soap bottle, are out in force today.
I'm pretty sure that there were this many ignoramuses around when I was a kid, but at least they couldn't jump on the Internet.
I'm pretty sure that there were this many ignoramuses around when I was a kid, but at least they couldn't jump on the Internet.
6
It is ironic that on a day when former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic is found guilty of, among other things, massacring 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys in the Srebrenica, you rightly chastise Ted Cruz for advocating patrolling Muslim neighborhoods. Such vituperative rantings from a presidential candidate is depressing, not to mention dangerous. It's clear that the only reason to patrol Muslim neighborhoods in the United States is to protect our fellow citizens from the hatefulness of people like Cruz.
4
Is Mrs. Clinton a front runner yet?
Bernie raised more money than Hillary in February and he only gets small donors. This can tell you who gets more support.
Bernie raised more money than Hillary in February and he only gets small donors. This can tell you who gets more support.
10
I don't understand your question. Hillary Clinton currently IS the front runner for the Democratic Party (I.e., she has received more votes from voters, not counting super delegates). Regardless of how much was donated by whom, when.
10
Now all he has to do is get more votes, so much for leaving money out of politics.
4
Karl Rove, the Koch brothers. Small donors?
3
This is nothing to do with the NYT "favoring" Hillary. Her response was the only detailed, specific, and rational response from any of the candidates, democrat or republican. Give credit where credit is due.
117
It was detailed and frankly would be completely ineffective.
1
Would be more convincing if her policies were not he root cause of much of the destabilization behind the attacks.
1
No one is taking credit away form Hillary. But the Times does deserve the criticism it is earning by leaving Bernie Sanders out of this editorial. He had much to day about that terrorist attacks in Brussels and was completely ignored.
Hillary Clinton just offered palliatives (better intelligence is like Mom's apple pie who could say no), while avoiding the hard questions. Hillary is part of the Obama do nothing politically risky careerist politician not a leader or a statesman.
Unfortunately the only thing that will really slow down terrorism is to defeat ISIS like we did Al Qaeda. The good news is that once ISIS established its "caliphate" and holds territory with a sort of conventional army it is vulnerable to ground attack by advanced Western style armies.
Unfortunately the only thing that will really slow down terrorism is to defeat ISIS like we did Al Qaeda. The good news is that once ISIS established its "caliphate" and holds territory with a sort of conventional army it is vulnerable to ground attack by advanced Western style armies.
1
This issue really brings home how desperately Bernie needs to get more wonky. He's inspiring but vague.
8
Obama's military strategy in the Middle East is underrated. He and his generals have found a way to kill people without getting them too riled up. Now that's something.
3
Obama, the protector of ISIS, forces 75% of US bombing missions to return without dropping their bombs
1
If ISIS is not an example of the "riled up", nobody is. Obama created ISIS with a "talk tough, but do as little as you possibly can" foreign policy. The result was and is ISIS, which gladly filled the void when the U.S. abandoned Iraq and let chaos take over in Syria.
1
Yet another endorsement of Hillary. Yawn, yawn.
5
Hillary's response was silly, if not ridiculous!
She wants to have an intelligence surge!
What a smart and genius idea! she wants to find out more about the enemy who wants to kill us! wow! groundbreaking ideas from the former Secretary of State! and the media plays along!
DUH!
She wants to have an intelligence surge!
What a smart and genius idea! she wants to find out more about the enemy who wants to kill us! wow! groundbreaking ideas from the former Secretary of State! and the media plays along!
DUH!
4
And once again, the Times reports on Mrs Clinton's and the Republican candidates' responses and not a word of what Mr Sanders has to say.
Your reporting does not seem to be equal to all candidates.
Your reporting does not seem to be equal to all candidates.
3
The Times is doing crazy Bernie a favor by not reporting the lunacy that leaks from his mouth
4
With due respect to Sec. CLINTON, she is hardly in a position to lecture others on anything. Her decison to ignore our Ambassador's repeated requests for aid in Benghazi-- he e mailed her over 600 times--, her reluctance to call in logistical help , military assistance to save the lives of the embattled diplomats, 4 0f whom died as a result of her inaction, and her deceitfulness re video all compromise her credibility when it comes to telling others what and what not to say.Her shading of the truth re Benghazi, saying one thing to her own daughter and another to the aggrieved relatives of the fallen, is also inexcusable.In the eyes of many, HRC is "inqualifiable."The
"noyade a l'eau" as well as use of the "gegene" was used with great success by Col. BIGEARD, whose troops put a stop to FLN terrorism in Algiers 1957-1959."Entre deux maux, it faut choisir le moindre,"was Bigeard's preferred response to his critics. BIGEARD eved tried the "gegene"on himself, and said that not only did it not hurt that much, but was infinitely preferable to having ur nose cut off,a typical punishment doled out to Algerian MUSLIMS who defied the FLN ban on smoking, playing dominos, or listening to RADIO ALGER. If WATERBOARDING were openly used here to prevent terrorist attentats like the ones in Brussels, how many citizens would object. Very few I suspect.What is worse than being the fatal or severely victim of a terrorist outrage?
"noyade a l'eau" as well as use of the "gegene" was used with great success by Col. BIGEARD, whose troops put a stop to FLN terrorism in Algiers 1957-1959."Entre deux maux, it faut choisir le moindre,"was Bigeard's preferred response to his critics. BIGEARD eved tried the "gegene"on himself, and said that not only did it not hurt that much, but was infinitely preferable to having ur nose cut off,a typical punishment doled out to Algerian MUSLIMS who defied the FLN ban on smoking, playing dominos, or listening to RADIO ALGER. If WATERBOARDING were openly used here to prevent terrorist attentats like the ones in Brussels, how many citizens would object. Very few I suspect.What is worse than being the fatal or severely victim of a terrorist outrage?
1
Memo to Sen. Sanders:
There are more things in heaven and earth, Bernie,
Than are dreamt of in “Das Kapital.”
Terrorism is one of them.
--- With apologies to Shakespeare, Hamlet, Horatio and Karl Marx.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Bernie,
Than are dreamt of in “Das Kapital.”
Terrorism is one of them.
--- With apologies to Shakespeare, Hamlet, Horatio and Karl Marx.
4
As somebody who's actually READ most of "Capital," let me point out to you that unlike too much of what the Senator says, Marx' work is extraordinarily detailed. All that time in the Library, I expect.
Oh, and just so's ya know for next time? communism and democratic socialism are different? You know, like the old Soviet Union and Switzerland are different? Not the same, like Trump and Cruz?
Oh, and just so's ya know for next time? communism and democratic socialism are different? You know, like the old Soviet Union and Switzerland are different? Not the same, like Trump and Cruz?
3
.......no mention of Bernie's position, which is sharper, if less detailed than Hilary's.........
2
When a nato member gets bombed outrage is appropriate, the bombings in Ankara last week...... Oh, my bad, what I meant to say, we should be outraged when Muslims bomb Christian European nato members, not when Muslims bomb Muslims or US and European forces destroy middle eastern countries, whew, that was a close one, btw who cares what Clinton says, she's just the animatronic manifestation of the US military industrial complex
Thank you, Hillary Clinton, for once again being the only intelligent adult in the room!
16
@ Carol
Totally agree. She makes every other candidate look like lost little boys.
Totally agree. She makes every other candidate look like lost little boys.
9
The trouble with Trump and Cruz's ideas on National Security, besides the fact that they don't really have any, is that either they know how ridiculous they are but are willing to say it any way to pander to their ignorant voter based or that they themselves are so ignorant that they really don't know how ridiculous they are.
In either case the notion of either of them in the White House should be terrifying to just about any rational person on the planet. The notion that the so called establishment Republican's actually think Cruz is somehow more desirable then Trump only ads to the terror and realization that there is simply no sane person left in the Republican Party.
In either case the notion of either of them in the White House should be terrifying to just about any rational person on the planet. The notion that the so called establishment Republican's actually think Cruz is somehow more desirable then Trump only ads to the terror and realization that there is simply no sane person left in the Republican Party.
6
The NYT Editorial Board must be kidding. Clinton's time as Secretary of State achieved nothing . Her solutions are same old same old. The mid east is a terror zone and Libya has no governmental structure except to support a terrorist network. The world is so much more dangerous all on the Clinton's watch. How can you be blind as to not believe a new bold approach to this terrorism is needed. Don't you read your own Op Ed columns?
5
Yet another blatant example of the Times denigrating or ignoring Bernie Sanders. The real questions are 1) why doesn't Public Editor Sullivan express outrage at the campaign against Sanders, and 2) why won't executive editor Dean Baquet stop this bias, and move to restore his paper's seriously tarnished reputation for objectivity?
4
They did announce the Editorial Board's endorsement of Hillary a few weeks ago. It is the Board's right, as in other U.S. newspapers, to endorse a candidate.
1
Hillary had a substantial and thoughtful response to the usual Republican fear-mongering. Fine. Did Bernie say anything? And if he did, why is there no mention of it in this editorial? Do your job and stop playing favorites.
4
Trump and Cruz are talking like bravado and stern looks can defeat a determined enemy, they can't. The key to defeating these particular terrorists is improving relations of people who live in each country so that bounds of trust are very high. Then people will help each other and look after each other, and help governments location terrorists and possible terrorist supporters quickly and more certainly. When people mistrust each other those who step forward to warn of possible threats are mistrusted, usually. Why would they betray their group? Are they spreading disinformation? Are they using the government to crush their rivals? Better lock them up or keep that person under scrutiny until we know what is going on. The key to defeating any dangerous enemy is finding the enemy and getting assets sufficient to neutralize the enemy when and where needed.
1
Rima Regas - Thank you for providing us comment readers with the interview Bernie Sanders gave to Anderson Cooper about the Middle East the other night. I had read his written speech to AIPAC and, once again, was extremely impressed by his even-handed, thoughtful approach to foreign policy - particularly as compared to his opponent, Hillary Clinton. Mrs. Clinton, starting with her vote for the disastrous war in Iraq, has neo-conservative views, and sees Henry Kissinger as a mentor. This is extremely disturbing to me, as it should be to all thinking Americans.
2
What ever happened to that Bernie guy who was running for president? Must not have had much support. Must not have influenced the debate at all. Didn't he win a primary or something a long time ago? So I don't need to hear his ideas about counter terrorism since he's got nothing worthwhile to say.... If the only source of news about the presidential campaign was the NYT, that's one of the skewed messages readers would take away. Mind-boggling how a once-great paper has faded.
2
What were Hillary Clinton's ideas to combat the Islamic terrorist acts that we are facing? Stand with our allies, don't change the way we live, don't single out a group, we don't torture, don't alienate Muslims.
I challenge any Hillary Clinton supporter to gather up their families, go into the neighborhoods that spawn these animals armed only with Hillary Clinton's concepts and ideals if they believe she actually has a strategy for dealing with the problem.
We need to stop the immigration of groups of people that statistically represent the overwhelming demographic committing the atrocities. Not just because of the danger of letting in certain bad actors who will commit the atrocities here but also to reduce the effect these people have on our citizens that may be receptive to their extremism and teaching
We need to start actively monitoring the neighborhoods where these atrocities find breeding grounds because it is apparent that either through fear, indifference or complacency the leaders and representatives from these neighborhoods will not weed out their own
If believers of the Islamic faith cannot recognize the bright line between themselves and the animals that are subjugating their religion and choose to take offense when we label Islamic based terrorism for what it is, that is their problem. I come from an Irish and Sicilian background. I took no offense when the Irish Republican Army was targeted for their atrocities or when the FBI targeted the Italian Mafia.
I challenge any Hillary Clinton supporter to gather up their families, go into the neighborhoods that spawn these animals armed only with Hillary Clinton's concepts and ideals if they believe she actually has a strategy for dealing with the problem.
We need to stop the immigration of groups of people that statistically represent the overwhelming demographic committing the atrocities. Not just because of the danger of letting in certain bad actors who will commit the atrocities here but also to reduce the effect these people have on our citizens that may be receptive to their extremism and teaching
We need to start actively monitoring the neighborhoods where these atrocities find breeding grounds because it is apparent that either through fear, indifference or complacency the leaders and representatives from these neighborhoods will not weed out their own
If believers of the Islamic faith cannot recognize the bright line between themselves and the animals that are subjugating their religion and choose to take offense when we label Islamic based terrorism for what it is, that is their problem. I come from an Irish and Sicilian background. I took no offense when the Irish Republican Army was targeted for their atrocities or when the FBI targeted the Italian Mafia.
1
Listening to the professional politicians' response to these terrorist attacks bring to mind the image of a hostage bound and gagged by their own red tape - with the terrorist standing over them laughing at the fact that the bound fool literally tied themselves up for them, and what a waste it was for the terrorist themselves to have bothered having to bring their own rope and duct tape to the ransom site. Trump says: Cut the red tape. Kaisitich says: Make the tape pink and add some fringe. Clinton says: Let's talk about the color of that tape. Cruz: He just snarls at the tape and prays.
Not a word about what Bernie Sanders said on this. Strange. I wonder why.
3
Cause Bernie is nuts and the Times is trying to help him by not publishing his lunacy
6
So Hillary offers better solutions than Cruz and Trump. Not difficult. But what does Sanders have to say? Not a word about that. I would like to inform the NYT that he is still in the race. Maybe you should send some reporters out to cover him.
1
Another shameless campaign ad for Hillary Clinton by the Times. To use the Brussels tragedy to garner votes for a candidate is beneath contempt. The rhetoric of the headline - "Hillary and other candidates..." - (as if the other candidates were just an afterthought) says it all.
2
The NYT is playing a dangerous game of politics with our security needs.
Surveillance of Muslim areas where extremism is growing, blocking refugees from certain countries from entering this country, and even certain enhanced interrogation techniques are not necessarily wrong because you don't like the messenger. They need to be evaluated on their own merits.
And that means evaluated by the experts in security and intelligence; not arm-chair pundits and journalists that occupy the Editorial Board.
Every security and intelligence expert I have heard or read states that surveillance and intelligence gathering in Muslim areas in order to uncover violent plots is essential, and sorely lacking in Belgium. This editorial in fact quoted Hillary Clinton as saying the same thing! (And then criticized her for it!)
And as for refugees, at least one of the suicide bombers in Brussels and the bomber last week in Turkey were from Syria.
And what is torture? Is it against the NYT sensibilities to interrogate a terrorist suspect for 12 hours straight, and without his lawyer present to tell him he is free not to answer any questions? Is that torture?
I'm sorry, but the NYT benighted view of human rights at the expense of human lives is delusional.
Surveillance of Muslim areas where extremism is growing, blocking refugees from certain countries from entering this country, and even certain enhanced interrogation techniques are not necessarily wrong because you don't like the messenger. They need to be evaluated on their own merits.
And that means evaluated by the experts in security and intelligence; not arm-chair pundits and journalists that occupy the Editorial Board.
Every security and intelligence expert I have heard or read states that surveillance and intelligence gathering in Muslim areas in order to uncover violent plots is essential, and sorely lacking in Belgium. This editorial in fact quoted Hillary Clinton as saying the same thing! (And then criticized her for it!)
And as for refugees, at least one of the suicide bombers in Brussels and the bomber last week in Turkey were from Syria.
And what is torture? Is it against the NYT sensibilities to interrogate a terrorist suspect for 12 hours straight, and without his lawyer present to tell him he is free not to answer any questions? Is that torture?
I'm sorry, but the NYT benighted view of human rights at the expense of human lives is delusional.
24
If you endorse torture, spying on your neighbors, religion as a basis for discrimination, et cetera, what on Earth are you fighting for? Certainly not for the ideals you claim to stand for.
8
"And what is torture? Is it against the NYT sensibilities to interrogate a terrorist suspect for 12 hours straight, and without his lawyer present to tell him he is free not to answer any questions? Is that torture?" Waterboarding is torture, and Cruz and Trump applaud it. Is that simple enough for you?
3
It is easy to evaluate Trump's proposals on their mertis. They have none. Now back to work.
3
Mrs. Clinton opined on American values and humanitarian obligations. The current GOP front-runners display no awareness, let alone commitment, to any such tradition. As for NATO, which Donald Trump -- unencumbrred as he is by knowledge or rational thought -- proposes abandoning, it remains the only viable entity for managing a coalition of military confrontation to ISIS.
Thus, we have a Republican cavalcade of failed presidential candidates tripping all over the coat-tails of an empty suit of bluster versus a certifiable snake. Meanwhile, John Kasich plods forward, unsupported by the very Party he is trying to pull free from the political salvage heap.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
Thus, we have a Republican cavalcade of failed presidential candidates tripping all over the coat-tails of an empty suit of bluster versus a certifiable snake. Meanwhile, John Kasich plods forward, unsupported by the very Party he is trying to pull free from the political salvage heap.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
6
No mention of Sanders. Again. You must be aware at the NYT that people scan your headlines and over over over and over again you give top billing to Trump and Clinton in your headlines. OK that's fine - but to ignore Sanders' response, who in many ways is a much stronger challenger than Cruz to anything substantive, is another indication of failed coverage on your part. Failed coverage. From the NYT. That's about the most depressing thing about this whole political season.
5
I guess Ted Cruz doesn't really believe in religious freedom; just religious freedom for those of his own faith.
2
Negotiating with any group that has no clear vision of what they want is useless. Hillary Clinto was absolutely right to say basically that they need to solve their problems.
Was drawing lines in the 30s a mistake? Probably. Was propping up tyrants not the best idea? More than probably. Was Iraq a giant and horrible mistake (throw in Abu Gharib and Guantanamo)? Not probably - definitely!!!
BUT - now their only accomplishment is completely aggravating the entire world. The world that was willing to take in refugees, give an opportunity, give religious freedom, give a life that has laws and Justice (not perfectly but better than nothing). The world that was open to understanding their struggles and how the world contributed to it and can work together to make it better.
Europe, America, Australia, Asia and even Russia are finally starting to ignore the boo hoo, woe is me temper tantrum because the people throwing it have zero goal in mind.
These people who look at Europe and America and the west with such disdain have no idea what it takes to build year after year an inclusive environment. They don't have the guts for it. Tunisians did and are still fighting hard to keep a better country. America, Australia, Poland, Ukraine, the list goes on for those that stood up and wanted change. Lazy, simple minded cowards to the core. And just a Tweet in the world. Very little substance and a waste of time.
Was drawing lines in the 30s a mistake? Probably. Was propping up tyrants not the best idea? More than probably. Was Iraq a giant and horrible mistake (throw in Abu Gharib and Guantanamo)? Not probably - definitely!!!
BUT - now their only accomplishment is completely aggravating the entire world. The world that was willing to take in refugees, give an opportunity, give religious freedom, give a life that has laws and Justice (not perfectly but better than nothing). The world that was open to understanding their struggles and how the world contributed to it and can work together to make it better.
Europe, America, Australia, Asia and even Russia are finally starting to ignore the boo hoo, woe is me temper tantrum because the people throwing it have zero goal in mind.
These people who look at Europe and America and the west with such disdain have no idea what it takes to build year after year an inclusive environment. They don't have the guts for it. Tunisians did and are still fighting hard to keep a better country. America, Australia, Poland, Ukraine, the list goes on for those that stood up and wanted change. Lazy, simple minded cowards to the core. And just a Tweet in the world. Very little substance and a waste of time.
After reading through all of the comments here, I'm starting to get the impression that the Times is intentionally leaving Bernie out of the conversation to get a rise out of a certain group of reader.
Like Trump vs. Fox, a phony feud if there ever was one, the Sanders vs the Times is beginning to follow a familiar pattern.
Like Trump vs. Fox, a phony feud if there ever was one, the Sanders vs the Times is beginning to follow a familiar pattern.
1
The media, always hiding under the cloud of, '|We are only messengers'.
My Mom phoned me, she was really upset at what happened in Brussels.
I said, slow down.
Not that long ago when things were slow in the middle east the media went to Northern Ireland and when things got slow there the media went back to the middle east.
Two stupid brothers are not going to slow us down.
My Mom phoned me, she was really upset at what happened in Brussels.
I said, slow down.
Not that long ago when things were slow in the middle east the media went to Northern Ireland and when things got slow there the media went back to the middle east.
Two stupid brothers are not going to slow us down.
If you pay any attention at all, you know that Hillary Clinton is the one who has the well-studied, prepared proposals on every issue. She has the high intelligence, the restraint, the gravitas, the temperament, the courage, the determination, stamina; every personal characteristic called for in a president. She knows precisely what the demands are, who the national and world leaders are, and what to do to be effective. She's the crystal-clear best choice.
7
For years, President Obama has repeatedly stated the necessity for European states to put more resources into their military and security services and improve intelligence cooperation across the EU. When he hasn't been ignored, he's been criticised for meddling or trying to "strengthen" the EU as an institution.
Now, he's being blamed for murderous actions taken by European citizens in Europe.
The truth is, no President can eliminate international terrorism anymore than they can eliminate theft, rape or murder. Anyone who claims otherwise is simply lying and not very convincingly at that.
The risk of dying from terrorist activity in the US is vanishingly low. The US government has been relentless in its efforts against Al Qaeda (most of its leaders and operatives are dead) and ISIS which as a direct result of US efforts has lost 40% of its Iraqi territory (and 20% of its Syrian territory) in a very short space of time.
But no, instead, some people want us to repeat the folly of the Iraq War, because this time will be different somehow...
Now, he's being blamed for murderous actions taken by European citizens in Europe.
The truth is, no President can eliminate international terrorism anymore than they can eliminate theft, rape or murder. Anyone who claims otherwise is simply lying and not very convincingly at that.
The risk of dying from terrorist activity in the US is vanishingly low. The US government has been relentless in its efforts against Al Qaeda (most of its leaders and operatives are dead) and ISIS which as a direct result of US efforts has lost 40% of its Iraqi territory (and 20% of its Syrian territory) in a very short space of time.
But no, instead, some people want us to repeat the folly of the Iraq War, because this time will be different somehow...
1
Candidates who remain cool, calm and steely are but one part of the skillset needed to be President and Commander in Chief.
Another huge part is to truly listen to what the American people feel in their hearts and minds right now, address those concerns and not patronize them. This lands right in the uncomfortable waters of what some consider politically incorrect, but there's a middle ground here, a balance, and we haven't found it yet. Not from Hillary, Not from Bernie, Not from Ted, Not from Donald, Not from John.
You cannot effectively deal with darkness until you acknowledge the etiology of what those dark forces are. And you cannot acknowledge what those forces are without recognizing the spillover effect of categorizing all people who ascribe to one faith.
We need honest, level-headed dialogue on counterterrorism. Not one candidate has been able to effectively bring a balanced conversation to the topic that addresses these difficult issues from the multiple perspectives they require.
Another huge part is to truly listen to what the American people feel in their hearts and minds right now, address those concerns and not patronize them. This lands right in the uncomfortable waters of what some consider politically incorrect, but there's a middle ground here, a balance, and we haven't found it yet. Not from Hillary, Not from Bernie, Not from Ted, Not from Donald, Not from John.
You cannot effectively deal with darkness until you acknowledge the etiology of what those dark forces are. And you cannot acknowledge what those forces are without recognizing the spillover effect of categorizing all people who ascribe to one faith.
We need honest, level-headed dialogue on counterterrorism. Not one candidate has been able to effectively bring a balanced conversation to the topic that addresses these difficult issues from the multiple perspectives they require.
I did not have to read this editorial because I watched Clinton on TV and saw the next President acting exactly like she should; calm, firm, thoughtful, mindful of the nuance, careful with our friends, defensive for the rights of all. What about the others? Sanders is absent in action, except for his usual platitudes about how to deal with ISIS which is to do the same thing we're doing, only less. He hasn't a clue. The Cancer has metastasized and can't be rooted out over there. It was similar to his solution for the Middle-East, which was, he said, to send money to Gaza(ie Hamas) to rebuild all the damage the Israeli's have done. Cruz is even worse. He wants to turn us back to Joe McCarthy and Richard Nixon, maybe even with de facto isolation of Muslims in their ghettos, aka neighborhoods and then carpet bomb them in the Middle East. Trump's response was to draw our attention to his truly beautiful wife in a beautiful photo on the cover of GQ some years ago. Some would think he would be proud and not offended or maybe it was to cover up his outrageous statements that followed the attack that he might have to use Nukes and withdraw from NATO. How much further can he go than that? Kasich is at least rational but only promises the standard Republican approach, that is ground troops, never learning from our mistakes. Hillary Clinton has shown once again, that she has all the characteristics I would want in our next President.
13
My street has two identifiable Muslim families living among 30 homes occupied by East Asian, South Asian, and Latin families. Does this count as a "Muslim neighborhood?"
1. Will my property value decrease due to the presence of Muslim families, or rise if surveillance by three levels of law enforcement officials also allegedly provide safety from break-ins, vandals, and raucous teens.
2. Will my taxes rise because of increased police surveillance costs and, hopefully, "protection," or will my home insurance costs fall due to presence of more cops.
Let's get to the real issues!
1. Will my property value decrease due to the presence of Muslim families, or rise if surveillance by three levels of law enforcement officials also allegedly provide safety from break-ins, vandals, and raucous teens.
2. Will my taxes rise because of increased police surveillance costs and, hopefully, "protection," or will my home insurance costs fall due to presence of more cops.
Let's get to the real issues!
3
Ted Cruz is being advised by Frank Gaffney, an extremist on par with David Duke. This makes Ted Cruz a lot more dangerous than Donald Trump will ever be.
Hillary Clinton's speech to AIPAC on Monday proved she is no different than George Bush in her hawkishness and eagerness to intervene in ME.
If Bernie Sanders doesn't emerge as the victor, the only anti-war candidate remaining is Trump.
Hillary Clinton's speech to AIPAC on Monday proved she is no different than George Bush in her hawkishness and eagerness to intervene in ME.
If Bernie Sanders doesn't emerge as the victor, the only anti-war candidate remaining is Trump.
2
‘’Write In’’ Bernie Sanders!
In November
We can create the possibility of a Sen. Sanders win in November using the power of our ‘write in’ vote(s). I see no other mechanism to get around establishment politics and entrenched corporate interests. The downside is we take our chances with a Donald Trump Presidency. But, at least we can vote our conscience which seems to offer the only choice left.
In November
We can create the possibility of a Sen. Sanders win in November using the power of our ‘write in’ vote(s). I see no other mechanism to get around establishment politics and entrenched corporate interests. The downside is we take our chances with a Donald Trump Presidency. But, at least we can vote our conscience which seems to offer the only choice left.
1
@S. Whether
"Sen. Sanders win in November using the power of our ‘write in’ vote(s)."
Yeah, and I've got a bridge to sell you for $24.
Please get your head out of the clouds and get behind whichever Democratic nominee wins the primary. That is the ONLY way to vote with your conscience.
"Sen. Sanders win in November using the power of our ‘write in’ vote(s)."
Yeah, and I've got a bridge to sell you for $24.
Please get your head out of the clouds and get behind whichever Democratic nominee wins the primary. That is the ONLY way to vote with your conscience.
3
You could also hold your breath until you turn blue. That's just as childish.
2
You speak about Trump, Cruz, and Hillary. If this were a college essay it would receive an "F" for leaving Bernie Sanders out of the discussion. It is clear that the media in general and the Times in particular is trying to sideline Bernie--who is running neck in neck with Hillary. Why is that? This way of diminishing a candidate by not giving the expected and deserved coverage is diminishing too the reputation of the Times.
1
Seriously? Neck and neck? Don't think so.
1
Hillary calls waterboarding 'torture.' That is her definition. No where is this called torture. It is unpleasant for sure. As usually these liberals talk in vague terms such as "work with our allies."
1
@Thales
"Hillary calls waterboarding 'torture.' That is her definition. No where is this called torture."
Are you even joking? Water-boarding is indeed torture.
Is there a large rock in your yard you can crawl back under?
"Hillary calls waterboarding 'torture.' That is her definition. No where is this called torture."
Are you even joking? Water-boarding is indeed torture.
Is there a large rock in your yard you can crawl back under?
5
Watching Hillary is torture
@Larry
I'm a Hillary supporter with a sense of humor and your comment is very funny indeed :).
I'm a Hillary supporter with a sense of humor and your comment is very funny indeed :).
2
Yesterday in an interview with Judy Woodruff on the PBS news hour Bernie Sanders explained his position on defeating terrorism. In contrast, excerpts from Hillary Clinton's speech at Stanford were also shown. In an act of political opportunism he slammed Hillary on her vote for the Iraq war. It was little more than an attempt to bolster his campaign and it was downhill from there. His lack of depth in foreign affairs was painfully obvious. Although his qualifications for president far exceed the republican offerings he simply doesn't compare with Hillary on the issue dealing with global terrorism.
8
Headline: Hillary Clinton and Other Candidates on Counterterrorism
Substance: Long on presenting HRC's views, with reference to the disturbing views of Trump and Cruz.
Apparently Kasich and Sanders are not candidates, or don't have views.
Clinton wins the debate if the most sensible guy among the Republicans is ignored, and a very sensible non-hawk challenger on the Democrat side are ignored. But only because they have been selectively blacked out.
The Times' desire to pre-empt the primary process by presenting only the views of "frontrunners" (horserace!) is not just annoying, it is a deeply irresponsible dereliction of duty.
Substance: Long on presenting HRC's views, with reference to the disturbing views of Trump and Cruz.
Apparently Kasich and Sanders are not candidates, or don't have views.
Clinton wins the debate if the most sensible guy among the Republicans is ignored, and a very sensible non-hawk challenger on the Democrat side are ignored. But only because they have been selectively blacked out.
The Times' desire to pre-empt the primary process by presenting only the views of "frontrunners" (horserace!) is not just annoying, it is a deeply irresponsible dereliction of duty.
3
You are reading the opinion page and the NYT Editorial Board did endorse her a few weeks ago.
1
While Mrs. Clinton was decidedly more mature in her response to the attacks in Brussels than either of the top two Republican candidates, the same could also be said of Bernie Sanders' response to the attacks. I have to wonder why the Editorial Board gave so much attention to Hillary but said absolutely nothing about her main competitor--it does not suggest impartiality in judgment or fact-based discussion.
2
Your opinion regarding Clinton's Stanford speech is incredulous. Her comments: "..the unconstitutional singling out of a religious group --- would endanger national security by straining relationships with allies and alienating Muslims". So much naivete & wishful thinking in one sentence is boggling. 1) concern about being "unconstitutional" at this point as if ISIS cares about our constitution; 2) we are already "endangered" by a group of terrorists..who ARE Muslim (& are involved in inter-faith "alienation", ie. Sunni vs Shia; 3) our only true ally, Israel, would, in fact, welcome a more vigorous & coordinated military response to ISIS. Her line that ..a military campaign against Islamic State needs a new "legal" framework..really! This is a throw-away line and political posturing to buy time, because ISIS does not do "legal"! As if an injunction or a cease & desist order would be helpful. More foreign policy & military weakness from somebody who has mostly avoided taking responsibility while in government and when forced to do so, dropped the ball (ie. Benghazi).
2
I wonder if the Republican contenders would, during the 1970-2000 IRA terrorist campaign in the UK, have suggested banning Irish immigrants or stepping up patrols in Irish neighborhoods in the US -- to protect us, of course.
1
Bad analogy. Irish were not targeting Americans during the troubles.
3
Hypocrites, every one of the Republicans.
26 dead in Brussels and we must close the borders and monitor all Muslims. 26 kids killed in Newtown, sorry nothing we can do, that is just the way it is. That is freedom.
Let's look at the numbers of Americans killed on a daily basis, from our own terrorism promoters, before taking actions against an entire religious group, the majority of which are peace loving and wanting the same things for their children as you and I.
26 dead in Brussels and we must close the borders and monitor all Muslims. 26 kids killed in Newtown, sorry nothing we can do, that is just the way it is. That is freedom.
Let's look at the numbers of Americans killed on a daily basis, from our own terrorism promoters, before taking actions against an entire religious group, the majority of which are peace loving and wanting the same things for their children as you and I.
4
"she did not state a clear commitment to privacy and civil liberties"..."But she has yet to specify what the new framework will be." There is leadership and a commitment to ideals! Oh and lest we forget..."It would be a serious mistake to stumble into another ground war.." which Mrs. Clinton voted for. Mrs. Clinton's response was vague and denied her role in the fundamental origin of the problem. Get it together Editorial Board, nothing about this smart or substantive.
As Raheem Kassam wrote,"Teddy bears, tears, candles, cartoons, murals, mosaics, flowers, flags, projections, hashtags, balloons, wreaths, lights, vigils, scarves, and more. These are the best solutions the Western world seems to come up with every few months when we are slammed by another Islamist terrorist attack.As if mosques, schools, prisons, and universities aren’t used as recruiting grounds for radicals.Instead, we will now think deeply about how we can “reach out” to these populations. How we can “co-exist” and “be tolerant” of one another. As if toleration – which is actually the permittance of what is not actually approved or desired – is a healthy aspiration for a society.But come on, Raheem, not all immigrants, or Muslims, are criminals, or rapists…. you’re not!Yeah – and look at me. Excoriated daily by Islamists on Twitter. Why? Because I’ve integrated and I love my country. Because I refuse to believe that an Islamic caliphate is the best thing for Britain, or anywhere, quite frankly. Where is my white (or brown) knight? Where are the voices of the moderate Muslim world defending me? So put down the teddy bears, burst the balloons, and let’s start demanding again that our countries are safe and civilised. And if we can’t find people who’ll make that happen for us… let’s do it ourselves."
2
"Hillary Clinton and Other Candidates on Counterterrorism"
*Only mentions Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and Ted Cruz (barley)*
Solid journalism, NYT. If you are going to infer through your title that you will be discussing the counterterrorism policies of the other candidates, discuss all five--it is not that hard.
*Only mentions Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and Ted Cruz (barley)*
Solid journalism, NYT. If you are going to infer through your title that you will be discussing the counterterrorism policies of the other candidates, discuss all five--it is not that hard.
2
You were not reading "news." You were reading an opinion piece.
2
Despite the inevitability of Hillary as our nominee, there are still alleged Sanders supporters, some Republicans in Dems clothing, who want to know what happened to their guy. They are the Japanese soldiers holdouts in caves in the Pacific years after the end of World War II. Ready to fight to the last man for a just but lost cause.
In '08 Hillary fought valiantly till June. The race was still extremely close, but she knew it was over. She bowed out gracefully, not burning her bridges, anticipating then a re-run. Barack took note and rewarded her with the most powerful position in his Cabinet, Secretary of State, a job she performed admirably despite naysayers nitpicks to the contrary.
Sanders scenario is different. This is his Last Hurrah, and Sanders knows it. There will be no tomorrow's, no next time. Sanders, who can be such a belligerent curmudgeon, may not want to go gently into that good night. He may want to forfeit his Senate seat. If so, he can carry his crusade to the convention floor in Philadelphia in July. He can use what's left of his clout to bargain with Hillary and the DNC over platform insertions and what not. However, his bargaining power will be incumbent upon kowtowing to Hillary's demands. We won't be privy to what goes on behind closed doors. The outcome will be evident once Sanders emerges from those negotiations. In the end, Sanders will tow the line or be booted out of it.
DD
Manhattan
In '08 Hillary fought valiantly till June. The race was still extremely close, but she knew it was over. She bowed out gracefully, not burning her bridges, anticipating then a re-run. Barack took note and rewarded her with the most powerful position in his Cabinet, Secretary of State, a job she performed admirably despite naysayers nitpicks to the contrary.
Sanders scenario is different. This is his Last Hurrah, and Sanders knows it. There will be no tomorrow's, no next time. Sanders, who can be such a belligerent curmudgeon, may not want to go gently into that good night. He may want to forfeit his Senate seat. If so, he can carry his crusade to the convention floor in Philadelphia in July. He can use what's left of his clout to bargain with Hillary and the DNC over platform insertions and what not. However, his bargaining power will be incumbent upon kowtowing to Hillary's demands. We won't be privy to what goes on behind closed doors. The outcome will be evident once Sanders emerges from those negotiations. In the end, Sanders will tow the line or be booted out of it.
DD
Manhattan
2
It's sad that The Times continues its Hillary boosterism.
I watched Bernie Sanders on the PBS Newshour last night and he offered a very rationale plan. He did point out two things: no one has any easy or immediate answer to preventing terrorist attacks and that Clinton has to share responsibility for the current crisis for supporting an unnecessary war in Iraq. Let's not forget that it was also her "disastrous" war.
I watched Bernie Sanders on the PBS Newshour last night and he offered a very rationale plan. He did point out two things: no one has any easy or immediate answer to preventing terrorist attacks and that Clinton has to share responsibility for the current crisis for supporting an unnecessary war in Iraq. Let's not forget that it was also her "disastrous" war.
2
Trump/Cruz offer nothing but vile rhetoric. Unfortunately Hilary offers more of the Obama failure to launch. Repudiation of the Republican position is fine but banal platitudes offers no alternative. Her ideas are hackneyed. There is a need to break from this administration but not in the manner put forth by the Republicans. Her sameness leaves open possibility of easy rejection.
We need a heavy carbon tax YESTERDAY. This would crush the Saudi's ability to fund terrorism around the world. Yes, the well is already poisoned, and it would have been better to do this 30 years ago (thanks Reagan! You really were an idiot!), but it's not too late.
They funded and planned 9-11, they fund and plan attacks today, they are the source of the poison. Take out their money. Now.
They funded and planned 9-11, they fund and plan attacks today, they are the source of the poison. Take out their money. Now.
If a carbon tax was the answer (it isn't and never was), you'd have thought that the idiot Jimmah Carter and the idiot democratic Congress would have enacted it, right?
1
Above the fold "Europeans Balk at Intelligence Sharing as Toll of Terror Rises." Hillary's thoughts are sensible, albeit, proven ineffective against ISIS.
Perhaps mr Cruz would like to re activate the WWII era internment camps, like Crystal City in his adopted state of Texas.
1
Given Hillary's experience as SoS where she improved nothing and made most things worse, I won't take her competence for granted. It's easy to mouth the words, but she has no record of actually implementing anything.
Of course the NYT is so in the tank for her that anything she says will be favorably reviewed.
Of course the NYT is so in the tank for her that anything she says will be favorably reviewed.
3
Whatever we do, let's not listen to any major politician from Texas advocating war, with their cowboy approach to foreign policy. Lyndon Johnson of Texas started the Vietnam War based on the false Gulf of Tonkin pretext, & GW Bush of Texas started the unnecessary War in Iraq based on his WMD/9-11 connection pretexts. And now Senator Cruz from Texas, wants to "carpet bomb" the Middle East. If our foreign policy must be guided by a Texan, let's try Ron Paul.
1
The only mistake Bush made was believing the lies he inherited from Clinton and the lies he was told by the Democratic CIA Director he inherited from Clinton
1
GOP revisionism at its worst.
2
Larry,
Starting an unnecessary war (which Iraq was, WMD or not), is not a “mistake”; it’s a “sin”, ethically equivalent to murder. If you want to throw in the added culpability & complicity of some Democrats & Liberals, including Hillary, I won’t argue the point.
Starting an unnecessary war (which Iraq was, WMD or not), is not a “mistake”; it’s a “sin”, ethically equivalent to murder. If you want to throw in the added culpability & complicity of some Democrats & Liberals, including Hillary, I won’t argue the point.
1
Hillary has very practical ideas on stopping terrorism, and I say that as a Bernie supporter. However, she is completely and totally deluded if she thinks America's borders are secure. Ask anyone in the western states if they believe her statement.
2
Unfortunately my husband had signed us up to attend a "discussion" at Stanford scheduled on the same day as Ms Clinton's talk there. We were in adjacent buildings. I would have much preferred her talk to the "discussion" we attended which simply rehashed the usual position of the Hoover Inst.
We need the adult candidate to win. Please no more stories about the obstreperous children running on the Republican side.
Ms Clinton is the only one running who has a sensible response to the problem of terrorism. Currently, it is Muslims. It could just as well be any of a number of different people and groups, including those such as home-grown Timothy McVeigh.
We need the adult candidate to win. Please no more stories about the obstreperous children running on the Republican side.
Ms Clinton is the only one running who has a sensible response to the problem of terrorism. Currently, it is Muslims. It could just as well be any of a number of different people and groups, including those such as home-grown Timothy McVeigh.
6
Hillary Clinton enabled Islamic terrorism as Secretary of State. She endorsed Obama's policy of appeasement, ignoring the growing crisis in Syria, and facilitating the withdrawal of the stabilizing U.S. military forces in Iraq which allowed ISIS a foothold in that fragile democracy. And that says nothing about her tunnel vision in Libya where she insisted on the removal of Ghadaffi, allowing radical Islamic forces to run wild. Any fool can recognize that Clinton has done more to aid the rise of ISIS than anyone except Obama. Any fool except The Times, of course, which is always an apologist for the Clintons.
7
Other candidates except Bernie Sanders !!! Your overt bias towards Hillary Clinton is appalling. I plan to cancel my subscription. Fox news has shown less bias against Bernie Sanders than the NyT.
14
Poor little Bernie.
8
njglea how would you feel if your legit candidate Hillary, was not given press coverage and made to look invisible. We all appreciate your loyalty and fierce support of Mrs Clinton so please kindly allow us ours.
1
LOL
Touche!
Touche!
1
When will someone tell the Repubs the US Military is not their private army. I use to teach junior high and the threats, blow hardness, anger attitudes fit the kids and the GOP. Develop this country, show the rest of the world the right way. WOW..............
8
Hillary is the one who screwed up Libya where some of the ISIS terrorist training camps are now located.
How nice of her to now blather on about counter terrorism.
How nice of her to now blather on about counter terrorism.
9
She has some nice suggestions for Europe but nothing concrete to directly protect the U>S> Cyber security is critical but not enough.
3
Addressing the hottest issue of the day, The New York Times publishes an editorial contrasting one presidential candidate's reasoned response to a major terrorism attack abroad with extremist rhetoric from two other major candidates. In the past, I would have expected to open the comments column and see readers discuss the terrorism threat. Instead, the most recommended item was inflammatory rhetoric against one Democrat along with a tirade against the Times by a supporter of the other Democratic candidate for not playing up that candidate, who said nothing relevant to the matter at hand.
When this political campaign is over, I hope the Times editors sit down and work out a way to end the manipulation of its reader columns by individuals and campaign activists trying to work the refs with astroturf campaigns.
When this political campaign is over, I hope the Times editors sit down and work out a way to end the manipulation of its reader columns by individuals and campaign activists trying to work the refs with astroturf campaigns.
5
This just shows you that terrorism is not really a problem that affects the readers here.
2
What did Bernie Sanders say about the Brussels attacks? If the NYT is going to quote both Trump and Cruz on the Republican side then please quote Sanders as well. Sanders has won far more states than Cruz and has amassed a much higher percentage of delegates. He also beats every Republican candidate in head to head polling match ups for the general election. This is typical of the NYT coverage of this election, in which the substantial voter enthusiasm and funding that Sanders has attracted is largely underplayed. Recently reporters and Op Ed pieces have begun to treat Clinton's nomination as a sure thing while still treating the Republican campaign as a fascinating horse race despite the fact that Sanders continues to amass victories and delegates at a higher rate than Cruz. This approach is deeply anti-democratic and unbalanced in that it risks depressing voter turnout in Democratic primaries while increasing Republican interest and voting.
9
Same old stuff. Dust off the old speeches and recycle.
"Work with allies" which we have been doing since 9/11 supposedly. After which we found out that our allies are not allies like Pakistan.
"We can't allow terrorists to intimidate us" and "we don't cower behind walls." That's bravado talking which the NYT's bias for HRC caused them to miss since they only accused Reps of that activity. Reminds me of GWB's speech to "go shopping" and "go on vacation."
I am not scared of terrorists but I am more than concerned that we don't have leadership, strategies or the courage in the west to deal with this deep seated problem in Islam of religious superiority along with anti-western and anti-everything hatred. I have not heard one politician on the left or right ever clearly articulate the full scope of the problem and then lead.
Who is going to stand up for the west for all the world to hear?
"Work with allies" which we have been doing since 9/11 supposedly. After which we found out that our allies are not allies like Pakistan.
"We can't allow terrorists to intimidate us" and "we don't cower behind walls." That's bravado talking which the NYT's bias for HRC caused them to miss since they only accused Reps of that activity. Reminds me of GWB's speech to "go shopping" and "go on vacation."
I am not scared of terrorists but I am more than concerned that we don't have leadership, strategies or the courage in the west to deal with this deep seated problem in Islam of religious superiority along with anti-western and anti-everything hatred. I have not heard one politician on the left or right ever clearly articulate the full scope of the problem and then lead.
Who is going to stand up for the west for all the world to hear?
4
Secretary Clinton has nothing, if not full support for the highest ideals of the European Union.
And how has the EU's counterterrorism approach been working out?
And how has the EU's counterterrorism approach been working out?
2
Partially agree.... Trump is a demagogue in clown clothes and most of the other candidates on both sides save Rand Paul were for the Iraq 2 invasion by the admitted war criminal Bush 2, even Hillary.
Yes to her credit she said it was a mistake but made the same mistake taking sides in Libya with the resulting chaos.
Obama is the only major figure who got it right. We can thank him for the thousands of American lives saved if he would have sent troops in while making the situation worse like Bush 2 did.
Yes to her credit she said it was a mistake but made the same mistake taking sides in Libya with the resulting chaos.
Obama is the only major figure who got it right. We can thank him for the thousands of American lives saved if he would have sent troops in while making the situation worse like Bush 2 did.
3
Obama created ISIS with his irresponsible premature withdrawal of troops for cheap political points. Now Obama forces 75% of US bombing missions to return without dropping their bombs. Obama is the Father of ISIS and its greatest protector
1
No Larry...as mentioned, the admitted war criminal Bush 2 help create ISIS, caused thousands of Americans to get killed and wounded there and created the havoc that there is now. Most of the world and most of America see it now.
Obama saved countless American lives by getting out of there. ISIS is a middle east problem first, a european problem second and our problem last. We can bomb but these other nations should send in ground troops.
If you want continue the havoc why don't you volunteer to go over there and urge your family and friends to do the same to get killed for American corportacracy, oil greed, and support of one brutal regime over another.
Don't sacrifice precious American lives and make the situation even worse by sending in ground troops.
Obama saved countless American lives by getting out of there. ISIS is a middle east problem first, a european problem second and our problem last. We can bomb but these other nations should send in ground troops.
If you want continue the havoc why don't you volunteer to go over there and urge your family and friends to do the same to get killed for American corportacracy, oil greed, and support of one brutal regime over another.
Don't sacrifice precious American lives and make the situation even worse by sending in ground troops.
1
Hillary Clinton's response was neither smart nor substantive. She offered more political blather. If you want to know what Hillary's going to say, check which audience she'll be addressing.
If anything, I'm beginning to believe Hillary doesn't have a really smart idea about anything. She's predictable and not all that intelligent it turns out.
The only things she's good at is dirty politics, which, unfortunately, will turn our country into a battleground if she's back in the White House.
Trump's hyperbole is meant to keep terrorists off balance. At least he's not predictable like Hillary, and our enemies haven't been able to get his measure as they have hers. If we can figure her out so easily, so can they.
If anything, I'm beginning to believe Hillary doesn't have a really smart idea about anything. She's predictable and not all that intelligent it turns out.
The only things she's good at is dirty politics, which, unfortunately, will turn our country into a battleground if she's back in the White House.
Trump's hyperbole is meant to keep terrorists off balance. At least he's not predictable like Hillary, and our enemies haven't been able to get his measure as they have hers. If we can figure her out so easily, so can they.
10
Do you really think that the terrorists are paying attention to what Trump is saying?!
1
All of these candidates, even Trump, have attended some of the most prestigious private schools in our nation, ones that every parent wants to send their child, and yet, their knowledge of foreign affairs and pure logic is not even at a middle school level. Which goes to the point, that attending these prestigious schools is more about who you meet rather than what you learn.
10
I initially started to read this article because the words "smart, substantive rebuttal" caught my attention. I haven't make my decision for 2016 and hoped to gain more insight to Mrs. Clinton's abilities. I was disappointed as she did not offer anything substantive in my opinion. What I read were opinions not substantive plans:
* "We should not condone torture".
* "carpet bombing is a serious mistake".
* *If US leaves NATO = Christmas at the Kremlin.
She spoke of steps to confront multiple overlapping crisis related to economic downturn, surge of refugees, extremist threats. Yes, we have an understanding of all that information....Still looking for substantive plan...
Finally she she states:
* "all countries should provide notification to each other if a suspected militant is captured or detained at the border. Good thought! and we have the European Defense Agency who could coordinate.
* " technology and the US government could work more closely together. The EU Agency for Network and Information Security would be a good place to start for the EU. They could coordinate with our agencies if they aren't already doing so. However she fell short of specifics.
Again...where was the substantive plan...? I am disappointed with all the candidates in their lack of specifics in regard to our safety.
* "We should not condone torture".
* "carpet bombing is a serious mistake".
* *If US leaves NATO = Christmas at the Kremlin.
She spoke of steps to confront multiple overlapping crisis related to economic downturn, surge of refugees, extremist threats. Yes, we have an understanding of all that information....Still looking for substantive plan...
Finally she she states:
* "all countries should provide notification to each other if a suspected militant is captured or detained at the border. Good thought! and we have the European Defense Agency who could coordinate.
* " technology and the US government could work more closely together. The EU Agency for Network and Information Security would be a good place to start for the EU. They could coordinate with our agencies if they aren't already doing so. However she fell short of specifics.
Again...where was the substantive plan...? I am disappointed with all the candidates in their lack of specifics in regard to our safety.
6
"Substantive" plans for any international action are often long and detailed and involve more than one person and often more than one country. And, I doubt most civilians who have not been involved in international issues would understand the specifics it entails. I think we need to settle for trusting the people we elect.
3
Yes, we are fortunate to have one of the most qualified individuals to ever run to be President of the United States - Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Thanks to her for having the courage to step up and agree to serve us. SHE has my vote.
24
Clinton's clearly the best candidate, and she has my vote, too.
6
Oh come on with the hyperbole. "One of the most qualified...."? Sound like something T rump would say.
The most qualified individuals to run is currently sitting in the office.
The most qualified individuals to run is currently sitting in the office.
And here is some of what Presidential Democratic Candidate Bernie Sanders had to say that you conveniently ignored:
"Today’s attack is a brutal reminder that the international community must come together to destroy ISIS. This type of barbarism cannot be allowed to continue."
"Today’s attack is a brutal reminder that the international community must come together to destroy ISIS. This type of barbarism cannot be allowed to continue."
19
Senator Sanders is right on the issues but has no plan and no political capital to get them done. Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton does.
9
Senator Sanders is right on the issues but does not have a plan or the political capital to get them done. Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton does.
3
njglea it is exactly this "political capital" that is so corrupt that it is ruining our very democracy.
3
Terrorists and terrorism won't destroy our country, but we might destroy ourselves over it. How we react and respond to these events though has the potential to destroy us, and that's more my concern. Will we lose our composure? Will we overreact, lash out, and do something out of rage, that actually only weakens us in the end? Will we come together or jump down each other's throats?
5
I have been reading the New York Times for the better part of 40 years. I used to make my parents buy it for me because the full-sized movie ads doubled as wall posters. Buying the Sunday Times has been a ritual for me as an adult.
I was in newspaper journalism myself for 25 years.
I have never seen anything like the favoritism -- fairly open and mostly unapologetic -- that the Grey Lady has shown toward Hillary Clinton throughout this election process.
I think Clinton is a fine candidate and I will support her should she be the nominee. But if I read one more slanted, insinuating story purporting to be objective but apparently constructed for the purposes of minimizing Sanders' campaign and steering readers in Clinton's direction, I will scream.
This is no longer a news organization I can trust. I will never pay another dime for it.
I was in newspaper journalism myself for 25 years.
I have never seen anything like the favoritism -- fairly open and mostly unapologetic -- that the Grey Lady has shown toward Hillary Clinton throughout this election process.
I think Clinton is a fine candidate and I will support her should she be the nominee. But if I read one more slanted, insinuating story purporting to be objective but apparently constructed for the purposes of minimizing Sanders' campaign and steering readers in Clinton's direction, I will scream.
This is no longer a news organization I can trust. I will never pay another dime for it.
16
I find it interesting that so many comments from purported Sanders supporters take exactly this shape: I was/am an authority on these things, the Grey Lady (not a term I've heard used much this century, by the way) has done betrayed America, cancel my subscription.
Typically, this sort of repetitiveness is a hallmark of form letters and phone bank scripts.
So I wonder: how many of you guys work for Karl Rove?
Typically, this sort of repetitiveness is a hallmark of form letters and phone bank scripts.
So I wonder: how many of you guys work for Karl Rove?
4
25 years in newspaper journalism and you don't know what an "editorial" is? By definition, editorials are always slanted and biased!
5
It seems the many Sanders supporters, who read this paper and have hijacked its comment boards, have cowed the Times editorial board or the board might have mentioned Bernie Sander comically clueless performance on The News Hour last night. All he could say, and say and say, is that we have to work in coalition with Arab and European partners, get more and better intelligence and oh yeah, it’s going to be hard. He was obviously scripted by his campaign handlers. No matter how many times Judy Woodruff pressed him for details he could only keep repeating himself.
Why no one is making more of his complete lack of knowledge or acumen or interest in foreign affairs is crazy, he is no more ready to be the leader of the free world than Donald Trump is. Why the American people have seized on two men who bark a lot but are unfit for the office of the President is something historians will puzzle over forever.
Why no one is making more of his complete lack of knowledge or acumen or interest in foreign affairs is crazy, he is no more ready to be the leader of the free world than Donald Trump is. Why the American people have seized on two men who bark a lot but are unfit for the office of the President is something historians will puzzle over forever.
22
Ignorance reins supreme here -
If we had taken Bernie's advice in the first place we would have stayed out of Iraq. and this wouldn't have happened. Thanks Hilary!
The other would be emperors have no clothes.
If we had taken Bernie's advice in the first place we would have stayed out of Iraq. and this wouldn't have happened. Thanks Hilary!
The other would be emperors have no clothes.
Seems like President Obama just said that intelligence was not going to do the trick. I do not agree necessarily but it does reveal the thought process of Democrats, no intelligence needed, vote Clinton!
1
Voting against the Iraq war does not make Bernie Sanders an expert in Foreign Affairs and only the ignorant and his simplistic supporters would think it does.
5
I've read the many frustrated Bernie Sanders' comments. My question is simple, where is the revolution he speaks of, why are these "soldier" supporters not showing up at the primary voting booth? Are we seeing a 40-year Independent who is merely clothed as a Democrat to win a nomination, at any cost, including Trump or Cruz.
12
@Ted P
You're exactly right.
I'm fed up with this Bernie follower nonsense. Not only is Sanders a 40-yr Independent but in those 40 years he's done nothing of any merit or leadership in Congress and his supporters want him as President Sanders is the least presidential of the lot (bar Trump who's just a donkey).
HILLARY 2016!
#IMWITHHER
You're exactly right.
I'm fed up with this Bernie follower nonsense. Not only is Sanders a 40-yr Independent but in those 40 years he's done nothing of any merit or leadership in Congress and his supporters want him as President Sanders is the least presidential of the lot (bar Trump who's just a donkey).
HILLARY 2016!
#IMWITHHER
5
Hillary Clinton is the adult in the room when it comes to the current crop of presidential candidates on many issues but particularly on foreign policy. At least she sounds like a president. And to the many people asking what about Bernie, I say what about him? He hasn't exactly stepped up in the last 48 hours with any kind of substantial plan or even comments beyond the pedestrian ones he always makes about crushing Isis.
14
How do you know what Bernie has said? There's been an almost total media blackout (including MSNBC).
9
Is Islam a religion or a political system pretending to be a religion? I don't see how you separate the two. I have spent about six months in Saudi Arabia and have been hassled by the religious police because I was on the streets during prayer time. I would argue that most Americans who argue in defense of the religion have no clue about how intricately the religion is tied to the political system.
If we fought WWII with the same mindset we are fighting the war on terrorism the world would be a much different place and not in a good way.
If we fought WWII with the same mindset we are fighting the war on terrorism the world would be a much different place and not in a good way.
8
Ken, A little friendly advice here. When in a foreign country it is wise to at least appear to adhere to their customs, it helps take the target off your back and helps build respect. Or we could just go to North Korea, commit a crime and cry when the hammer that we knew was there finally drops!
2
And what's your view on guys like Cruz, who keep telling us that this is a Christian nation where we need more Gawd in Government?
1
Your comment shows your understanding of the religious police. I'm in town, away from my quarters, and the call to prayer starts. Now I have to find a place to get into that's still open. I'm not disrespecting their customs but I admit I let the prayer schedule get away from my attention. The more important point is the closeness of religious and political systems within Islam. I'm not sure terrorists should be allowed to hide behind the protection of religious freedom.
"Loose canons tend to misfire," say the Senator who ignored the provided evidence and voted for the Iraqi War because of a cynical calculation to shore up her "can-be tough" street cred. When will the media stop reinforcing her "experience trope" and look at her judgment? Thirty years of bad judgment is not the experience we should embrace particularly when her declarations do not represent any core belief but political stratagems? It is a truly sorry time when a nation of 315 million people can come up with only HRC, Donald Trump and Ted Cruz as the only viable candidates.
7
I remain amazed by some people's ability to see into hearts and minds like this. One would think you'd be in Vegas making a mint.
Sanders is the only viable candidate. Just listen to him (if the media ever covers him).
1
After thirty years of her dissembling, opportunism, poor decisions and plutocratic leanings, aren't those voting for her taking the biggest gamble? After a certain point, facts and actions should outweigh blinkered hope. In any event, I would advise you not to go Vegas.
No mention of Obama's "signature" anti-terrorist program: free-range droning.
Will Mrs Clinton continue his secret presidential strikes, which seem to be based upon his assumption of the CinC mantle? Will she assume this prerogative when Obama hands it off? What will she base this authority on? She suggests that the 2001 AUMF is rather long of tooth but will she repudiate it? Will she promise to request Congressional authorization as appears to be required under what's left of the constitution?
Will Mrs Clinton continue his secret presidential strikes, which seem to be based upon his assumption of the CinC mantle? Will she assume this prerogative when Obama hands it off? What will she base this authority on? She suggests that the 2001 AUMF is rather long of tooth but will she repudiate it? Will she promise to request Congressional authorization as appears to be required under what's left of the constitution?
4
Or will she continue with Obama's avoidance of the term "war" and instead use the term "kinetic action" to justify not even consulting with congress when she engages in regime change?
I have a hard time understanding how an announced campaign that's well-reported and on which the President has given several speeches is exActly what I would call secret.
Now if you're wanting to know exactly what the criteria are for the drone strikes, and exactly what we hit, I tend to agree--though I would note that if we're going to do these things at all, some of that has to be secret.
Now if you're wanting to know exactly what the criteria are for the drone strikes, and exactly what we hit, I tend to agree--though I would note that if we're going to do these things at all, some of that has to be secret.
1
I heard Cruz on Fox shortly after the terrible event in Belgium. Amazingly, in a converse way, he reminded me of FDR. During a crisis of a different sort, the Great Depression, FDR famously rallied the nation with the "only thing we have to fear is fear itself" oration.
In distinct contrast, Cruz (my interpretive summary here) told us that (1) we should embrace fear, even hysteria, in light of an impending terror-imposed apocalypse on the US; (2) this current state of affairs is President Obama's fault; and (3) he, Cruz, will solve the problem -- backed by his own foreign policy and anti-terrorism expertise -- by applying the label "radical Islamic terrorism", divorcing us from "PC", isolating the domestically suspected, and carpet bombing the Middle East (then vote for him).
Mr. Cruz, I remember FDR, and you're no FDR.
In distinct contrast, Cruz (my interpretive summary here) told us that (1) we should embrace fear, even hysteria, in light of an impending terror-imposed apocalypse on the US; (2) this current state of affairs is President Obama's fault; and (3) he, Cruz, will solve the problem -- backed by his own foreign policy and anti-terrorism expertise -- by applying the label "radical Islamic terrorism", divorcing us from "PC", isolating the domestically suspected, and carpet bombing the Middle East (then vote for him).
Mr. Cruz, I remember FDR, and you're no FDR.
13
FDR was in his third term when I was born... And you're so right. Cruz is the opposite of that great president -- and has none of his great characterisistics. We were lucky to have FDR -although GOP hate has never abated.
Give Nancy Reagan credit for saying no to,GOP,efforts to take him off the dime. His greatness still stirs anger with the right.
Give Nancy Reagan credit for saying no to,GOP,efforts to take him off the dime. His greatness still stirs anger with the right.
1
FDR put Japanese citizens in camps while letting a 5th column of German traders operate freely in this country because it was politically expedient at the time to lock away the Japanese but not Europeans Germans.
Hillary judged from within the framework of the 2016 presidential contest is hardly any striking endorsement of sterling presidential qualification. It is a sad day when the only choices are all a matter of culling out the full blown wackos and then finding the least worst alternative.
7
I'm no Clinton fan, but her rebuttal sounds better than Trump's solution? or Cruz's solution. Right now we don't have the problem in Muslim neighborhoods they have in Europe, most Muslims assimilate to a point with the rest of America so this is good. Clinton is an opportunist but sounds reasonable in her response, she has plenty of mistakes on her desk, Russian reset, Libya invasion, Benghazi etc. She's not much better in the foreign policy department but looks the most reasonable in this respect.
3
Make no mistake about it, if Hillary Clinton decided to use nuclear weapons in the Middle East, the editorial board would say it was a sensible approach.
The reality remains, there is no sensible approach in the Middle East since getting involved with a ridiculous war in Iraq, 13 years and counting, which ultimately led to all these problems anyway, should have never occurred.
Saudi Arabia has the third largest armed forces in the world, they are close by, let them handle it and spend their own money fighting these endless wars.
The reality remains, there is no sensible approach in the Middle East since getting involved with a ridiculous war in Iraq, 13 years and counting, which ultimately led to all these problems anyway, should have never occurred.
Saudi Arabia has the third largest armed forces in the world, they are close by, let them handle it and spend their own money fighting these endless wars.
12
Are ya starting to figure it out America. You don't have to be everywhere.
Two screwed up brothers took carnage on Brussels.
Let the Belgiums handle it.
Two screwed up brothers took carnage on Brussels.
Let the Belgiums handle it.
2
Trump's and Cruz's anti-terrorism blusters are non-starters out of the gate. Nothing else reveals the shallowness of their thought processes more clearly than their shoot-from-the-lip responses to foreign policy in all its forms. Both are utterly lacking in any experience or knowledge of military tactics and capabilities, the primary reason I will go to my grave firmly believing the Commander-in-Chief is better prepared for office by having served on active duty, whether it be as enlisted or officer, peace-time or war.
Hillary's proposals are more substantive but still fall short of an adequate framework for destroying ISIS, the Taliban, and related terrorist networks. Nothing and no-one will be able to accomplish this feat until the entire diaspora of non-terrorist Muslims takes the lead in beheading this Hydra.
Hillary's proposals are more substantive but still fall short of an adequate framework for destroying ISIS, the Taliban, and related terrorist networks. Nothing and no-one will be able to accomplish this feat until the entire diaspora of non-terrorist Muslims takes the lead in beheading this Hydra.
33
Maybe we could take some refugees and eventually get them into counterterrorism??
I just wish both Hillary and Bernie had the political skills of the President, who yesterday made the case in the most persuadable way after leaving Cuba, "As far as the notion of having surveillance of neighborhoods where Muslims are present, I just left a country that engages in that kind of neighborhood surveillance. Which, by the way, the father of Sen. Cruz escaped for America."
157
Obama's dance moves and his impeccable wave really put the hurt on ISIS! Obama is a national disgrace
1
What Obama should have also pointed out that Cruz's father (and Rubio's father, too) didn't flee Castro's Cuba but Bastista's. It might have been nice for someone to point out the myth that most of the anti-Castro Cubans in the U.S. like to believe: that Castro overthrew a democratic government which endorsed freedom instead of a corrupt one under the thumb of the Mafia that used secret police to keep all dissent quiet.
I bet most Americans are ignorant enough of history to believe the myth rather than the reality.
I bet most Americans are ignorant enough of history to believe the myth rather than the reality.
1
I think you should read what Sanders actually said.
1
Yesterday on MSNBC they said that since 2004 the US had lost 45 people to terrorism while Europe had lost 500. Now if we were to compare our 45 to the number we lost to gun violence, auto accidents, suicides, or cancer and spent the billions and billions that we spend on counter terrorism to cure these problems wouldn't we be a lot better off?
153
Perhaps you are confusing cause and effect. Did it ever occur to you that the relatively few American victims of terrorism is precisely due to the initiatives undertaken by the US since September 11, 2001?
2
You don't know that you're less dead if your killed by some criminal looking for money for a drug fix or by some loony with an assault weapon than if your killed by a terrorist.
I'm sure that there is science to prove this the same way that there is science showing climate change is a hoax.
I'm sure that there is science to prove this the same way that there is science showing climate change is a hoax.
Here's hoping you're 46
In other words, Trump and Cruz offered real solutions, while Clinton offered politically correct, neutral, poll-driven meaningless talking points that will change nothing. Thanks again for the honesty, Hill.
40
DRS - Check out the clip that was posted by Rima Regas - Bernie Sanders giving an interview to Anderson Cooper on his foreign policy views - so as to compare and contrast them with Mrs. Clinton's hawkish take, including her speech to AIPAC. Clearly, Bernie has a way more measured and, in my mind, hopeful and mature view of America's role in the world than Hillary does.
3
Sure, assuming that your idea of a real solution is bombing civilian areas, torturing people, and turning neighborhoods into walled ghettoes.
Personally, I'm an American. We kind of like the whole Constitution thingie. Oh, and at our best? We don't take counsel of our fears.
Personally, I'm an American. We kind of like the whole Constitution thingie. Oh, and at our best? We don't take counsel of our fears.
4
"Politically correct" is a cop out from one who has nothing substantive to offer but bluster and fear. Knowledge surpasses bluster to anyone with a common sense mentality.
3
She who encouraged "carpet bombing" of Kosovo, she who encouraged the destruction of Libya and killing Gaddafi, she who encouraged the use of proxy terrorists in Syria to overthrow Assad, she who encouraged the waterboarding, torture and imprisonment of Edward Snowden, she who encouraged the abandonment of our values by supporting the increasing surveillance state apparatus, she who encouraged the ground war with boots on the ground in Iraq (before she was against it), she who encouraged the "humanitarian support" of US corporations over the rights of the people in Haiti after their earthquake disaster, she who encouraged the overthrow of the Honduran President and the installation of a puppet dictator supported by "humanitarian" death squads, she who encouraged a diminishing of privacy and civil liberties by the backdoor access of personal information - all in the name of "security", she who encouraged and enabled the creation of ISIS and funded and armed them by a ratline from Libya to Turkey by supporting her so-called "moderate terrorist" groups, she who shows her lack of support of "communities, nations and people" by her support of the corporation-friendly and sovereign nation destroying TTP trade agreement, she who encouraged a continuation of the failed drug war and opposed the legalization of marijuana because of her "there's too much money in it" complicity with money laundering, drug and gun running major banks and Mexican cartels.
Yes, her record is spotless.
Yes, her record is spotless.
17
Blistering!!
Have you read the TPP? Without our involvement in Libya, would things have turned out much better? Do you have any data to support this hypothesis?
A very long list you've made, not enough time to discuss each claim.
Have you read the TPP? Without our involvement in Libya, would things have turned out much better? Do you have any data to support this hypothesis?
A very long list you've made, not enough time to discuss each claim.
3
Wow. Hillary Clinton is so powerful. If only it were true...
I'm sorry, but at what point was Edward Snowden ever tortured or imprisoned? He fled to Hong Kong and then Russia, remember? When did the US ever get a chance to torture and imprison him? I could pick apart every other point in your rant, but, I guess, why bother, eh?
1
" After the Brussels attacks, the G.O.P. front-runners offered bravado, while Hillary Clinton articulated a sensible approach to counter terrorism" ."
Hillary Clinton did not come up with anything new, I read this article carefully. Other than criticizing her opponents, (Donald Trump and Ted Cruz) she did not come up with anything.
"She offered specific short-term steps leaders in Europe could take"
Where are they? I see only one and I agree with that, the European governments should automatically alert their neighbors when authorities intercept a suspected militant at an entry point, that makes sense , I am surprised that it is not already done.
Hillary Clinton did not come up with anything new, I read this article carefully. Other than criticizing her opponents, (Donald Trump and Ted Cruz) she did not come up with anything.
"She offered specific short-term steps leaders in Europe could take"
Where are they? I see only one and I agree with that, the European governments should automatically alert their neighbors when authorities intercept a suspected militant at an entry point, that makes sense , I am surprised that it is not already done.
9
well there you go - Hil offers a sensible step that can be taken, and she is informed enough to know, factually, that this is an actual existing security deficiency in the Euro sphere; glaringly so ... no doubt she probably knows of others, but no matter ...
Trump/Cruz - disgusting boorishness masquerading as insight
Trump/Cruz - disgusting boorishness masquerading as insight
1
Did you read the entire speech and her other policy points or counter terrorism? Or, do you, like other Sanders supports, just criticize?
4
Come on, Padman, that's yesterday's news. This is an editorial response to her speech. The details are here and elsewhere: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/03/23/hillary-clinton-c...
1
Dear Editorial board......Did Bernie Sanders drop out of the race????
From your editorial I would have thought so although I also read the WSJ and know better. I must commend you, however, on your not so subtle endorsement of Secretary Clinton prior to the real presidential campaign.
Ed Burchianti
Williamsburg, VA
From your editorial I would have thought so although I also read the WSJ and know better. I must commend you, however, on your not so subtle endorsement of Secretary Clinton prior to the real presidential campaign.
Ed Burchianti
Williamsburg, VA
26
One idea not suggested that should be is for the US to withdraw and completely disengage from the region. Our involvement in the region since 2001 and before has done nothing to provide stability. The civil wars and related issues need to be resolved from within. The hubris of America insisting that it be involved in every issue in every corner of the world is causing much of the blow back that we are seeing. It’s well past time for us to come home and try to fix our manifest problems here.
13
Bad idea to disengage.
It's better to stay engaged with other nations with patience and dogged determination. Lot's of frustrations, sure, but every now and then these relationships can be leveraged to defuse problems that otherwise might grow into a crisis.
Case in point: our Navy boat that wandered into Iran waters. Had we not been engaged with Iran on other matters, this could easily have turned into a big kerfuffle. But Kerry picked up the phone and talked to his counterparts in Iran and quietly resolved the issue quickly and easily.
You never know when the next difficulty will arise, but it's best to stay engaged to improve the chances of handling it well.
However, I agree with your other point that we shouldn't try to fix every problem ourselves. Hillary Clinton agrees with that too, saying that we can't get ahead of other countries and try to do for them what they won't do for themselves.
It's better to stay engaged with other nations with patience and dogged determination. Lot's of frustrations, sure, but every now and then these relationships can be leveraged to defuse problems that otherwise might grow into a crisis.
Case in point: our Navy boat that wandered into Iran waters. Had we not been engaged with Iran on other matters, this could easily have turned into a big kerfuffle. But Kerry picked up the phone and talked to his counterparts in Iran and quietly resolved the issue quickly and easily.
You never know when the next difficulty will arise, but it's best to stay engaged to improve the chances of handling it well.
However, I agree with your other point that we shouldn't try to fix every problem ourselves. Hillary Clinton agrees with that too, saying that we can't get ahead of other countries and try to do for them what they won't do for themselves.
1
You do realize that the region being discussed here is Europe, Jeff? You actually think the U.S should withdraw from Europe? Hmmm.
2
Dear Editorial Board,
Could you please stop singing your noxious partisan praises for Hillary Clinton? The woman voted for the Iraq war. She was instrumental in destabilizing Libya. Values? What values? There is only one value. Her own political career.
Could you please stop singing your noxious partisan praises for Hillary Clinton? The woman voted for the Iraq war. She was instrumental in destabilizing Libya. Values? What values? There is only one value. Her own political career.
40
Honestly, the pandering to Clinton is appalling. Your reasoning is flawed. Your conclusions are sophomoric and Obama's' response is weak and has contributed to the heights that radical Islam has reached. As far as a religion of peace. Do you folks not read history books? A religion of peace does not sweep out of Saudi Arabia and reach the Pyrenees and the outskirts of Vienna with the aim to enslave the entire world. Looks like they just took a break and there we are again! Muslim beliefs (sharia law over rule of law, repression of woman, embracing slavery) have no place in the West and if they cannot submit to the rule of law they should be denied entry to the west.
11
You've heard of the Inquisition, right?
1
Who else but Hillary Clinton could come up with a savvy and believable plan on how to deal with ISIS, the Islamic State, that small but convincing army laced by the way with escaped prisoners released from Iraqi prisons during the earliest days of ISIS's sweep through Iraq. These are Iraqi men who were picked up off the streets of Iraq for just being in the wrong place at the wrong time when George Bush's "Surge' was sweeping through Iraq as the Bush Administration attempted to put more of a "Mission Accomplished" face to our Iraqi Invasion and now our exit (retreat actually)as Bush prepared to wrap up the last of his disastrous eight years as President of the United States.
Once again we are witnessing, in action, Hillary Clinton exhibiting just how prepared she is to hit the ground running when elected to the office of President of the United States.
The other side of the aisle's plan, Bluster!!!!, that's all they've got to offer, Trump, Katich, and Lyin' Ted Cruz, and it's is so emblematic of their chest beating charade, identical to the fictitious, the blusterous rants that came from behind the curtain in the fictitious Oz from another fake Wizard. Glowing glass desert sands, ten foot walls (passing over tunnels by the way), and getting our troops on the ground to show 'em we're the United States of America!!!!, so, Hands Off! (I believe it was a Walt Disney character who best summed up profane outrage, exclaiming, "Dag nab it," to it's audience.
Once again we are witnessing, in action, Hillary Clinton exhibiting just how prepared she is to hit the ground running when elected to the office of President of the United States.
The other side of the aisle's plan, Bluster!!!!, that's all they've got to offer, Trump, Katich, and Lyin' Ted Cruz, and it's is so emblematic of their chest beating charade, identical to the fictitious, the blusterous rants that came from behind the curtain in the fictitious Oz from another fake Wizard. Glowing glass desert sands, ten foot walls (passing over tunnels by the way), and getting our troops on the ground to show 'em we're the United States of America!!!!, so, Hands Off! (I believe it was a Walt Disney character who best summed up profane outrage, exclaiming, "Dag nab it," to it's audience.
15
@merc
"Once again we are witnessing, in action, Hillary Clinton exhibiting just how prepared she is to hit the ground running when elected to the office of President of the United States."
Merc, you're absolutely right and this is exactly what we need!
HILLARY 2016! #IMWITHHER
"Once again we are witnessing, in action, Hillary Clinton exhibiting just how prepared she is to hit the ground running when elected to the office of President of the United States."
Merc, you're absolutely right and this is exactly what we need!
HILLARY 2016! #IMWITHHER
7
If only there were someone else running, someone besides Hillary Clinton and the entirety of the GOP.
1
yes, the feckless leadership exhibited by Obama and HRC in conducting foreign policy in the middle east and in dealing with (i mean ignoring) terrorism, certainly provides a great blue print for going forward.
Somehow HRC believes we will defeat Jihadists by beating them over the head with our values. That might work if they shared our values, but they don't. Sometimes the only way to win a war is to obliterate the enemy -- see World War 2 -- Japan and Germany. We tried negotiation, we tried appeasement, we tried bringing them in to the family of nations. Didn't work. And this pacifistic approach never will when dealing with a determined enemy who has nothing but disdain for you.
There are nearly 50 million Muslims in western Europe. How many are radicalized? How many want to assimilate? I don't know, but you can be as PC as you want, but this represents a huge problem if there is even a small fraction of Muslims who are willing to carry out attacks and if most do not share western values.
Sometimes an iron fist is the only way. Or we can accept a growing number of increasingly deadly terrorist attacks on western soil. I want leadership that will use whatever means necessary to eliminate terror attacks. Period. What I don't want to hear are trite words about standing together that mean nothing.
Somehow HRC believes we will defeat Jihadists by beating them over the head with our values. That might work if they shared our values, but they don't. Sometimes the only way to win a war is to obliterate the enemy -- see World War 2 -- Japan and Germany. We tried negotiation, we tried appeasement, we tried bringing them in to the family of nations. Didn't work. And this pacifistic approach never will when dealing with a determined enemy who has nothing but disdain for you.
There are nearly 50 million Muslims in western Europe. How many are radicalized? How many want to assimilate? I don't know, but you can be as PC as you want, but this represents a huge problem if there is even a small fraction of Muslims who are willing to carry out attacks and if most do not share western values.
Sometimes an iron fist is the only way. Or we can accept a growing number of increasingly deadly terrorist attacks on western soil. I want leadership that will use whatever means necessary to eliminate terror attacks. Period. What I don't want to hear are trite words about standing together that mean nothing.
6
Hillary's response is almost as weak as Obama's "we must be together". At least he had an excuse. He had more entertaining things to get to.
Both responses beg the question, "And then what??"
Both responses beg the question, "And then what??"
It is highly doubtful that the correct approach to terrorism in the US articulated by Clinton will affect the support enjoyed by Trump/Cruz since their supporters, while enthusiastic, have clearly demonstrated devotion that is unencumbered by the thought process.
7
Sensible? This coming from a woman who voted for the Iraq war without first reading the intelligence report? And now she is a sage? The GOP candidates on the other hand were spouting nonsense, as expected, the more ludicrous the better the media coverage. Let's set record straight, Hilary Clinton and John Kasich voted for the Iraq war that ultimately gave birth to ISIS and the current crisis in Brussels. Ted Cruz, the prom king of government shut down, although too young nor eligible then to vote on invading Iraq in 2003, is currently the Paul Revere of lunacy. To be fair, Trump cannot be held accountable to any ills of our government and of the society, because he was never an elected official nor have any impact on what's happening in our world today other than being a reality show host on TV; unless you think he is your role model. That leaves us with Bernie Sanders, who voted against the Iraq war, as the only sensible, sane, and sage candidate on the presidential-wanna-be menu. So, who would you like to have today?
23
Why all the Hillary praise? Seems like she just gave the G.W. Bush response to 9/11 -- Lets spend more on intelligence and defense. There is no limit of funds for government contractors (great campaign contributors). But the government is going broke over providing government cheese to starving citizens.
Last thing I want is another conservative in liberal cloth.
Last thing I want is another conservative in liberal cloth.
13
FYI, Sanders said the same thing: we need more intelligence gathering and sharing, and we need to continue hitting ISIS in Iraq in Syria. That's a fact. There's a statement and video on his website.
2
So you want a socialist in Democratic cloth? I don't. I want someone who has been a Democrat all her life and didn't do it just to run for president.
1
First off, I'd like to point out that this piece was clearly an "Opinion" piece as opposed to a hard news story. Although I am sympathetic to many Bernie (& Kasich) supporters for their anger at the NYT for their arguably biased coverage of their candidates in some news stories, I'm not sure that should apply to Opinion pieces.
Secondly, I took a look at the speech itself after reading several of these comments. I agree with those who thought it was thoughtful, well reasoned, well prepared and clearly "presidential." Without denigrating any other candidate, I would encourage anybody on the fence to few the speech in its entirety. As with many other issues, I found Hillary's stated "plan" credible and certainly more substantive than others I have heard from other candidates.
Finally, to those who ask why her "plan" was not executed when she "had the chance" as Secretary of State - I would remind them; she was not the CEO at the time.
Secondly, I took a look at the speech itself after reading several of these comments. I agree with those who thought it was thoughtful, well reasoned, well prepared and clearly "presidential." Without denigrating any other candidate, I would encourage anybody on the fence to few the speech in its entirety. As with many other issues, I found Hillary's stated "plan" credible and certainly more substantive than others I have heard from other candidates.
Finally, to those who ask why her "plan" was not executed when she "had the chance" as Secretary of State - I would remind them; she was not the CEO at the time.
20
Since this editorial doesn't mention Senator Sander's responses re Brussels, this is one of the things the Senator, one of the "other candidates" vying to be POTUS, said:
"I think people get afraid, and for good reasons. ISIS is a disgusting, barbaric organization. We've seen what they've done in Paris, what they've done in Brussels. People are afraid of an attack in the United States. But I think what we have to understand is we're not going to undermine the Constitution of the United States of America in order to effectively destroy ISIS. At the end of the day, we cannot allow the Trumps of the world to use these incidents to attack all of the Muslim people in the world. That is unfair. To imply that if somebody is a Muslim they're a terrorist, that is an outrageous statement."
As in the past, Sanders also said that the "international community must come together to destroy ISIS."
Given Mrs. Clinton's past support for interventionist policies, her Standford speech should be viewed with some degree of skepticism. After all, as the Times' itself reported, she pushed for intervention in Libya which is now yet another stronghold for ISIS.
"I think people get afraid, and for good reasons. ISIS is a disgusting, barbaric organization. We've seen what they've done in Paris, what they've done in Brussels. People are afraid of an attack in the United States. But I think what we have to understand is we're not going to undermine the Constitution of the United States of America in order to effectively destroy ISIS. At the end of the day, we cannot allow the Trumps of the world to use these incidents to attack all of the Muslim people in the world. That is unfair. To imply that if somebody is a Muslim they're a terrorist, that is an outrageous statement."
As in the past, Sanders also said that the "international community must come together to destroy ISIS."
Given Mrs. Clinton's past support for interventionist policies, her Standford speech should be viewed with some degree of skepticism. After all, as the Times' itself reported, she pushed for intervention in Libya which is now yet another stronghold for ISIS.
23
And I'm supposed to know what Sanders would actually do when confronted by terrorism in the Oval Office? He talks a good lefty mishmash but specifics are absent. I think he doesn't really know what he would do; using a vote against the Iraqi war as a qualification to fight terrorism...seems like a stretch.
3
RK, thank you for writing this. Now I'm even more bemused at his supporters complaining about his lack of coverage on his response to the Brussels attack. There is NOTHING of substance in what he said - therefore not much to report. It seems to me that he repeats the same three phrases, gets ruffled when asked for more details, then repeats the same phrases louder. I am not impressed.
2
Senator Bernard "Bernie" Sanders is the preferred candidate of most Democrats, and in the general election he polls better against all the Republican Party presidential candidates than Mrs. Hillary Clinton. Mrs. Clinton polls poorly against Ohio Governor John Kasich, whereas Senator Sanders polls well against Governor Kasich.
Reminder: To become President of the United States, Ohio is a critical state to win in the 2016 Presidential contest in November.
To read more about the poll, go here: http://tinyurl.com/Democrats-Prefer-Sanders .
Reminder: To become President of the United States, Ohio is a critical state to win in the 2016 Presidential contest in November.
To read more about the poll, go here: http://tinyurl.com/Democrats-Prefer-Sanders .
9
@john, Clinton beat Sanders easily in Ohio. And Clinton has 2 million more votes and 300 more pledged delegates than Sanders so how are you figuring that he is more popular? People vote their preference by voting not showing up to rally.
3
Keep dreaming. Where you get the idea that he's the preferred candidate is just as ludicrous as the stuff coming out of the Repub side
3
In fact, Sen. Sanders is not the preferred candidate of most Democrats. Primary vote counts, particularly among Democrats as opposed to independents, contradict your assertion.
5
Years ago I was a river guide in Utah. Other guides often said that women were better at safely rowing the rafts through whitewater because they didn't have the physical strength that men had. They relied on their brains to keep the rafts afloat. It was said that men rowed stronger but women rowed smarter.
The Republican males running for president just want to blast or torture their way through the Middle East and through Muslim neighborhoods in Europe and America. That will only create more terrorists. Mrs. Clinton has ideas. The men want to have power through muscle but where has that gotten us? Clinton wants to end the problem through "smarts."
The Republican males running for president just want to blast or torture their way through the Middle East and through Muslim neighborhoods in Europe and America. That will only create more terrorists. Mrs. Clinton has ideas. The men want to have power through muscle but where has that gotten us? Clinton wants to end the problem through "smarts."
63
Are we talking about the same woman whose smarts brought us the Libya debacle?
1
Sure, that's what's been wrong with the country this entire time...no woman was in charge!!! Why didn't we think of that sooner? Oh yeah, because we are men.
Look again, Clinton's ideas are and have been power through muscle. If you are seeking diplomacy, go see what Sanders has said.
Look again, Clinton's ideas are and have been power through muscle. If you are seeking diplomacy, go see what Sanders has said.
Mrs. Clinton seems an obvious best choice for President, but somehow both Democrats and Republicans must stop Trump and Cruz. The Nation cannot afford either demagogue in these times.
45
Guess how to stop Trump (or Cruz): quit sandbagging Sanders!
This is the "Year of the Populist"...and you don't defeat a Populist with an Establishment Insider. Which is why Hillary polls consistently worse than Bernie against either of the Repugnants!
It seems increasingly probable that the Democratic Party Insiders would rather LOSE this election with Hillary, than WIN it with Sanders. SAME WITH THE Republicans: they'd rather lose it with Rubio or some other Party flack, than win it with Trump!
With both Parties determined to seize defeat from the jaws of victory, we'll see who wins the race to the bottom....
This is the "Year of the Populist"...and you don't defeat a Populist with an Establishment Insider. Which is why Hillary polls consistently worse than Bernie against either of the Repugnants!
It seems increasingly probable that the Democratic Party Insiders would rather LOSE this election with Hillary, than WIN it with Sanders. SAME WITH THE Republicans: they'd rather lose it with Rubio or some other Party flack, than win it with Trump!
With both Parties determined to seize defeat from the jaws of victory, we'll see who wins the race to the bottom....
Reading the NYT during this election cycle has taught me how important it is to diversify in one’s selection of new sources. The Clinton-bias here has become intolerable.
136
It is an editorial in the opinion pages. OF COURSE it has bias! This isn't news, this is opinion. You should understand the difference.
8
I guess you can't see the forest for the trees. If the truth in its obervation is bias then the NYT is bias.
1
EDG by all means find other news sources--how about Fox news and commentary. There should be a Hillary Clinton bias as she is the only one who is articulating policies and solutions that have a reasonable chance of being effective. Sorry Bernie, you have terrific sounding ideas that please liberals but have not said much that seems practical in these troubled times. The Times has given a fair hearing to Republican ideas by reporting on what they actually say. To think seriously about voting for one of the last 3 Republican candidates is beyond what I can or want to imagine. What if one of them wins the presidential election? That is a very scary thought.
2
One thing must matter above all else. Democrats must win the 2016 election. We must secure the Supreme Court. We must work for change within the flawed system that is our government, including gerrymandering. Bernie Sanders speaks the truth about the disaster of deregulation of Wall Street and big banks, but the change we need won’t happen because of one man’s integrity and determination. Our President will have to deal with the too many in our country who are deluded into thinking that government is the problem. Hillary Clinton’s lifetime experience prepares her better for the realities of domestic and world politics. I worry less about an occasional misstep. I trust her belief in the possibility of a country whose citizens can enjoy social justice, who believe in our common good, who pay their fair share of taxes, who have learned the hard way that a rush to war doesn’t solve humanity’s problems.
43
Hilary has been the on to "rush to war," more often than not.
The other flaws in this post, in both fact and logic are too numerous to mention, within the word limit prescribed.
The other flaws in this post, in both fact and logic are too numerous to mention, within the word limit prescribed.
Hillary’s lies helped covered up why ISIS overnight became a major terrorists’ threat.
Slippery Hillary’s lies about the Consulate in Benghazi was a cover for covert operations that was in direct violation of international law agreed upon and signed by Obama. According to the UN Agreement, even having knowledge about weapons leaving Libya without disclosing it was a direct violation.
The President and the Secretary of State violated international law and morality by using the CIA to round up hidden stashes of weapons in Libya and shipping hundreds of tons of arms to insurgents and terrorists to overthrow Assad’s government in Syria. All of this to support our ME allies who want a gas pipeline through Syria to the EU. Many of our allies’ mercenary terrorists ended up joining ISIS, making it what it could have never become on its own.
Slippery Hillary’s lies about the Consulate in Benghazi was a cover for covert operations that was in direct violation of international law agreed upon and signed by Obama. According to the UN Agreement, even having knowledge about weapons leaving Libya without disclosing it was a direct violation.
The President and the Secretary of State violated international law and morality by using the CIA to round up hidden stashes of weapons in Libya and shipping hundreds of tons of arms to insurgents and terrorists to overthrow Assad’s government in Syria. All of this to support our ME allies who want a gas pipeline through Syria to the EU. Many of our allies’ mercenary terrorists ended up joining ISIS, making it what it could have never become on its own.
11
You seem to have forgotten that the Obama administration is trying to deal with rat's nest of problems left behind by the "brilliant" strategies of the previous, Republican, administration. Considering that mess, I think they have done a remarkable job. I, for one, would not want to hand the ball back to anyone who holds the sort of mindset that got us into this mess.
1
Trump wants to retreat from NATO, Cruz wants to bomb the Middle East until the sand glows, Sanders wants everyone to hold hands, only Hillary Clinton wants America to be the unchallenged leader of not just the free world but the whole world.
22
Are you criticizing or lauding Hillary?
As for America being the “unchallenged leader of... the whole world,” that is the height of endemic American arrogance and the same power hungry fixation that took us into Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan -- all abject failures.
Our so called democracy is in tatters, our politics are perverted beyond recognition, and the broad American middle is under attack from within. The greatest threats are presented from within. Hillary is no panacea.
As for America being the “unchallenged leader of... the whole world,” that is the height of endemic American arrogance and the same power hungry fixation that took us into Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan -- all abject failures.
Our so called democracy is in tatters, our politics are perverted beyond recognition, and the broad American middle is under attack from within. The greatest threats are presented from within. Hillary is no panacea.
Iraq, 13 years and counting. Unchallenged leader, at what cost? Well, just keep doing what you are doing and America will become the unchallenged leader in bankruptcy and the quality of life of a third world country.
Michael, our president is repeating the mistakes from the past and Hillary will contine to lie to cover up the truth about those mistakes. Roman citizens didn't want to fight its own wars, so their leaders hired mercenaries.
American citizens don't want to fight its own wars, so Obama and our so-called allies hired, trained and armed mercenary terrorists to do the fighting instead of Americans. The weapons came from Libya supplied by CIA illegal covert operations and training of these terrorists was done by Americans, some here on US soil. The bulk of the money came from Qatar. The US is supporting the Saudis and Qatar who wants to build a gas pipeline through Syria. Assad wants the pipeline from Iran and Russia wants its own pipeline to the EU.
American citizens don't want to fight its own wars, so Obama and our so-called allies hired, trained and armed mercenary terrorists to do the fighting instead of Americans. The weapons came from Libya supplied by CIA illegal covert operations and training of these terrorists was done by Americans, some here on US soil. The bulk of the money came from Qatar. The US is supporting the Saudis and Qatar who wants to build a gas pipeline through Syria. Assad wants the pipeline from Iran and Russia wants its own pipeline to the EU.
I'm sure Senator Sanders had some thoughtful statements. Instead we get an advertisement for Hillary that the readers are paying for, unwanted.
68
This was a major policy address, not just "thoughtful statements". Bernie has only issued a statement on the Brussels bombing. Obviously that gets less coverage. And if I'm not mistaken, he blamed the bombing on on Wall Street and income inequality.
7
If so, why not do your candidate a favor, and include something he said, or provide a link? Or is the entire internet in on the fix?
1
You be correct if Sanders had a forgien policy.
4
Bernie's decisions to snub AIPAC last week, and offer nothing new after Brussels this week, are what left him out of this piece, not some shadowy Times’ plot to sideline him. This editorial does not include Senator Sanders' ideas on addressing jihadist terrorism in the wake of the Brussels attacks, because he didn't offer anything new.
Bernie did, of course, issue a thoughtful general statement on Belgium; but at Stanford on Wednesday, Secretary Clinton delivered a major address on combating terrorism while Cruz and Trump ad libbed about patrolling "Muslim neighborhoods," banning immigration, and alleged obsolescence of NATO. Clinton responded to the attack at the top of the news, and to the dangerous nonsense from the GOP with condemnation.
Clinton is leading Democrats towards a national election against the GOP radicals, while Bernie is off on the trail, trying to stir a revolution in our own party; which is one reason he’s losing the nomination, and the election is moving on without him.
Bernie did, of course, issue a thoughtful general statement on Belgium; but at Stanford on Wednesday, Secretary Clinton delivered a major address on combating terrorism while Cruz and Trump ad libbed about patrolling "Muslim neighborhoods," banning immigration, and alleged obsolescence of NATO. Clinton responded to the attack at the top of the news, and to the dangerous nonsense from the GOP with condemnation.
Clinton is leading Democrats towards a national election against the GOP radicals, while Bernie is off on the trail, trying to stir a revolution in our own party; which is one reason he’s losing the nomination, and the election is moving on without him.
55
This may be my last comment, as I have cancelled my NYT subscription, but I felt the need to respond to this comment. Hopefully, it will get published. Senator Sanders gave a very good, detailed, well thought out foreign policy speech the day of the AIPAC conference. Unfortunately, the conference would not let him do it by satellite and the main stream media did not broadcast it. His ideas were specific and detailed in relation to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I thought them balanced and fair. As far as the situation in the middle east and terrorism, he again gave specific and well thought out ideas. He's definitely a man who looks at the situation from all angles and has a very measured, realistic approach. I am unable to link the speech at this time, but I urge all to look it up and view it. I really have nothing against Secretary Clinton, except I just can't quite seem to trust her when it comes to foreign policy decisions. I only wish the NYT & other media would give Sanders an equal chance, so that more people could hear his message and make their decision with his speech in mind.
8
He didn't snub AIPAC. They wouldn't let him address by phone, which they've done for others. Why would they want to hear from the only Jewish candidate, whose father's family died in the Holocaust and who lived on a kibbutz, when they could applaud for Netanyahu's right-wing chums?
1
Sorry to see another human dumping one of the last real newspapers in print. Yes, we know that instead of going to AIPAC, Sanders opted for a speech on the campaign trail he had to know, few would ever hear or read about. If he had schlepped to AIPAC, the media would have weighed his remarks against Clinton's, and the others. But Sanders made a political choice- (probably to avoid ruffling the feathers of Israel-hating, BDS people in his ranks) to skip the venue all the cameras were pointed at. He's a long shot for the nomination of a party he joined about a year ago. If he wants to lead it, it's not enough to hit the campaign trail and hector people about billionaires and corruption. If you can't run a national campaign, and lead a national party- you lose. And the New York Times is not the reason, Bernie's amateur campaign is.
5
While praising Clinton for her " smart,substantive rebuttal" , the Editorial Board ignores the absence of any meaningful action.
In this, Clinton mirrors Obama.
The fears and frustrations of Americans are increased by this inaction and denial of the problem and fuels the desire for a strong leader.
Trump is not the answer, but neither is Clinton.
In this, Clinton mirrors Obama.
The fears and frustrations of Americans are increased by this inaction and denial of the problem and fuels the desire for a strong leader.
Trump is not the answer, but neither is Clinton.
15
If not Trump, if not Clinton, pray tell, WHO?
1
Re-read second to last paragragh in regards to inaction. Let's hope Clinton mirrors Obama.
2
Clinton is not an acting anything except candidate for President. In your continued denigration of Democrats, what would you insist she do, send a postcard? Hold her breath?
3
Reading this newspaper with its Clinton-bias, I've gone from disliking Clinton to despising her.
Probably not the psychological intent of the NYT Editorial Board. Probably more a result of “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:32) not being part of “All the News That’s Fit to Print”.
Probably not the psychological intent of the NYT Editorial Board. Probably more a result of “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:32) not being part of “All the News That’s Fit to Print”.
35
I like Bernie but certainly prefer Clinton over any republican.
1
I gather from your remarks that you are a proponent of torture and carpet bombing as well as separating out one religious group for indiscriminate condemnation. Enough said.
3
Bernie Sanders supporters remind me of the girl who drags her ugly pooch to the dog show--and then, when it doesn't perform or get noticed, laments..."what about MY dog--isn't he cute too"?
News flash: Bernie can't win the Democrat nomination--therefore, no need to include him in every political piece here. It's over--get over it.
News flash: Bernie can't win the Democrat nomination--therefore, no need to include him in every political piece here. It's over--get over it.
33
Jesse, this is a democracy, show me a law which says Bernie Sanders cannot RUN.
2
Agreed, he can run. Lots of people have thrown their hat in the ring for the highest office in the land--many had no chance to win-- and their opinions are not covered in the NY Times. Bernie Sanders has no plausible path to win the Democrat nomination. There is literally no use in soliciting or printing his opinions--they simply do not matter--any more than John Kasich's opinions matter at this point in time.
3
While I agree with you, I DO wish people in this country who call themselves Conservatives would learn to SPELL. It is the DEMOCRATIC party.
There is no "Democrat" nomination. Your speech gives you away.
There is no "Democrat" nomination. Your speech gives you away.
Part two in their ongoing vaudeville routine will be Margaret Sullivan asking why Bernie Sanders and John Kasich were not mentioned (although it might be interesting to include Jill Stein also) and hearing what totally ridiculous and shameless explanation they come up with.
15
Why doesn't this surprise me that all the candidates except Bernie are covered? Big money and the media are determining elections. Time for a change.
45
Senator Bernie Sanders gave a presidential response to the fear mongering and scapegoating. Why is it that the Times editorial board (and more egregiously, the news team) ignore what this presidential candidate said in response to the terror attacks. Yet again, it's only Hillary. For shame.
50
I listened to the interview between Judy Woodruff of the PBS news and Senator Sanders last night. When questioned by Woodruff on his views on ISIS, Senator Sanders gave an acceptable viewpoint: ISIS must be destroyed, with the best means of doing so a strong Muslim ground coalition supported by Western air power and infrastructure. He also is in favor of pushing the Emirates and Saudi Arabia to join in. Just how he plans to accomplish that remained unsaid, and that group has other fish to fry in the region. What he voiced were all general statements. When pressed for immediate and specific solutions Sanders waffled, circled his wagons and repeated the same mantra. He also said that "if someone with a Kalashnikov was hell-bent on a mission of terror no one could stop him." The Senator from Vermont is far from being ready for prime time with answers such as those. Being on the back bench and passing legislation by means of riders and amendments may suffice for his political curriculum vitae, but he needs to do his homework. You and your fellow supporters need to stop deifying Sanders, get off your moralistic high horses and realize that the Democratic party needs a common front.
2
No one is deifying anyone. Maybe reporters should investigate and the public inquire about who profits from never-ending wars.
please point us to that response rather than to your opinion of it. thanks!
At this point in the presidential race there are 4 candidates on the radar, 5 if you include Kasich.
The Times ought to have a daily roundup of each candidate now that the numbers are manageable. But instead the Times comes off as a homer for Hillary even when they run an editorial that looks like it is a summary of the candidate's positions.
If you compare Clinton to Trump and Cruz... of course she is JC, Gandhi, and Bono all wrapped into one. But that's not saying anything.
Who voted for the Iraq war? Who pushed the Libyan policy? Who is pro-settler? Come on! Clinton waste deep in the background to this story. Perhaps things would be even worse if not for her decisions. It's impossible to know. But her involvement in putting us here, now, is undeniable.
The Times ought to have a daily roundup of each candidate now that the numbers are manageable. But instead the Times comes off as a homer for Hillary even when they run an editorial that looks like it is a summary of the candidate's positions.
If you compare Clinton to Trump and Cruz... of course she is JC, Gandhi, and Bono all wrapped into one. But that's not saying anything.
Who voted for the Iraq war? Who pushed the Libyan policy? Who is pro-settler? Come on! Clinton waste deep in the background to this story. Perhaps things would be even worse if not for her decisions. It's impossible to know. But her involvement in putting us here, now, is undeniable.
26
What's with this expectation that editorials need to be "fair and balanced." This piece is an EDITORIAL: "An article in a newspaper or magazine expressing the opinion of the editor or publisher." (Random House Unabridged)
6
Dear mford,
I'm not sure where you want to go with this.
As an editorial, I should not have a critical response? [response: an answer or reply, as in words or in some action. Random House dict.]
As an editorial, I should not hope for good analysis?
As an editorial I should abandon any evaluation of the quality of an argument?
I have high standards. I want my editorials to make me think. Help me see another way to approach the issue. I didn't think this editorial was very insightful. Clinton is more rational than Cruz or Trump. That was the take-away. Hardly revelatory.
Who are you quoting when you write, "fair and balanced." Not me. I can only assume that it is FSN, in which case it should probably be "fair and balanced™".
I'm not sure where you want to go with this.
As an editorial, I should not have a critical response? [response: an answer or reply, as in words or in some action. Random House dict.]
As an editorial, I should not hope for good analysis?
As an editorial I should abandon any evaluation of the quality of an argument?
I have high standards. I want my editorials to make me think. Help me see another way to approach the issue. I didn't think this editorial was very insightful. Clinton is more rational than Cruz or Trump. That was the take-away. Hardly revelatory.
Who are you quoting when you write, "fair and balanced." Not me. I can only assume that it is FSN, in which case it should probably be "fair and balanced™".
Cruz and Trump are borderline psychopaths. We get it. Hillary is another candidate that wants to continue to meddle and interfere around the world. We get that too. If any of these three people I mentioned win the WH, we're in a deep load of trouble. The war-mongering and meddling and interfering will just continue. The NY Times and other news media outlets can continue to be shills for Hillary Clinton. I'm still casting my vote for Bernie Sanders.
27
A vote for Bernie IS a vote for Trump or Cruz. Bernie cant't win. Understand.
2
A clear, unvarnished view of the nation’s warmongers can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/the-warmongers.
3
I was driving in my car listeninung to her speech. Thinking thank god there is a person running for president who has knowledge and understanding of complex issues. Vote Hiliary!
29
I hear the passion in the comments supporting Bernie Sanders, and that's a good thing. Unfortunately that passion is translated into destructive attacks on Hillary Clinton that equate her leadership with that of a Donald Trump or a Ted Cruz. The truth is that Hilary Clinton is in a whole different universe when compared to the rest of the contenders in this presidential race. She has real world experience and she has really played the game on the real field rather than just armchair kibitzing from the sidelines which is all the others have done, including Sanders. She has a real history of decisions and actions with real consequences that people can take issue with, and the Republican machine has been doing that full tilt for the past two decades. The Republican party is going easy on Sanders because they would prefer him as the Democratic candidate over Clinton. To hear Sanders supporters quote Republican propaganda on Clinton to support their candidate just feeds my belief that many of them are GOP supporters in disguise using Sanders to undermine the Clinton candidacy.
33
Unfortunately she has a history of bad decisions but she is still much better than any republican.
Truest statement in that spin on the last 15 years is
“It would be a serious mistake to stumble into another costly ground war in the Middle East,” she said. “If we’ve learned anything from Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s that people and nations have to secure their own communities.”
The United States has to secure our own community and I do NOT trust that Mrs.Clinton has the answers to that challenge. If she did, she would have had some success in the past. Without going back to her husband's time when she was not elected, we can start from the reset button - wrongly translated - to Benghazi and we find no proof of competence. The truest statement on the campaign trail on Mrs.Clintons tenure as Secretary of State was that the number of miles traveled is not an accomplishment.
Our kindness and compassion to cultures and religions stops when they kill us.
“It would be a serious mistake to stumble into another costly ground war in the Middle East,” she said. “If we’ve learned anything from Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s that people and nations have to secure their own communities.”
The United States has to secure our own community and I do NOT trust that Mrs.Clinton has the answers to that challenge. If she did, she would have had some success in the past. Without going back to her husband's time when she was not elected, we can start from the reset button - wrongly translated - to Benghazi and we find no proof of competence. The truest statement on the campaign trail on Mrs.Clintons tenure as Secretary of State was that the number of miles traveled is not an accomplishment.
Our kindness and compassion to cultures and religions stops when they kill us.
15
To all Sanders supporters like myself. The Times has not analyzed Bernie's views on these attacks because he basically appears to be annoyed by the whole issue and disinterested. His policy statements are facile, show no depth and show that he has not given a great deal of thought to foreign policy. A grand coalition of Muslim nations to fight Isis would be great but how? His vote against the Iraq War was correct and his unwillingness to use extreme force is correct but he basically seems to just shrug the whole thing off. He sounds like a guy ranting in a coffee shop when it comes to foreign affairs. He shows no evidence that he understands the complexities of international issues and he probably does. He needs to develop his views and articulate them well. Hillary has all the leaders of the world on speed dial and she has Bill too. She's wrong on everything, Honduras in particular and Libya too but this is her turf.
He needs to step up his game because the media is not going to give him the same breaks that it gives know nothing Trump. Income inequality is the most serious issue we face but it will be overwhelmed by more terrorist attacks.
Who's the best on this issue? Barack Obama and John Kerry.
He needs to step up his game because the media is not going to give him the same breaks that it gives know nothing Trump. Income inequality is the most serious issue we face but it will be overwhelmed by more terrorist attacks.
Who's the best on this issue? Barack Obama and John Kerry.
15
And Hillary Clinton, whose candidacy is supported by both Obama and Clinton.
Sorry to break it to you, but most of us prefer Hillary - intelligent, rational, practical- to ranting Bernie. That's why she's getting more votes - we like her & prefer her for the White House.
It's past time for Bernie to fold his tent & gracefully concede.
Sorry to break it to you, but most of us prefer Hillary - intelligent, rational, practical- to ranting Bernie. That's why she's getting more votes - we like her & prefer her for the White House.
It's past time for Bernie to fold his tent & gracefully concede.
2
You don't sound like a Bernie suppporter or you'd know he has articulated sond foreign policy views. He just doesn't support the Washington war party.
1
Thank you for the cogent comments.
1
Hilary will do nothing to counter this scourge. At best continue failed policies at worse exacerbate the situation. She has proposed and endorsed polices and actions that have empowered and enabled Islamic terrorists. Embracing "multiculturalism" above all while simultaneously allowing marginalization with no attempt and assimilation has been the undoing of European states. At one point there was a melting pot, now, to quote apiece from yesterday, failed states within states. All points of view are not valid all beliefs are not to be embraced.
12
Interesting. By far, Clinton is the only candidate who has had the first-hand experience in foreign policy making and leadership. And so, why is it that the NYT Editorial Board does not touch upon her track record? She was a meddler instrumental to usurpation of publicly elected government in Honduras. She was an interventionist n Libya leading to its disastrous demise. As a senator she supported the Iraq invasion by casting a yes vote, which, we might surmise, led to most of today's chaos in the Middle East. Now, she sounds as if she is willing to "direct" European states in addition to all those. So, let me as you NYT, what's so impressive about this? A middle school kid (per my own child) can see that what Trump and Cruz propose is unconstitutional. Why compare Clinton's "wisdom" with those amateurs? Shouldn't she be judged on a different criterion? Or is this also "sexist" if I may be sarcastic? (Mind you, I'm also a woman -- colored at that in case you're wondering.)
29
What, exactly, is impressive about a Secretary of State who learned nothing from the consequences of the Iraq invasion? She believed Libya would somehow be different? Sorry, that's the definition of ignorance. Or hubris. Either way, extremely bad judgment.
3
It has been stated many times before, but, experience does not necessarily mean having good judgement. Just look at Cheney and Rumsfeld. They had all kinds of foreign policy experience yet, led the U.S. in to what was a total disaster in the Middle East. When it comes her past judgement in decisions about the area, her results have been, at best, mediocre.
2
When did we switch from groups murdering people and hoping NOT to be caught, to groups murdering people and CLAIMING the crime?
And, how come we serve their needs with body counts, running totals, and forensic gore.
It's an integrated world, folks... and, like it or not, we're playing their game.
And, how come we serve their needs with body counts, running totals, and forensic gore.
It's an integrated world, folks... and, like it or not, we're playing their game.
4
Hunkering down in a defensive stance whether it's the bigoted bluster on the right or the "smart" micro responses of the left is not the way to deal with the latest ISIS terrorist attack in Brussels. This is the moment for bold American leadership that entails taking advantage of the ceasefire in Syria to work out a plan for ending the civil war that would then allow a NATO-led military operation to eradicate ISIS in its secure home base and then also secure the peace there. Secretary of State John Kerry has been our most successful peace negotiator in modern times; he is the right person to get this job done following on his success in with the Iran nuclear deal and brokering the current cessation of hostilities in Syria. What has been sorely lacking across the political spectrum is a post-civil war vision of Syria. Now it the moment to address that issue that has stymied the West in dealing more effectively and forcefully with ISIS. Until we extirpate this cancer at its core it will continue to metastasize in terrorist attacks like Paris and now Brussels in Europe and perhaps even here. As in the past, only America can lead if we have the person with the courage and will to do so.
32
NATO marching on the secure home base of ISIS.....Saudi Arabia?
1
Along with that, we must work out a way to save the refugees and find them a safe place to go. Then we need to help them move out of the camps and into mainstream society through education.
The US must do more in this respect. We accepted many from Somalia and Viet Nam among other places. We must make a similar effort towards the refugees coming from the Middle East.
The US must do more in this respect. We accepted many from Somalia and Viet Nam among other places. We must make a similar effort towards the refugees coming from the Middle East.
How would a post-civil war Syria differ from a post-civil war Iraq?
How about supporting Democracy, instead of Hillary? I haven't had a chance to vote in a primary yet, nor have hundreds of thousands of other Americans, yet the Times has all but determined that our votes don't matter, that they can just declare Hillary Clinton the candidate, and tell the rest of America to go along with their proclamation.
The Pro-Hillary forces in the media, who refuse to cover Bernie Sanders, are not doing Mrs. Clinton any favors. They are turning serious Democratic voters away from ever supporting her "inevitable" candidacy - especially the younger voters - by showing not only bias, but by making it obvious that the Hillary Fix is in. This is back-room-dealing-as-usual, and it is exactly what Sanders' supporters object to most.
The Times and other news outlets assume that Sanders' supporters are likely to cross over to Hillary once she wins the nomination. That's a very risky bet to make at a very dangerous time. Hillary's chances of beating Trump are slim, and she will need all of Bernie's supporters in November, if indeed she becomes the nominee.
The Pro-Hillary forces in the media, who refuse to cover Bernie Sanders, are not doing Mrs. Clinton any favors. They are turning serious Democratic voters away from ever supporting her "inevitable" candidacy - especially the younger voters - by showing not only bias, but by making it obvious that the Hillary Fix is in. This is back-room-dealing-as-usual, and it is exactly what Sanders' supporters object to most.
The Times and other news outlets assume that Sanders' supporters are likely to cross over to Hillary once she wins the nomination. That's a very risky bet to make at a very dangerous time. Hillary's chances of beating Trump are slim, and she will need all of Bernie's supporters in November, if indeed she becomes the nominee.
47
Secretary Clinton has dealt with leaders throughout the world and is the ONLY candidate running who has the knowledge and gravitas to handle the tough issues we face now and will face in the future. And she's actually a DEMOCRAT, not a maverick interloper!
18
Being a "DEMOCRAT" is not a positive thing to a lot of independents.
2
Well, Bruce, an Independent who has declared he is a socialist, should not be running as a Democrat. That is not a positive thing to a lot of Democrats.
1
Tough words, until the next attack.
Let's see, the President wants to engage Big Papi, and his running mate has no clear plan other than "don't offend them". And the readers are upset because the big bad NYT didn't mention Bernie.
Wake up people, this is not a religious agenda, it is a geopolitical movement. They know the West has a weakness for religious freedom, and they use it as a weapon against us. The same way they use women. children, and hospitals as shields.
Watch tomorrow, when ISIS plans to crucify a captured Catholic Priest from Syria on Good Friday.
This is not a game, it is not a political discussion. It is the early stages of a 30-40 year war.
You cannot kill these people with words as Mrs. Clinton might think, what you need is 20,000 or so US Marines that are trained to kill.
By the way, her comment about a wall can't keep out the internet is the dumbest pandering I have heard, the internet requires someone on this side of the wall to receive the message. That is what the wall is for.
Let's see, the President wants to engage Big Papi, and his running mate has no clear plan other than "don't offend them". And the readers are upset because the big bad NYT didn't mention Bernie.
Wake up people, this is not a religious agenda, it is a geopolitical movement. They know the West has a weakness for religious freedom, and they use it as a weapon against us. The same way they use women. children, and hospitals as shields.
Watch tomorrow, when ISIS plans to crucify a captured Catholic Priest from Syria on Good Friday.
This is not a game, it is not a political discussion. It is the early stages of a 30-40 year war.
You cannot kill these people with words as Mrs. Clinton might think, what you need is 20,000 or so US Marines that are trained to kill.
By the way, her comment about a wall can't keep out the internet is the dumbest pandering I have heard, the internet requires someone on this side of the wall to receive the message. That is what the wall is for.
6
Dream on. What happened when we put five times as many troops as you propose into Iraq? ISIS - that's what. Wake up and face the reality that exceptionalism isn't based on physical power alone. Unfortunately, we lost our ability to be moral leaders after 9/11 with our misdirected adventures in the middle east. Neocons don't have the right answers for the 21st century.
1
Her internet/wall content was as bad as her "wiping the disk with a cloth" comment. She's just not all that smart. Way, way overrated.
Does a Saunders presidency really seem sensible at this moment? He is untested in foreign policy, he is rather rigid in his world view albeit a left of center world view, he has no coalition in Congress whatsoever, and the list of disadvantages goes on and on. I am really amazed as a fairly liberal democrat that voters would want a "revolutionary" change, considering how well revolutions seem to be evolving around the globe. Hillary is the natural successor to the Obama Presidency, which has been successful in countless ways, steering the country through perilous times. She is not perfect of course, no one is, but for God's sake she is far closer in terms of intelligence, experience, leadership capabilities, etc., etc! And please spare me emotional Bernie defenders, and leave mysogynistic responses at the door!
27
At this point in the election season it makes sense to reference any candidate who has gotten a substantial number of delegates. It is clear that this paper believes it's not the job of media to gauge whose policies are sensible or not and to avoid quoting nonsense. If that were the standard the New York Times held they would almost never quote Trump on anything.
2
Right. Just follow President Bill's advice? "[I]f you believe we've finally come to the point where we can put the awful legacy of the last eight years behind us and the seven years before that where we were practicing trickle-down economics, then you should vote for her." He was spot on about the Obama legacy. About the rest, not so much...
You could also say about The Hillary Brand® that, "she has been a complete failure in foreign policy, she is rather rigid in her world view albeit a right of center world view, she has no coalition in Congress yet, and the list of her disadvantages and failures goes on and on. I am really amazed as a fairly progressive and populist democrat that voters would want a "revolutionary" change to the extreme right, considering how much of a failure the revolutions she has instigated seem to be evolving around the globe." All mysogyny aside…
1
"G.O.P. front-runners offered bravado, while Clinton articulated a sensible approach to counterterrorism."
Are you kidding me? At the risk of stating the obvious, it is a lot easier to avoid mosquito bites by keeping the mosquitos out of the home rather than trying to avoid them once they are inside. The naivete exhibited by some never ceases to amaze me.
Are you kidding me? At the risk of stating the obvious, it is a lot easier to avoid mosquito bites by keeping the mosquitos out of the home rather than trying to avoid them once they are inside. The naivete exhibited by some never ceases to amaze me.
5
And suppose this editorial had mentioned Bernie Sanders? Unless The Editorial Board was prepared to say "and, of course, the best proposal for fighting terrorism comes from Bernie Sanders which is of course not surprising since his towering proposals on any subject dwarf those of all other candidates, especially those of Hillary", the pro-Bernie partisans would still feel that their hero did not get his due, that the NY Times has become a tool of Wall Street, that the threat of subscription cancellations should not be taken lightly etc, etc.
16
Once again, the Times has covered a major speech and described the content and once again, the Bernie Sanders apologists have taken to the fore. This is becoming tiresome. Bernie Sancers had every opportunity to put his proposals on how to accomplish his goals front and center. He hemmed and hawed and never defined how he could turn the system upside-down. Worse, he engaged in name calling the financial sector, similar to the muslim divisiveness of Trump. Worse still, he never fielded any sort of list of candidates to vote for that might implement his pie-in-sky promises if elected. Now along comes the best speech in quite some time about how we need to revise our look at and actions toward terrorism, and the Times is told, "where's the comments by Bernie?". Well, I'm sure those comments will be reported on, as soon as Sanders can stop promising things we know he cannot deliver, and makes such a cohesive, reasoned speech. Till then, he and his supporters can dream a dream.
28
It seems that now to hear the views of all the candidates it is necessary to also read other broader newspapers. In frustration of the Times obvious ignorance of Bernie Sanders my quick google of Bernie Sanders on xxxx brought me coverage of Bernie in a number of other less 'of record' papers.
I still trust the Times on other issues just not on fair coverage of the Democratic Presidential race.
I still trust the Times on other issues just not on fair coverage of the Democratic Presidential race.
18
Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat. He is an independent.
2
Repeal the 22nd Amendment for the sake of peace, stability and common sense.
1
Along with 1 through 21, while we're at it.
We'll just have Hillary rewrite the Constitution and make sure that "we the people" references are eliminated and changed to "we the corporations"…
We'll just have Hillary rewrite the Constitution and make sure that "we the people" references are eliminated and changed to "we the corporations"…
@will w:
"Repeal the 22nd Amendment for the sake of peace, stability and common sense."
Better read the Constitution before making suggestions...
"Repeal the 22nd Amendment for the sake of peace, stability and common sense."
Better read the Constitution before making suggestions...
1
While I agree that the rhetoric coming from the Trump and Cruz camps is troubling, I also believe that Hillary Clinton should be judged on her record not her speeches. We can only guess how Trump or Cruz would act if they had actual foreign policy responsibility; with Hillary Clinton we know. Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State. Lets look at her record. The current administrations foreign policy has been a mess; she has to own some of that. Lets look at what she has done, not what she says she would do.
73
I believe the SoS has the obligation to carry out the policy of the Commander in Chief. Even if Secretary Clinton felt differently, she would advise, but the final policy if from Obama. So, contrary to your assertion, let's listen to what she would do.
10
Barbara:
If this were the case, Obama's policy must have undergone a radical change when Kerry became Secretary of State.
I would argue that foreign policy is not all that important to Obama. Otherwise, he wouldn't have put someone as inexperienced as Clinton in that role. Kerry has his own agenda and is desperately seeking his own legacy; hence, his frenetic activity level.
If this were the case, Obama's policy must have undergone a radical change when Kerry became Secretary of State.
I would argue that foreign policy is not all that important to Obama. Otherwise, he wouldn't have put someone as inexperienced as Clinton in that role. Kerry has his own agenda and is desperately seeking his own legacy; hence, his frenetic activity level.
2
"Even if Secretary Clinton felt differently, she would advise, but the final policy if from Obama."
I gather from what you say that you agree that "The current administrations foreign policy has been a mess..."
I gather from what you say that you agree that "The current administrations foreign policy has been a mess..."
There are two overlapping but analytically distinct domains here. First, the Republican candidate domain, a world of bluster and ignorance calculated to sound good to the Party base, not to be confused with any approximation of reality. Are Trump and Cruz envisioning more patrol cars driving down the street without specifying how that will affect thinking? Or are they envisioning more informers in mosques, more wiretaps, more surveillance despite evidence these accomplish little except reduce potential information exchange? To see dimwitted embrace of ineffective methods as a campaign strategy speaks volumes for their leadership potential.
The second domain is the Clinton-as-candidate domain. The New York Times is so in bed with her candidacy that it has no more credibility than supermarket tabloid reports Elvis will be her chief-of-staff. But more to the point, Hillary Clinton has a long record of dubious judgment regarding American military and diplomatic moves abroad. Her rush to assure the principal architect of turmoil in the Middle East of her unequivocal support condemns the United States to be a legitimate target of those objecting to our support for repression of the Palestinians. She is not an honest broker but an accomplice whose urge to pander places her in the same camp as Trump/Cruz. If they display an eagerness to scrap the Constitution Clinton makes manifest her arrogance and contempt for those believing peace in the Middle East requires social justice.
The second domain is the Clinton-as-candidate domain. The New York Times is so in bed with her candidacy that it has no more credibility than supermarket tabloid reports Elvis will be her chief-of-staff. But more to the point, Hillary Clinton has a long record of dubious judgment regarding American military and diplomatic moves abroad. Her rush to assure the principal architect of turmoil in the Middle East of her unequivocal support condemns the United States to be a legitimate target of those objecting to our support for repression of the Palestinians. She is not an honest broker but an accomplice whose urge to pander places her in the same camp as Trump/Cruz. If they display an eagerness to scrap the Constitution Clinton makes manifest her arrogance and contempt for those believing peace in the Middle East requires social justice.
16
Wrong! Clinton offered "we gotta" solutions as if no one has been doing any gottas for the last seven years. At least Trump and Cruz offered specific things they would do immediately to protect America. Let us not forget that the incompetence of the Clinton/Obama crowd gave us this nightmare to begin with because of their feckless and inept leadership in the world.
42
Hey 'Jack', a little FYI....
... those 'Marvel Comix' you've been reading are fiction....
... those 'Marvel Comix' you've been reading are fiction....
17
Sure-----Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld had nothing to do with the Iraq War and destabilization of the entire Middle East.
And the earth is also flat and the moon made of green cheese.
And the earth is also flat and the moon made of green cheese.
24
I read this and was startled at the thought of short memories and/or rewriting of recent history. ISIS is a product of the Cheney/Bush regime, plain and simple, Remember they did things like installing Nouri Al-Maliki as Prime Minister and the 'de-baatthification' programcompletely disenfranchising Sunnis -- some of whom are the leaders of ISIS today. Like the seven headed hydra the more we meddle the more heads sprout atop the monster. At least with Pres. Obama and SOS Clinton and Kerry, now we've got a nuclear agreement that tamps down Iran, chemical weapons removed from Syria and a host of other achievements that haven't involved opening up another endless deadly war front that kills and maims our young soldiers and refugees alike while bleeding the treasury dry. The only thing feckless and inept over the past seven years is the Republican led congress' shrill and vile attempts to regain power at the cost of cooperation and collaboration with the President on the war effort or any effort that would benefit of our citizens.
25
Why dont you discuss what the candidate Bernie Sanders had to say?
And, all day long on CNN, a repetitive litany of what Trump, Cruz and Clinton had to say about the bombings. Not a word about Bernie Sanders.
And, all day long on CNN, a repetitive litany of what Trump, Cruz and Clinton had to say about the bombings. Not a word about Bernie Sanders.
16
Because he is a non-issue. Not a leading candidate for the presidency. Too far behind in delegates. They didn't refer to Kasich either.
9
Terrorism doesn't arise randomly in people who are inexplicably evil. It arises where brutality has set an example, and society offers no possibilities. The US, in its arrogant, short-sighted military adventurism, has done more to create terrorism than any country on earth. And Hillary Clinton has played a significant role.
14
Right on, Portia! We are the largest exporter of terrorism in the world with the largest military budget and army to back it up, and armed with a belief of "exceptionalism" to justify all the mass deaths and destruction we have caused around the globe - the Hillary Brand® is ready to jump into the fray once again.
Once again, the NY Times shows itself to be little more than an annoying lapdog for the Clinton campaign. So Hillary doesn't think increased law enforcement presence in Muslim communities is a good idea!? She certainly thought it was a good idea in the 1990's when she was calling African American males "Super Predators" and helping her racist husband pass laws to put many more police in the black community. Clinton's anemic response to Brussels-- we just need better intelligence-- demonstrates the same confused, aimless strategy that is the hallmark of the Obama administration, and of Clinton's tenure at the State Department. Now both Syria and Libya are safe havens for ISIS. If Clinton has her way, ISIS will be opening branch offices in Detroit. Which, if they're willing to vote Democrat, would I guess be okay with Clinton.
21
Excellent, Jack!- "If Clinton has her way, ISIS will be opening branch offices in Detroit. Which, if they're willing to vote Democrat, would I guess be okay with Clinton."
By that time, she will have disarmed everyone except ISIS and with her leading the charge down Woodward Avenue in the motor-city wielding her Concealed Carry Firearm she gets as a gratis perk for her political stature, she'll make sure the "average American" is kept under a blanket coverage of surveillance and lined up for the lowest wage jobs that are left after the TTP gets underway.
By that time, she will have disarmed everyone except ISIS and with her leading the charge down Woodward Avenue in the motor-city wielding her Concealed Carry Firearm she gets as a gratis perk for her political stature, she'll make sure the "average American" is kept under a blanket coverage of surveillance and lined up for the lowest wage jobs that are left after the TTP gets underway.
1
Bernie voted for that same crime bill and it was supported by many, many prominent members of the black community, both elected and private sector. As a country, we got it wrong. To hang that solely on Hillary is disingenuous at best, or a flat out lie at worst.
4
It was clear from Clinton's speech at Stanford that she "get's it". While Trump and Cruz sound like they are one step away from closing our borders and putting American Muslims in internment camps. Indeed the Republican candidates' rhetoric will be great recruiting tools for ISIS, Al Qaeda and aid in self-radicalization. Hey America you've got a choice to make in the upcoming election: it is The Age of Enlightenment vs. the Spanish Inquisition.
37
Why is it that anytime Hilary Clinton makes news with her commentaries, we hear a lot of "What about Bernie? You didn't mention Bernie." Hilary Clinton did not take Bernie to raise. He needs to make his own headlines.
36
You did't know? There is a Bernie media black out. You know why because the Clintons Own the system it is rigged in their favor.
4
Got it - Hilliary is a god on these pages.
So why didn't Hillary do the things she says we need to do while head of the State Dept? Why now?
Oh, darn! I forgot - she want's to be elected and the NYT is forcing that.
So why didn't Hillary do the things she says we need to do while head of the State Dept? Why now?
Oh, darn! I forgot - she want's to be elected and the NYT is forcing that.
42
The electorate is forcing it by voting for her. Bernie does not have broad enough appeal to win the majority of delegates. Witness how far behind he is with almost zero chance of catching up.
12
A breathe of fresh air among the fumes of the GOP candidates
21
In case you haven't noticed that sensible approach isn't working very well. What are the editors going to say when one of these terrorists commits mass murder using a nuke or a dirty bomb? Time to stop with the pc nonsense take off the gloves and destroy radical Islamic terrorist before they have a chance to commit mass murder. if they succeed it will then be too late . The world will be forever changed for the worse
1
I agree with Secretary Clinton that we can't abandon our values as we respond to and attempt to prevent these criminal activities - the scariest part of the Cruz and Trump positions are that they are not abandoning their values they are embracing them.
12
Once more Clinton is rejecting her own failed policies and experiences by stating that it "would be a serious mistake to stumble into another costly war". Her whole Senatorial and Secretary of State career was one of stumbling into disastrous wars and conflicts that are the origins of today's problems. Bernie Sanders has been upfront on the foreign policy mistakes over the last 16 years and offers solutions. But Clinton gets quoted and Sanders is no where to be heard in the article.
29
Obama said it best yesterday. When something bad happens, you don't just immediately blow something up for the sake of blowing it up. Effective counterterrorism requires planning and patience. Knee jerk reactions solve nothing. The leading republican candidates continue to try and out brag each other. Their campaigns emphasizing how spectacular their knee jerk reactions would be. A true clinic in schoolyard chest thumping. Embrace the strongman Putin, because he's a tough guy (just ignore that authoritarian regime thing). Embrace alienating a few billion Moslems as a strategy, throwing out the constitution in the process. Bring back torture, because governments had it right in the dark ages. According to Trump, we somehow lost our way as a society after the 1600s. Deep thought, nuance and complexity aren't emotionally satisfying for the blood thirsty extremist. The really is, fighting terrorism isn't fast easy or cheap. It's complex, expensive and will take decades. It will be imperfect. It will require constant adjustments in strategy. It will take the laser focused tenacity of our best and brightest to rise above the images of carnage and actually work the problem. No candidate has demonstrated these abilities more than Hillary Clinton. No one has even come close.
32
"No candidate has demonstrated these abilities more than Hillary Clinton. No one has even come close."
The only way this can be true is if you assume, along with the NYTimes, that Bernie Sanders is not a candidate. Otherwise, all of the accolades just given to Clinton apply to Sanders as well - BOTH candidates view counterterrorism as a long and complex process, as well as fitting the other positives you apply to Clinton, so none of the accolades separate the two.
Please, you don't win a debate by pretending one of the debaters doesn't exist.
The only way this can be true is if you assume, along with the NYTimes, that Bernie Sanders is not a candidate. Otherwise, all of the accolades just given to Clinton apply to Sanders as well - BOTH candidates view counterterrorism as a long and complex process, as well as fitting the other positives you apply to Clinton, so none of the accolades separate the two.
Please, you don't win a debate by pretending one of the debaters doesn't exist.
Obama does what he does best: Talk about what everyone else is doing and saying. He's never as brilliant as when he's critiquing someone else.
It's a shame it matters not what candidates say but what he does and has done. He's responsible, not them.
It's a shame it matters not what candidates say but what he does and has done. He's responsible, not them.
If I did not subscribe to the NY Times I would never have known how wonderful and super capable Hillary is. It makes you wonder why so many people find her so unlikeable
21
Ha!
4
Besides not mentioning Bernie Sanders, there seems to be no mention of how Hillary Clinton's past policies--voting for the Iraq War and promoting the overthrow of the Libyan and Syrian governments as Secretary of State--helped create ISIS and the terrorism we see today. Clinton's "experience" is certainly not the solution to the terrorism problem. If we want a leader with real solutions, better not listen to the N.Y. Times or other corporate media that ignores what Bernie Sanders has to say.
40
There goes wonky Hillary again, giving a thoughtful and largely correct response to the tragedy in Brussels.
Thoughtful ? Largely Correct ? I can hear the criticisms from the left and the crazy right already.
Hey, why not nominate Bozo the clown ?? I'm sure he'd poll well, too.
Thoughtful ? Largely Correct ? I can hear the criticisms from the left and the crazy right already.
Hey, why not nominate Bozo the clown ?? I'm sure he'd poll well, too.
19
When Barak and Hillary went to Washington in 2009 the Islamic State and al-Qaeda in Iraq were defeated and decimated. The Taliban was on the run in Afghanistan. When Hillary left Washington both ISIS and the Talban were strengthening and growing. Now look at what Obama's "JV team" ISIS is doing today. Their policies have been a disaster.
Based on these results, why would any sane person actually listen to Hillary when she speaks of terrorism and the Islamic State? She and Obama had their chance and failed miserably. It is time to move on.
Based on these results, why would any sane person actually listen to Hillary when she speaks of terrorism and the Islamic State? She and Obama had their chance and failed miserably. It is time to move on.
8
Your post is astonishingly wrong on historical and intellectual levels.
14
Exactly ...
4
I haven't heard a single analysis of Cruz in the Times or elsewhere that points out that Muslims aren't confined to a single neighborhood in town.
Perhaps this implicit acceptance of racial near-apartheid in housing and worship deserves some thought beyond legislation or police action.
Such as, perhaps, social interaction (including living as neighbors) with "the other."
Perhaps this implicit acceptance of racial near-apartheid in housing and worship deserves some thought beyond legislation or police action.
Such as, perhaps, social interaction (including living as neighbors) with "the other."
4
The Problem with Hillary--her strategy will never be calculated to get results against terrorists--just results in opinion polls. It's a Clinton thing.
The problem with Bernie--beyond Republicans, the Koch Brothers, Corporations and the "one-percent", there is no such thing as "evil"--and therefore, no strategy to defeat them is required. And pacifism in the face of true evil is a fail. Ask France--or Belgium--or Spain.
The problem with Bernie--beyond Republicans, the Koch Brothers, Corporations and the "one-percent", there is no such thing as "evil"--and therefore, no strategy to defeat them is required. And pacifism in the face of true evil is a fail. Ask France--or Belgium--or Spain.
6
Jesse the Conservative:
As a self-described conservative, you have no interest or capacity for gathering information. IN FACT, Jesse, ISIL targeted France precisely because France had engaged in an extended, aggressive bombing campaign against ISIL and robust military/diplomatic support –– far beyond what America has offerred––to ISIL's Syrian opponents.
Do consider another motive for posting other than advertising the Right-wing's risible ignorance and militant mendacity.
As a self-described conservative, you have no interest or capacity for gathering information. IN FACT, Jesse, ISIL targeted France precisely because France had engaged in an extended, aggressive bombing campaign against ISIL and robust military/diplomatic support –– far beyond what America has offerred––to ISIL's Syrian opponents.
Do consider another motive for posting other than advertising the Right-wing's risible ignorance and militant mendacity.
5
Clearly, you have not listened or heard any discussions about Sanders and his foreign policy related to the Middle East. He has no qualms about the evil of ISIS and what is going on there and that they must be dealt with. The question is how because up until now foreign policy decisions in the area have been a total failure.
What he states is that the countries in the area must take a much more significant leadership role in fighting these terrorists groups, since up until now, they have relied to a great extent on America and her allies whom are spending trillions in the process while the Saudis, in particular, with one of the largest Air Forces on the planet, have had a free ride.
Remember, 13 years and counting in Iraq, trillions spent and where has that led to?
What he states is that the countries in the area must take a much more significant leadership role in fighting these terrorists groups, since up until now, they have relied to a great extent on America and her allies whom are spending trillions in the process while the Saudis, in particular, with one of the largest Air Forces on the planet, have had a free ride.
Remember, 13 years and counting in Iraq, trillions spent and where has that led to?
1
You are exploiting terrorism to push your favorite candidate.
What did Sanders say?
What did Sanders say?
50
Good question. I don't know what Sanders says. Do you? Apart from arguing against interventionism and in favor of a two state solution in the Middle East?
8
Umm, that the NYT only has ONE favorite candidate ?
1
No, she offered the some old pap and pablum that has gotten Europe, and us, into this mess. Open borders and mindless Multiculturalism are the currents that Islamists exploit to enter our society, and once there, Diversity and Cultural Sensitivity guarantee that we cannot remove them.
9
It is reassuring to see at least one one of the presidential candidates respond with maturity, detail, and intelligence to a heinous event at at time when others prefer to grandstand and/or criticise each other. As for not referring to Bernie in her Stamford speech, as some comments here seem to worry about, i find that refreshing rather than problematic. Not everything need be adversarial or about the horse race. As much as I would support Bernie should he win, the Brussels attack is simply not about HIM. We need a democrat in the white house, especially given the alternatives of Trump or Cruz, and a leader who can understand foreign policy and act with a detailed understanding of what to do in crisis situations. On this Thursday morning it is clear that one candidate stands above all others in this respect.
291
The title of the editorial is: "Hillary Clinton and Other Candidates on Counterterrorism." Bernie is still an "Other Candidate." The NYT's neglecting to mention him is deliberate and sad. I find what Senator Sanders has to say on this issue far more compelling than Clinton's unconvincing platitudes.
6
Not Stamford but Stanford. Not CT but CA. The campaigning has shifted westward for now. Hillary and the Clintons have a huge following in Silicon Valley, Hollywood and wherever Big money exists. there is no other place today where so much inequality exists as in CA. The wealthiest of states also has one of the largest and growing homelessness in the country. Visit Sacramento and you will see how many homeless live on the streets, in the parks. The Internet bubble has benefitted only a handful of people, techies and VCs, the rest are left way way behind.
5
It's not that Secretary Clinton didn't refer to Senator Sanders that has upset folks. Rather, it's that once again the "paper of record" pretends that he does not exist in their coverage of events both "horse race" and otherwise. The Times continues to do a disservice to its readers by framing the Democratic race as over.
9
So, on this issue, an honest bit would basically say this:
Donald Trump and Ted Cruz favor indiscriminate government-sponsored harassment and even torture of Muslims.
Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, and John Kasich all say that this is wrong, both legally and strategically, and that we're at war with ISIS, not Islam, and there's extremely important differences between the two.
That this paper would put in Clinton's, Cruz's, and Trump's views while leaving out Sanders and Kasich tells me that the NYTimes is trying to give the impression that only Clinton is advocating restraint and the rule of law. An impression which is demonstrably false, according to information published in their own pages.
Donald Trump and Ted Cruz favor indiscriminate government-sponsored harassment and even torture of Muslims.
Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, and John Kasich all say that this is wrong, both legally and strategically, and that we're at war with ISIS, not Islam, and there's extremely important differences between the two.
That this paper would put in Clinton's, Cruz's, and Trump's views while leaving out Sanders and Kasich tells me that the NYTimes is trying to give the impression that only Clinton is advocating restraint and the rule of law. An impression which is demonstrably false, according to information published in their own pages.
50
Mr. Cruz's remark about patrolling "Muslim neighborhoods" is inane. I live near O'Hare in a neighborhood with a significant Muslim population (both Arab and from central Europe). There are lots of Moms in head scarves waiting for kids outside the local public school. That said, there are also many more Christians, a healthy dose of Hindus, Buddhists etc., etc. Even if it was Constitutional, Mr. Cruz's "plan," if we can call it that, is utter nonsenses practically speaking.
22
I agree totally. One of our strengths is that we have been able to integrate Muslims, and others, better than European cities where they tend to be marginalized in certain neighborhoods. This is something we can be proud of. Let's not throw it away.
12
The New York Times is continuing to ignore the Sanders' candidacy and Mr Sanders views and positions in spite of numerous complaints from many readers. It is unlikely to affect the readership numbers. However, why don't the Editorial Board realize that it feeds voter cynicism, in a period when less cynicism, not more is desperately needed? That the Times can choose to support one candidate over others is its prerogative, to ignore those it does not support is bad journalism and dishonest !
230
You have that one exactly right, Jack. I continue to lose respect for the Times more & more each day.
8
Where is Bernie Sanders' experience in foreign policy? When was he last in Europe or Asia? When did he last meet with, discuss issues with, any foreign leaders? He is a fine, decent man. He is not of the same stature globally as is Hillary Clinton, or Bill Clinton. He does not have name recognition. We are now in a small world, and a dangerous world. We need to work closely with world allies; we need to know them; we need to have doors open to our leaders and their points of view. Obama has been a very good U.S. President, a known quantity around the world. That is what we need, a known quantity. Hillary Clinton meets that requirement, a known quantity. There is no room for a learning curve in a world where we have already upended the ME under "W" and Cheney. We cannot completely isolate from the mess they created, the Baathists, now ISIS, and we cannot put boots on the ground. We need an experienced leader.
7
Chris, between Hillary and Bill, they own the entire globe, they have met almost all leaders who are alive or dead. So what is your point? Hillary has the advantage of being a first lady where she met all the leaders that the Clintons entertained. Through their foundation they wooed wealthy leaders and foreigners to donate to their foundation making it into a $2 billion global empire. All this while back room deals were being made with Hillary as Sec of State.
1
Hillary Clinton enthusiastically voted for the Iraq war. A war that created a power vacuum allowing al Qaeda and other terrorist groups to flourish. She now calls that vote a mistake, but as Sec. of State she advocated bombing Libya, subsequently chuckling, "We came, We Left, He died." Libya is now a hotbed of terrorist activity including ISIS. Hillary urged Obama to send ground troops into Syria, chiding him when he did not. She was Sec. of State as weapons were funneled by the CIA from Libya to Syrian rebels.
Hillary is a war monger and a hawk. Every decision she makes creates more terrorists. Anyone who believes Hillary is moderate in her foreign policy responses is not looking at her historical record.
Hillary is a war monger and a hawk. Every decision she makes creates more terrorists. Anyone who believes Hillary is moderate in her foreign policy responses is not looking at her historical record.
95
If your alternative is the Republicans. I will take the hawkish adult.
19
Anyone who believes Clinton is a moderate on foreign policy has been reading the cheap PR the New York Times publishes for her daily pretending that ti is "election coverage".
So I learned what the "two leading Republicans" called for.
And then there were 8 paragraphs with summaries and quotes of Mrs. Clinton.
And not a word--not a reference--about Sanders.
Why do you even bother to pretend this is analysis? It's flacking. And not very well disguised flacking at that.
And then there were 8 paragraphs with summaries and quotes of Mrs. Clinton.
And not a word--not a reference--about Sanders.
Why do you even bother to pretend this is analysis? It's flacking. And not very well disguised flacking at that.
314
This is easy, Siobhan: everyone has stopped covering Bernie--since the stark realization (by everyone except zealots and true believers) that he cannot win. You won't find discussion of Christie, Fiorina, or Martin O'Malley--because they also no longer matter.
16
Jesse: You know how the news doesn't predict who the winners of an election are until the polls have closed? How they don't announce who the projected winner is at 5 pm if the polls are open until 9?
Well, there are a bunch of states, and voters, who have yet to vote in the Democratic primaries. And some of those voters might be what you're labeling zealots and true believers--ie, Sanders supporters.
The fact that some Clinton supporters are ready to stop the primaries right now, and label any remaining Sanders supporters as unbalanced, doesn't mean the rest of us must agree and go along with that.
Well, there are a bunch of states, and voters, who have yet to vote in the Democratic primaries. And some of those voters might be what you're labeling zealots and true believers--ie, Sanders supporters.
The fact that some Clinton supporters are ready to stop the primaries right now, and label any remaining Sanders supporters as unbalanced, doesn't mean the rest of us must agree and go along with that.
14
Perhaps you have not noticed. Sanders is still running in the primaries, the others you mentioned , are not.
3
Hillary and the Democrats have repeatedly shown that they are incapable of properly assessing threats to our security. From the President on down they have been focused more on being sensitivity and tolerance. Their policies have reflected this attitude and the the idea that we should respond to these threats is lost on them.
5
But as others have stated, at least Hillary has looked Presidential in the process. That's all that matters to this voter base; no substance at all.
2
Those sound suspiciously like oft-repeated talking points, robcerra. Can you give specific examples?
5
Oh you mean like Grorge Bush?
The way he protected us from 9/11?
Is that what you mean ? How focussed he was on "protecting "us?
The reason ISIS exists now is due to Bush and Cheneys
4 trillion dollar war in Iraq, in a region where no stability exists giving rise to terrorism.
Can't blame the democrats for that.
The way he protected us from 9/11?
Is that what you mean ? How focussed he was on "protecting "us?
The reason ISIS exists now is due to Bush and Cheneys
4 trillion dollar war in Iraq, in a region where no stability exists giving rise to terrorism.
Can't blame the democrats for that.
15
It isn't always nice to have someone from overseas tell you how to behave but Clinton's criticisms of European intelligence services are spot on.
As far as regards the role of technology in solving this problem I think there is a huge need to translate basic educational material into Arabic and disseminate it widely across the Middle East. Women in particular need to be given the tools that will enable them to think critically and to confront the systems that are oppressing them. I don't see any hope of change unless women are incorporated into the decision making process - and for that to happen they need access to education. Academic texts but also material dealing with women's health and sexual education.
The countries of the Arab League have one of the lowest rates of publishing, purchasing and reading books in the world. This seems like an area where the tech crowd could actually achieve some very useful social change.
As far as regards the role of technology in solving this problem I think there is a huge need to translate basic educational material into Arabic and disseminate it widely across the Middle East. Women in particular need to be given the tools that will enable them to think critically and to confront the systems that are oppressing them. I don't see any hope of change unless women are incorporated into the decision making process - and for that to happen they need access to education. Academic texts but also material dealing with women's health and sexual education.
The countries of the Arab League have one of the lowest rates of publishing, purchasing and reading books in the world. This seems like an area where the tech crowd could actually achieve some very useful social change.
33
"Hillary's sensible approach to terrorism...."
Thanks for the laugh. What is sensible about countering the savagery of terrorism?
Thanks for the laugh. What is sensible about countering the savagery of terrorism?
20
Read the op-ed. It explains with context.
8
How about John Kasich or Bernie Sanders, New York Times? You know they are candidates as well and probably fall into the "other candidate" territory you reference. We know, none of these people are "your" candidate and in a way this editorial comes across as desperate. And there was nothing smart or substantive about Hillary's comments. It's more of the same political speak. She offered nothing new. What's Hillary's plan? To not engage out of fear that it would bring us deeper into any conflict, while we sit and watch our friends and allies get bombed and suffer throughout the world? We wait for it to happen here and then form more political speak? That's her plan?
Oh to the authors of the article "What Drives Siblings to Unleash Terror? Nice job on that one..Can't imagine what went into writing that masterpiece and taking away from the real reason these people committed these crimes; Religious extremism.
Oh to the authors of the article "What Drives Siblings to Unleash Terror? Nice job on that one..Can't imagine what went into writing that masterpiece and taking away from the real reason these people committed these crimes; Religious extremism.
19
I am starting to see that religion and truly has nothing to do with this, it is only the color of the mask worn by a particularly dangerous psychopath.
The two who blew themselves up in Brussels were not religious, and not radicalized - only organized and weaponized by some fellow psychopaths. They, and vast majority of the recent bombers and shooters, were just common garden variety violent criminals, with a chance to use a bigger gun to make a bigger bang.
Our strategies for defeating common thugs who escalate to terrorism would be much better informed by studying criminal psychopathy than by studying Islam.
The two who blew themselves up in Brussels were not religious, and not radicalized - only organized and weaponized by some fellow psychopaths. They, and vast majority of the recent bombers and shooters, were just common garden variety violent criminals, with a chance to use a bigger gun to make a bigger bang.
Our strategies for defeating common thugs who escalate to terrorism would be much better informed by studying criminal psychopathy than by studying Islam.
3
Only one problem here, Bernie said all of this before Hillary. I will again ask my repeated question. Is anyone at home on the NYT Editorial Board?
211
The NY TIMES is one of Hillary's secret super-pacs, skewing every article with one goal...electing Hillary, which to her credit has alienated and created more ISIS sympathizers in the past 10 years than anyone. The NY Times has ceased be an unbiased reporter of the news...their mission is to create the news.
4
When did Senator Sanders say "all this"?
Hillary probably did herself no favors by her adult response to Brussels.
If anything is evident during this election cycle, it’s a rejection of establishmentarian politics. Hillary, of course, is the poster-gal for establishment politics. It’s not just among the hordes of frustrated middle-class whites yearning for an older, more prosperous America where they enjoyed a more central role that we see this rejection and consequent popularity of a Donald Trump – it’s also the young and Independents on the left, whose frustration manifests as overwhelming support for Bernie Sanders. Are all those dissatisfied Americans more likely to support an establishment Hillary or an activist Donald Trump who evidences convictions that both right AND left could support? I suggest that it’s a very open question. We may discover the answer soon.
The intemperate remarks of both Donald Trump and Ted Cruz probably pretty closely approximate the emotions of a people who don’t believe that our constitution is a mutual suicide pact and want to feel safe in their homes. They’re also most probably not how either man would govern if sitting in the Oval Office. But they’re certainly remarks that address the perception that it’s been over fourteen years since 9/11 and we’re still seeing outrages perpetrated against the West by Islamist jihadists. And people are getting a little impatient with “adult” responses to the threat.
So, don’t be too sure that Hillary locked in votes by being an adult.
If anything is evident during this election cycle, it’s a rejection of establishmentarian politics. Hillary, of course, is the poster-gal for establishment politics. It’s not just among the hordes of frustrated middle-class whites yearning for an older, more prosperous America where they enjoyed a more central role that we see this rejection and consequent popularity of a Donald Trump – it’s also the young and Independents on the left, whose frustration manifests as overwhelming support for Bernie Sanders. Are all those dissatisfied Americans more likely to support an establishment Hillary or an activist Donald Trump who evidences convictions that both right AND left could support? I suggest that it’s a very open question. We may discover the answer soon.
The intemperate remarks of both Donald Trump and Ted Cruz probably pretty closely approximate the emotions of a people who don’t believe that our constitution is a mutual suicide pact and want to feel safe in their homes. They’re also most probably not how either man would govern if sitting in the Oval Office. But they’re certainly remarks that address the perception that it’s been over fourteen years since 9/11 and we’re still seeing outrages perpetrated against the West by Islamist jihadists. And people are getting a little impatient with “adult” responses to the threat.
So, don’t be too sure that Hillary locked in votes by being an adult.
67
I don't think Trump or Cruz are concerned that people ought to "feel safe in their homes." They want people to be afraid, and to be afraid about some things (terrorism, Muslims, Mexicans, Democrats, health insurance) instead of others (gun violence, environmental collapse, economic insecurity, etc).
17
The difference in tone and substance between the reactions yesterday by Hillary and the republicans doesn't -as you say- lock in votes now. But it lays markers in a longer debate about who to trust on security. The two republican candidates are speaking to their bases for short term gain but Hillary is playing the long game, showing resolve, poise, substance and logic. Think how these different responses work in any eventual debates in the Fall campaign!
15
Indeed. Emotion is such a great way to make decisions -- they may not turn out very well, but it FEELS so right! And impatience is always the best reason for 'doing something.'
11
It does Hillary no favors to irritate readers constantly with extreme bias that does not even mention her rival.
It also does Hillary no favors to ignore the screaming elephant in the room -- as Sec of State she did and supported things like Gitmo and other black prisons, harsh interrogation, and extremes of secrecy about those things and more such as drome killings. If she ignores that, readers do remember. You'd do her a favor by dealing with it.
But then, you might end up not supporting her. She does not match her words with anything she has done with power.
It also does Hillary no favors to ignore the screaming elephant in the room -- as Sec of State she did and supported things like Gitmo and other black prisons, harsh interrogation, and extremes of secrecy about those things and more such as drome killings. If she ignores that, readers do remember. You'd do her a favor by dealing with it.
But then, you might end up not supporting her. She does not match her words with anything she has done with power.
230
Mark Thomason,
The editorial is about the stark difference between the comments made by Hillary and other candidates yesterday after the bombings in Brussels. The editorial can't really mention Sanders because as usual Sanders shrinks from any comments or recommendations at all (beyond calling it 'barbaric').
And what the editorial is saying is that Hillary aced another test of a future president and the others failed the same test, opting for bizarre proposals (Trump and Cruz) or no comments at all (Sanders).
You say the Times writers fail to mention Hillary being involved in things like drone killings, but in fact the Times mentions Obama's campaign against jihadists in a positive light, that his targeted program is to be respected.
The editorial is about the stark difference between the comments made by Hillary and other candidates yesterday after the bombings in Brussels. The editorial can't really mention Sanders because as usual Sanders shrinks from any comments or recommendations at all (beyond calling it 'barbaric').
And what the editorial is saying is that Hillary aced another test of a future president and the others failed the same test, opting for bizarre proposals (Trump and Cruz) or no comments at all (Sanders).
You say the Times writers fail to mention Hillary being involved in things like drone killings, but in fact the Times mentions Obama's campaign against jihadists in a positive light, that his targeted program is to be respected.
15
Keep dreaming Mr. Thomason.
The NYT endorsement of Hillary Rodham Clinton has already been written, waiting in the computer system.
What have not been written, but are done so daily, are the articles defending her chronic lies and demonizing any Republican pointing out her difficulty with the facts and the truth about those facts.
The NYT endorsement of Hillary Rodham Clinton has already been written, waiting in the computer system.
What have not been written, but are done so daily, are the articles defending her chronic lies and demonizing any Republican pointing out her difficulty with the facts and the truth about those facts.
2
Nonsense. Senator Sanders gave his sensible views on the PBS news hour last night, while the clueless anchor commented that she 'didn't understand' how a coalition would defeat ISIS, and then said he didn't have any chance of getting the nomination. I doubt she would have been so clueless and rude to Hillary. Senator Sanders believes, like King Abdullah of Jordan, that there need to be Muslim troops on the ground and that the US and Europe should support them financially. Sounds like common sense to this voter.
9
I watched her speech, her tenor and tone, and simply felt, this is what presidential looks like. Cool, calm, but steely.
I look at Cruz and Trump with their knee jerk reactions, threats, and illegal proposals, and cringe at either having any major decision-making power in a world crisis.
I look at Cruz and Trump with their knee jerk reactions, threats, and illegal proposals, and cringe at either having any major decision-making power in a world crisis.
234
That is what I noticed too, cool, calm, steely, voice appropriately pitched in the low pocket...what a great act. All act, no substance.
15
@Jane: I beg to differ. Did any Hillary hater ever concede for one second that this a woman of substance who is in command of her thoughts and viewpoints? This was no "act" Jane: this is a woman of substance I would be proud to call Madam President.
55
@Christine McMorrow
Christine, you're absolutely correct that Hillary is more presidential than any of them. She certainly deserves to be our president in Nov.
HILLARY 2016 #IMWITHHER
Christine, you're absolutely correct that Hillary is more presidential than any of them. She certainly deserves to be our president in Nov.
HILLARY 2016 #IMWITHHER
13
It is becoming more apparent that it no longer makes sense for me to subscribe to the NYTimes. This once reputable, icon of unbiased reporting, is anything but that. This is one more article that does NOT INCLUDE opinions of all the candidates running for President. Bernie Sanders has provided the smartest and logical foreign policy views this past week. He voted not to go into Iraq, and, look at his web site, predicted exactly what would happen if we went into Iraq. He predicted what would happen in Libya. He feels we should provide financial, and economic aid to Middle Eastern countries to help them solve their own problems. While Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, she has not always made the wisest decisions, and, her, and our hawkish Republican candidates have got to stop thinking we can use our military might to solve their problems. We have made them worse.
246
Senator Sanders is NOT even a democrat.Why is he running for President as such?He dosent stand a chance to win the November election.He is merely collecting money for himself from the poor deluded citizens who believe his pie in the sky promises that he knows very well that he nor anyone else can pass in Congress.He is a pathetic waste of time as well as being a phoney politician.He is even more full of himself that Donald Trump.
15
Nannie, we the people are funding Bernie's campaign. He has opened our eyes to the rigged system, in politics, in the economy and in the government.
9
@Nannie Turner
Beautifully said! My first objection to Sanders has always been that he is not a Democrat and that he's criminally appropriating MY party to fund his pie-in-the-sky campaign which I believe has more to do with him being nearly 75 and terrified of retirement than any practical, altruistic desire to be president. He was/is a totally mediocre Congressman for 26 years!
Get out of the way, Bernie. He's like that irritating fly that just won't leave the room.
Beautifully said! My first objection to Sanders has always been that he is not a Democrat and that he's criminally appropriating MY party to fund his pie-in-the-sky campaign which I believe has more to do with him being nearly 75 and terrified of retirement than any practical, altruistic desire to be president. He was/is a totally mediocre Congressman for 26 years!
Get out of the way, Bernie. He's like that irritating fly that just won't leave the room.
10
I again must object to you leaving out the candidate getting the biggest crowds, has a good delegate count *better than the Rs and has a better response on war, ISIL, Israel/Palestinian conflict than HRC, who sounded moderate while at Stanford but is an unrepentant hawk who will have us plunged into more war in more places before her cabinet's named.
You NYT may have decided Sanders has no path to the nomination, but many states/people left to vote. And many prefer Sanders plan on this issue especially.
Democrats used to have an anti-war voice, now silenced by all elite institutions. So many so dependent on nothing changing--HRC's the one plus amped up 'counterterrorism'. Please! This is a GOP stance.
The political apparatus denying us full information in msm is dismaying, unless the "all the news fit to print" has been thrown over for "all the news we decide is profitable".
What IS up with the continued blackout on Sanders, after being called on it? Kasich has no delegates but you throw him in, so What Is It against Bernie?
You NYT may have decided Sanders has no path to the nomination, but many states/people left to vote. And many prefer Sanders plan on this issue especially.
Democrats used to have an anti-war voice, now silenced by all elite institutions. So many so dependent on nothing changing--HRC's the one plus amped up 'counterterrorism'. Please! This is a GOP stance.
The political apparatus denying us full information in msm is dismaying, unless the "all the news fit to print" has been thrown over for "all the news we decide is profitable".
What IS up with the continued blackout on Sanders, after being called on it? Kasich has no delegates but you throw him in, so What Is It against Bernie?
208
Actually, Kasich wasn't included on this either, and does have delegates, so I'm also trying to figure out why the Paper of Record (TM) carefully left out both his and Sanders' statements on this matter.
And for what it's worth, Kasich also offered remarks also suggesting the same kind of restraint as Sanders and Clinton, as reported in this obscure publication unknown to the New York Times apparently:
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/03/22/john-kasich-warns...
I write this as somebody who has little use for Kasich as a governor, and will be just as glad that he's not elected president, but give credit where credit is due.
And for what it's worth, Kasich also offered remarks also suggesting the same kind of restraint as Sanders and Clinton, as reported in this obscure publication unknown to the New York Times apparently:
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/03/22/john-kasich-warns...
I write this as somebody who has little use for Kasich as a governor, and will be just as glad that he's not elected president, but give credit where credit is due.
5
Finally people are waking up to see that the Dem party can and does at times act exactly like the GOP, and that our news sources can be just as biased as Fox News.
2
Q: As you wrote :"What IS up with the continued blackout on Sanders, after being called on it? Kasich has no delegates but you throw him in, so What Is It against Bernie?"
A. Senator Sanders is not Secretary Clinton. But there's no bias, it's just that the editorial board is getting worried about the Secretary's chances and needs to black out any mention of the Senator. Who expected this editorial board to be anything other than a monolithic loudspeaker.
Ed B
Independent
A. Senator Sanders is not Secretary Clinton. But there's no bias, it's just that the editorial board is getting worried about the Secretary's chances and needs to black out any mention of the Senator. Who expected this editorial board to be anything other than a monolithic loudspeaker.
Ed B
Independent
1
I saw a snippet of an interview with Ted Cruz where he was challenged on his idea of having police patrol muslim neighborhoods. He "clarified" himself by saying that police should be patrolling *all* neighborhoods. Wow, now there's a terrific new idea! Let's have police patrol all neighborhoods, keeping an eye out for criminal activity! And ya know, we can expand on that! Let's give police special cars they can use to help them patrol neighborhoods, and we can paint them in a special way to let everyone know that the police are there. Let's take it further; let's give police special radios they can use to coordinate their efforts. Yes, let's seize on Cruz's novel idea and run with it. Good grief.
73
Actually, the Internment Camps out West could be reactivated by Cruz for the Muslims instead of being Museums and maybe build a nice wall around each of them. TC is just as Bat Crazy as Trump...
5
...oh, yes, and give them special uniforms so we'll all know they are, in fact. police--and not brush salespeople. Good grief, is right! : )
2
Why is it that Madame Clinton's proposals are damned no matter what she says or does? Knees jerking all over the place instead of
Her proposed next step, to drastically revamp how intelligence is done in the US and Europe, is spot on. If one looks at exactly how the latest predators were captured in Belgium and France, it was done with a combination of police shoe leather, the consciences of friends and a taxi driver willing to communicate with the police, and tapping into phone records.
Our fully understandable emotions are preventing us from engaging with knowledgeable and experienced leaders such as Madame Clinton. We are going to need many, many new and solid ideas to beat this "scourge", and I worry that emotions have been whipped so high that those ideas will not be thought of or heard in all of the din.
Her proposed next step, to drastically revamp how intelligence is done in the US and Europe, is spot on. If one looks at exactly how the latest predators were captured in Belgium and France, it was done with a combination of police shoe leather, the consciences of friends and a taxi driver willing to communicate with the police, and tapping into phone records.
Our fully understandable emotions are preventing us from engaging with knowledgeable and experienced leaders such as Madame Clinton. We are going to need many, many new and solid ideas to beat this "scourge", and I worry that emotions have been whipped so high that those ideas will not be thought of or heard in all of the din.
39
Of all the martial arts, Judo is best known for being that wherein one uses the size and offensive power of one's opponents against them. If that's so, then it is possible we might have seen something like Ms Clinton's effective use of a classically executed Judo throw against her two biggest and most offensive opponents in this contest. Cruz' wildly misguided Fantasia summons imagery straight out of Hollywood of jack-booted regimes seeking to win asymmetrical conflicts by sending in well-armed targets whose only effective result is to harden a community's resolve or create animosity where none currently exists. Meanwhile, to characterize Trump's suggestions--which seek primarily to capitalize on other's fears--as having their roots in a form of cowardice that would only embolden our rivals on the international stage was a deft move indeed and one that most in the media would not credit her. I think it's about time for a countervailing narrative to take shape: that her Republican opponents are little better than the three stooges, a triad completed by Kasich who, for all his well-staged 'reasonableness', can't seem to attract his party's voters outside of his own state. It would be comical if we hadn't seen it all go so wrong before. The fact is they ARE a joke. Just not the kind which inspires laughter.
24
I just saw the Secretary's speech and I have to say that I think that it will be remembered as the day that she elevated herself above the other candidates in a way that will ensure her election as president.
37
I could not agree more. I watched her whole speech and if everyone in this country also watched it the Election results would be a forgone conclusion.
Hillary yesterday was so on the mark I was amazed that in today's climate it did not get more air time. Well I guess because she did not have pictures of Bill in underwear or naked it was not deemed "newsworthy".
Hillary yesterday was so on the mark I was amazed that in today's climate it did not get more air time. Well I guess because she did not have pictures of Bill in underwear or naked it was not deemed "newsworthy".
21
Consider how a debate between Clinton and Trump will play out.
Trump can survive in front of a Republican audience with 5 other people on the stage by uttering insults about them, superlatives about himself, and making promises like "building the most beautiful wall".
Clinton can discuss any issue intelligently for 10 minutes.
Trump can't speak intelligently for 30 seconds.
Trump can't learn enough to debate Clinton, he is not capable, He'll come up with his insults, she'll ignore him, and 60% of the American voting public will judge her to be the only viable candidate.
Trump can survive in front of a Republican audience with 5 other people on the stage by uttering insults about them, superlatives about himself, and making promises like "building the most beautiful wall".
Clinton can discuss any issue intelligently for 10 minutes.
Trump can't speak intelligently for 30 seconds.
Trump can't learn enough to debate Clinton, he is not capable, He'll come up with his insults, she'll ignore him, and 60% of the American voting public will judge her to be the only viable candidate.
8
Re: Ted Cruz, I would say that the last thing the US needs is a president who rushes to engage in race-baiting in a time of crisis. But what I'd like to hear from President Obama and others is the most important critique of Cruz's proposal - it's utter stupidity and guaranteed lack of effectiveness - patrolling Muslim neighborhoods as if the police will see the terrorists sneaking about in the night and can nab them on sight. It's the 21st century, Mr. Cruz. I think we need something in the way of law enforcement that's a little more sophisticated than that.
20
No surprise, New York Times. Not a word or mention of Bernie Sanders, the candidate who called for an end to perpetual war and regime change and for an even-handed treatment of Palestine as well as Israel. But, of course, you endorsed Hillary, so any mention of Bernie is out of the question for you, New York Times.
293
Hillary Clinton delivers a speech rebutting the irresponsible rhetoric of Republican candidates and you really expect this analysis to mention Bernie Sanders? Why? When Senator Sanders condemned the Republicans' comments, there was no mention of Sec. Clinton in the laudatory follow-up pieces published in Politico and elsewhere.
43
The title is "Hillary Clinton and other candidates on counterterrorism". It should be called "Hillary Clinton and other candidates except Bernie Sanders on terrorism". I always thought that the Times were less partisan than publications like Politico. Thanks for correcting that.
10
Oh please! The NYT has been shilling fo Hillary from Day One! It's been a virtual house organ for the Clinton campaign...in spite of the consistent ridicule from their own subscribers!
I myself learn more from my fellow subscribers about what's really going on in American politics, in these comments, than I do from the paper itself.
The NYT no longer serves its readers, and hasn't for quite awhile; it serves its stockholders, it's management, and the donor class of which its owners are a part.
Anyone see a parallel here? Newspaper readers are like citizens--in America, these days, both come last! Where is Woody Guthrie when we need him? Or Will Rogers? Or Mark Twain? Or Hunter Thompson? Who's around to point at the turd in the punch bowl, these days?
I myself learn more from my fellow subscribers about what's really going on in American politics, in these comments, than I do from the paper itself.
The NYT no longer serves its readers, and hasn't for quite awhile; it serves its stockholders, it's management, and the donor class of which its owners are a part.
Anyone see a parallel here? Newspaper readers are like citizens--in America, these days, both come last! Where is Woody Guthrie when we need him? Or Will Rogers? Or Mark Twain? Or Hunter Thompson? Who's around to point at the turd in the punch bowl, these days?
2
“It would be a serious mistake to stumble into another costly ground war in the Middle East,” she said. “If we’ve learned anything from Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s that people and nations have to secure their own communities.”
I think this sums it up. The US cannot police the world nor can it solve the terrorist problem alone. I think its up to each country to protect itself and share info with others. The response by the presidential candidates show that none from the GOP side have the ability to be president.
I think this sums it up. The US cannot police the world nor can it solve the terrorist problem alone. I think its up to each country to protect itself and share info with others. The response by the presidential candidates show that none from the GOP side have the ability to be president.
26
Pretty much everyone has an opinion on how to win or run the war in the Middle East.
But we are all armchair generals.
I know one or two things that have been mentioned and those words are both senseless and scary. They are 'Carpet Bombing' and ' Using Nukes'.
The first kills many innocents and the second speaks for itself. If Trump wants Armageddon his threat of using nukes as a last resort probably has the North Koreans leaping to the Hot Line to Kim now.
Don't think of how much damage a nuke can do to others just think of the damage it will do to you.
There is no hiding from a stray or mistaken or an intentional nuclear missile as so many can be fired at once from various directions.
The very thought is stupid which just goes to show how important it is to have a sane cool head in the Oval Office.
Obama pledged to keep the US troops out of another Iraq and he has done so. ISIS is a new and previously unknown and a danger that had not been experienced before so different tactics and methods must be used to contain and destroy them.
If the US gets rash they will get more rash and what they have on their side is the fact that they are not afraid to die for their cause.
This is probably the most important election facing the US and the world because the codes to those nuclear missiles must be in very cool hands.
STAN CHUN
Wellington
New Zealand
24 March, 2016.
But we are all armchair generals.
I know one or two things that have been mentioned and those words are both senseless and scary. They are 'Carpet Bombing' and ' Using Nukes'.
The first kills many innocents and the second speaks for itself. If Trump wants Armageddon his threat of using nukes as a last resort probably has the North Koreans leaping to the Hot Line to Kim now.
Don't think of how much damage a nuke can do to others just think of the damage it will do to you.
There is no hiding from a stray or mistaken or an intentional nuclear missile as so many can be fired at once from various directions.
The very thought is stupid which just goes to show how important it is to have a sane cool head in the Oval Office.
Obama pledged to keep the US troops out of another Iraq and he has done so. ISIS is a new and previously unknown and a danger that had not been experienced before so different tactics and methods must be used to contain and destroy them.
If the US gets rash they will get more rash and what they have on their side is the fact that they are not afraid to die for their cause.
This is probably the most important election facing the US and the world because the codes to those nuclear missiles must be in very cool hands.
STAN CHUN
Wellington
New Zealand
24 March, 2016.
17
A US soldier was killed in Iraq only a few days ago.
1
"Mrs. Clinton said,"....Why not look at what Mrs. Clinton has done including the Libyan fiasco, the pathetic "reset" with Russia, taking hundreds of thousands of dollars from foreign dictators for her foundation, etc. And, of course, Mrs. Clinton says nothing about the privacy of American citizens. She does, though, take extraordinary, illegal steps to protect her professional privacy. Yep, she's the kind we want in the most powerful position in the world.
40
What Mrs Clinton said and did is well known in the State Department and its entanglement with the Clinton Foundation meaning that while Hillary was at the State, Bill was the back seat driver. Should Hillary become President get used to the concentration of power in the hands of ONE couple in the US, the Clintons and their $2 billion global empire.
5
Hillary Clinton's speech on Israel/Palestine was a disturbing display of ignorance, pandering and a fantastic example of sheer historical delusion. Clinton's implication that Israelis are solely the victims of Palestinians was so imbalanced and utterly dismissive of Palestinian suffering that it was breathtaking. This is a woman who can have no credibility in resolving that particular conflict, when she has pledged to never allow daylight between herself and the position of the most right wing government Israel has ever had. Someone who so completely lacks any sense of fairness or justice is a poor fit for President.
Bernie Sanders is the only candidate who has shown the willingness to approach the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with an open mind and a semblance of fairness. I suspect that kind of approach will do a lot to improve American credibility in the ME. Right now, American claims to any kind of morality or justice in the region are regularly undermined by its blind support for Israel. While this is not the only thing motivating Islamic terrorism, it is an issue which provides terrorists with an easy argument for American hypocrisy, bigotry and immorality. Ultimately, the conflict with Islamic terrorism is about ideas. Pandering to Israel when it is clearly and unequivocally in the wrong doesn't win any arguments.
Bernie Sanders is the only candidate who has shown the willingness to approach the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with an open mind and a semblance of fairness. I suspect that kind of approach will do a lot to improve American credibility in the ME. Right now, American claims to any kind of morality or justice in the region are regularly undermined by its blind support for Israel. While this is not the only thing motivating Islamic terrorism, it is an issue which provides terrorists with an easy argument for American hypocrisy, bigotry and immorality. Ultimately, the conflict with Islamic terrorism is about ideas. Pandering to Israel when it is clearly and unequivocally in the wrong doesn't win any arguments.
124
It was pretty courageous for Bernie not to go to AIPAC in person.
Clinton's pandering is equal to that of her husband.
Oh well....sigh
Clinton's pandering is equal to that of her husband.
Oh well....sigh
I'm curious as to who will play the role of Judith Miller when Hillary is ginning up a war next spring.
28
How many more large delegate states does sanders have to lose before the socialist see that the campaign is over????
12
He would have to fall behind in polls reflecting his likelihood to win the popular vote in the general election, or else endorse Clinton. The delegate system is there to over ride the popular vote, in the event that the 90% decide on a candidate that the 10% don't like, so let it determine your preferences at your peril. I'm not a socialist, by the way, but I love how the U.S. Mail works, and how inexpensive it is, and in the event of a natural disaster - a Katrina, or Avian flu epidemic - I'd hate to have to depend on private industry to come provide assistance. Some things are better socialized. Do you send all your mail by FedEx?
13
California and New York.
5
one of hrc's specific steps to combat this major threat is for governments to "work more closely" with technology companies. sorry, we get far more details in what not to do as opposed to actual, material proactive actions. Doing "more" of the same is pretty content-free in my opinion.
10
I watched Mrs. Clinton's speech with admiration. She is clearly the brightest, calmest, most effective voice in the room.
36
You could be a Times reporter!
4
While I agree with NYT assessment of Republican bravado as meaningless and potentially harmful, Clinton's speech was anything but substantive. I heard nothing more than a word salad that prescribes platitudes and feel-good measures. The only difference between her and the Republicans is a lot less racism.
Cruz and Trump are out of touch with the realities of fighting terror, but Clinton fills me with terror when she spews forth so much garbage about her expertise (that helped create an ISIS stronghold in Libya). She almost literally said nothing meaningful outside of her rebuke of the Repubs.
Now, can anyone direct me to the article that has Sanders' reaction to the Brussels atack?
Cruz and Trump are out of touch with the realities of fighting terror, but Clinton fills me with terror when she spews forth so much garbage about her expertise (that helped create an ISIS stronghold in Libya). She almost literally said nothing meaningful outside of her rebuke of the Repubs.
Now, can anyone direct me to the article that has Sanders' reaction to the Brussels atack?
143
Actually, if you do the Google search "site:nytimes.com bernie sanders brussels" you can find the inadequate, short coverage. e.g.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/03/22/bernie-sanders-de...
There was even an opinion piece:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/22/opinion/is-the-media-unfairly-dismissi...
As headline writers say, every time a headline asks a question, the answer is "yes."
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/03/22/bernie-sanders-de...
There was even an opinion piece:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/22/opinion/is-the-media-unfairly-dismissi...
As headline writers say, every time a headline asks a question, the answer is "yes."
We hear from Donald, Ted, Hilary and Barack, but no mention of Bernie. Aside from the considerable merits of his views, the omission represents a clear example of anti-Bernie bias and complete lack of journalistic standards.
334
What are Bernie's views on the subject being discussed Cyrano, other than some useless platitudes?
3
Yeh Hillary is so sane and smart I won't let my soon to be 18 year old join the military.
I don't want him to be among the victims of Hillary's "foreign policy".
I don't want him to be among the victims of Hillary's "foreign policy".
54
There seems to be no mention of how Hillary Clinton's past policies--voting for the Iraq war and promoting the overthrow of the Libyan and Syrian governments as Secretary of State--helped create ISIS and the terrorism we see today. Clinton's "experience" is certainly not the solution to the terrorism problem. If we want a leader with real solutions, better not read the NY Times and find out what Bernie Sanders has to say.
164
"And an Estonian is probably is more law-abiding than say, an Italian is." Oops. An "is" one too many. Beg pardon.
1
Hillary Clinton never met a military intervention she didn't like. She blustered plenty in front of AIPAC. She just knows how to sound rational, making her more savvy than the Republicans.
79
Hillary Clinton and all of the other candidates-except Bernie Sanders-are inextricably tethered to the massive American military-industrial complex. Resting on a thin red line of honorable brave patriots who defend the 99.25% of Americans who have not volunteered to put on an American military uniform since 9/11/01. Too many war mongers. Too few warriors.
Understanding the nature of the threat is key to any solution. There is no military solution to ethnic sectarian socioeconomic political educational civil wars. And these non-governmental organizations like al Qaeda and ISIL and their affiliates are not existential threats to America on par with Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and the Soviet Union. They are thugs, criminals and terrorists. Mere "grasshoppers" instead of "giants." They prey on the frustrations of people living under tyranny and oppression.
The most devastating weapon of mass construction that the United States of America can employ and deploy in the counterterrorism fight are American values via diplomacy, humanitarian aid and commerce as the primary first
option. And this needs to be done with both American "allies" and "enemies".
America's central value is a belief in the virtues of civil secular plural egalitarian democracy. Resting on the Founding Father's independence declaration proclaimed the divine natural created equal nature of all persons with certain unalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. "Yes we can!"
Understanding the nature of the threat is key to any solution. There is no military solution to ethnic sectarian socioeconomic political educational civil wars. And these non-governmental organizations like al Qaeda and ISIL and their affiliates are not existential threats to America on par with Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and the Soviet Union. They are thugs, criminals and terrorists. Mere "grasshoppers" instead of "giants." They prey on the frustrations of people living under tyranny and oppression.
The most devastating weapon of mass construction that the United States of America can employ and deploy in the counterterrorism fight are American values via diplomacy, humanitarian aid and commerce as the primary first
option. And this needs to be done with both American "allies" and "enemies".
America's central value is a belief in the virtues of civil secular plural egalitarian democracy. Resting on the Founding Father's independence declaration proclaimed the divine natural created equal nature of all persons with certain unalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. "Yes we can!"
28
America's ruling class has no god except money, no sense of compassion for the less fortunate who are cynically viewed as losers, and an attitude that making money through hard work and fair competition is for suckers. The system thrives on the ignorance and indifference of the working people. Provide shoddy education, pay them less and less, work them harder and harder until they are so tired they have no energy to revolt. Bernie is the only honest politician running for President. It is a rigged system.
19
When I am walking through Aachen today I see most Turkish and Arab women wearing a headscarf. I see more and more bearded young men distributing the Koran and I see crowds of young Arab men hanging around and cynically offending German women with Arab words. Since about three years we have a Muslim no-go area inhabited by Turks and Arabs. A lot of young moslems from my city have joined IS and we have a suspicious mosque where Arab speaking Imans are preaching.
I do not see any success of the smart and liberal approach that is promoted by our politicians since 20 years. I hear my neigbours asking for for new tough measures to stop Islamization of our 2000 years-old city, to do something against the many crimes conducted by young Arabs and to stop Muslim immigration immediately.
Terror has roots: the fundamentalistic Islam that is pushed by Saudi Arabia giving young Muslim loosers the plattform to transform their frustration and anger into hate against the Western lifestyle. Thats were we have to start with counterterrorism.
I do not see any success of the smart and liberal approach that is promoted by our politicians since 20 years. I hear my neigbours asking for for new tough measures to stop Islamization of our 2000 years-old city, to do something against the many crimes conducted by young Arabs and to stop Muslim immigration immediately.
Terror has roots: the fundamentalistic Islam that is pushed by Saudi Arabia giving young Muslim loosers the plattform to transform their frustration and anger into hate against the Western lifestyle. Thats were we have to start with counterterrorism.
34
There is a basic difference between a united country such as the US and a totally divided Continent such as Europe; the USA have American English as the official (officious, rather) language; The EU is a good effort; but how can you put together so many nations that do not even agree on which language is the official one? True, there is the so called "European English", though you wouldn't tell that to a French; or a Polish; Hungarian, Latvian or Greek. And an Estonian is probably is more law-abiding than say, an Italian is. Mrs. Clinton has obviously a more US-centric view of the matter, and I'm sure she knows a thing or two about international relations: let's hope they won't be lost in translation.
7
We, Bernie Sanders supporters, by now know better than to expect the NY Times bias toward Hillary Clinton, to even whisper, much less mention he is still very much a contender for the Dem nomination. NY Times claims she has the most 'sensible' solution to counterterrorism. I agree with Hillary's statement "loose cannons tend to misfire", she proved that in the debacle she created in Libya with the overthrow of Gaddafi, the present civil war that followed afterward from her loose cannon flub. One of the costly wars she mentions we must not repeat, is the one she voted for: Iraq. She does have a great deal of experience in shape-shifting, though. Diplomacy is not one of her strengths as she made very clear in her loud speech to AIPAC as she pledged her unwavering allegiance to Israel and it's security WHEN not IF, she becomes our next president. She would even resort to bombing Iran & Syria to keep the Jewish State safe from Iran's threats. Iran doesn't have a nuclear bomb, but Israel has more than 200 nukes. Sounds like 'loose cannon', to me. She is on the wrong side of history and I fail to understand how the NY Times, that was lauded for being a liberal sensible publication could have gone dark, abandoning the meaning of journalism in its purest form - unbiased and fair reporting.
294
Interesting view of history. HRC didn't create the Libya mess. Maybe you should read beyond the NYT's story about it since you have problems with their reporting. Can't have it both ways--complain when they say what you want and claim bias when it affects Bernie.
8
You should be grateful that they don't provide a vote count on their primary results page.
That a useful bit of information that the Times is not showing for some unknown reason.
Is it because Hillary is up by 2.5 million votes ?
That a useful bit of information that the Times is not showing for some unknown reason.
Is it because Hillary is up by 2.5 million votes ?
3
I'm really beginning to believe that Sanders supporters are just a rabid as trumpolini supporters. A bit over the top.
1
Why didn't this article include Bernie Sander's and John Kasich's viewpoints about what should be done???
180
Because no one cares?
4
Because they didn't say much?
3
When you are giving an address in response to yet another attack on innocents that proves the current policy wrong, how do you double down on the current policy? I suppose that is statemanship, Clinton-style.
13
The GOP is a mob always in pursuit of a hanging. Problem solving is sooooo 20th century.
Vote GOP at your peril, unless you believe another tax cut will cure terrorism.
Vote GOP at your peril, unless you believe another tax cut will cure terrorism.
26
I'm not at all surprised that HRC is the only candidate with a realistic response to the Belgian attacks. No saber rattling, no jingoism, just a cool head and insightful common sense earned from long experience. I look forward to voting this sensible, experienced realist into the White House this November.
45
Her saber was was rattling at light speed when, as Secretary of State, she pushed us into intervening in Libya. Maybe she's learned something from that disaster. I'm not so sure.
8
The refusal to even publish the views of the most popular candidate (the one who most reliably wins general election polls) is Orwellian.
It is doubly so when we are treated to a quote from Clinton unashamedly declaring opposition to initiating more wars in the Midddle East, when her record reveals her to be quite eager for them. Clinton has learned to channel Bernie on the campaign trail, but discerning voters know that her positions will return to their war hawk default once in office. And by suppressing Sanders views, the Times once more does its part to keep the electorate in the dark so that she can win that office.
It is doubly so when we are treated to a quote from Clinton unashamedly declaring opposition to initiating more wars in the Midddle East, when her record reveals her to be quite eager for them. Clinton has learned to channel Bernie on the campaign trail, but discerning voters know that her positions will return to their war hawk default once in office. And by suppressing Sanders views, the Times once more does its part to keep the electorate in the dark so that she can win that office.
369
The most popular candidate will be revealed this November. Currently, your "most popular candidate" is #3 in votes received. Perhaps we should stop this election nonsense and just go with what the polls say?
4
Isn't the "most popular candidate" the one who is winning the most votes? That would be Secretary Clinton.
Bizarre, the focus on one candidate... Thankfully there are other sites and youtube to find interesting Bernie Sanders news. And news about the other candidates that are mostly unseen and left behind - in a tsunami of mr. T-advertising and mrs. C-advertising.
185
Why should every article specifically about Hillary Clinton be about Bernie Sanders too?
35
Because it's not just about Clinton: it's about her and "Other Candidates on Counterterrorism." Sen Sander is an "Other Candidate." He's just the other candidate who isn't mentioned.
112
Rima Regas,
The Times can't contrast what Sanders and Clinton proposed after the Brussels bombings because he didn't say anything. He called the bombings 'barbaric' and, as usual, shrunk from any other comments on foreign policy.
Maybe you should write your candidate and ask him why the Bernie blackout and silence. The problem starts and ends with your candidate: he is wobbly-kneed on the entire area of foreign policy.
The Times can't contrast what Sanders and Clinton proposed after the Brussels bombings because he didn't say anything. He called the bombings 'barbaric' and, as usual, shrunk from any other comments on foreign policy.
Maybe you should write your candidate and ask him why the Bernie blackout and silence. The problem starts and ends with your candidate: he is wobbly-kneed on the entire area of foreign policy.
16
The New York Times has purposely and consistently omitted any and all information about and views of Bernie Sanders, from the inception of his campaign. Last I checked, he is still a candidate in the Democratic primary and he too has expressed views on how to deal with ISIS, the Middle Eastern conflicts, Palestine and Israel. All these things are related to this op-ed and he is missing from the "other candidates" part of the narrative presented here. Times readers, I among them, have been complaining about this obvious favoritism for a year now in the comment section and to the Public Editor - all to no avail.
Bernie Sanders appeared on CNN's The Final Five on Monday night, in an interview with Anderson Cooper that included questioning on AIPAC, Sanders' views on Israel, Palestine, ISIS, Syria, and a host of other foreign policy issues. It is rare enough to see reporting on this aspect of Sanders in the mainstream press, but when there is recent such a recent interview, it should have been included here, along with Trump and Cruz' ideas. Here is the full interview: http://www.rimaregas.com/2016/03/berniesanders-on-israel-palestine-middl...
This Sanders bias needs to come to an end. The media is doing the nation, and Democrats a great disservice and causing the rift between progressives and liberals to widen and tensions to worsen, along with the public's distrust of media.
Shameful!
Bernie Sanders appeared on CNN's The Final Five on Monday night, in an interview with Anderson Cooper that included questioning on AIPAC, Sanders' views on Israel, Palestine, ISIS, Syria, and a host of other foreign policy issues. It is rare enough to see reporting on this aspect of Sanders in the mainstream press, but when there is recent such a recent interview, it should have been included here, along with Trump and Cruz' ideas. Here is the full interview: http://www.rimaregas.com/2016/03/berniesanders-on-israel-palestine-middl...
This Sanders bias needs to come to an end. The media is doing the nation, and Democrats a great disservice and causing the rift between progressives and liberals to widen and tensions to worsen, along with the public's distrust of media.
Shameful!
501
The Times just wants to give the Democratic Establishment one more victory before it faces the kind of revolt that is currently ripping the Republican Party to shreds.
22
The top 1% share of our country's wealth is at 40%, up from 34.6% in 2007. This has occurred on President Obama's watch, albeit with lockstep obstruction from the Republican Party. HRC is essentially promising to continue the Obama legacy. There was no use of the bully pulpit by Obama to push back against the rising tide of oligarchy. Given Clinton's cozy relationship with the financial industry, why would we expect any greater effort. Given her refusal to release the transcripts of her million dollar speeches, it is reasonable to assume she wasn't calling for the breakup of too big to fail financial institutions, a tax on Wall Street speculation or prosecution of the perpetrators of the financial meltdown.
HRC's new found reticence with the TPP trade deal is unlikely to survive if she finds her way into the oval office. The corporate establishment loves NAFTA and is licking its chops over the prospect of TPP becoming a reality. These deals benefit greatly the corporate boardroom....not so much the shop floor. Hillary is unlikely to upset her relationships by doing anything to endanger the status quo. Oh, she may nibble around the edges to lull us frogs submerged in our warming pot of water into complacency, but the upward transfer of wealth will continue.
I am less concerned that we will succumb to bearded jihadists or fall under the thumb of jack-booted thugs than that my grandchildren will be relegated to a life of indentured servitude under wing-tipped oligarchs.
HRC's new found reticence with the TPP trade deal is unlikely to survive if she finds her way into the oval office. The corporate establishment loves NAFTA and is licking its chops over the prospect of TPP becoming a reality. These deals benefit greatly the corporate boardroom....not so much the shop floor. Hillary is unlikely to upset her relationships by doing anything to endanger the status quo. Oh, she may nibble around the edges to lull us frogs submerged in our warming pot of water into complacency, but the upward transfer of wealth will continue.
I am less concerned that we will succumb to bearded jihadists or fall under the thumb of jack-booted thugs than that my grandchildren will be relegated to a life of indentured servitude under wing-tipped oligarchs.
13
To the best of my knowledge, Sanders did not make a major speech about terrorism or Brussels in the past few days and, no, I don't think a wide-ranging interview on CNN is worthy of front-page news on NYT. He did put out a press release (92 words) and a 3-minute YouTube statement in which, surprise, he basically says the same things Hillary says. (https://berniesanders.com/press-release/sanders-statement-brussels-bombi...
11
The roots of the international problem are:
The extreme and intolerant Wahhabist version of Islam promoted by Saudi clerics and taught worldwide within the madrassas funded by the Saudi Royal family.
The resentment and anger of young men (and women) who feel their lives are not valued by others in their own countries.
Western energy dependence on oil from Muslim countries.
The roots of the American terrorist problem are:
Ideological resentment of the Federal government. Racist hate. Loss of economic opportunities for lower middle class men.
The extreme and intolerant Wahhabist version of Islam promoted by Saudi clerics and taught worldwide within the madrassas funded by the Saudi Royal family.
The resentment and anger of young men (and women) who feel their lives are not valued by others in their own countries.
Western energy dependence on oil from Muslim countries.
The roots of the American terrorist problem are:
Ideological resentment of the Federal government. Racist hate. Loss of economic opportunities for lower middle class men.
19
There are parallels here. Humiliation, helplessness, impotence to providing for the family....these are reasons for disillusions all over the world. For centuries nations watched helplessly as their countries became colonies of white European masters. The colonists left leaving behind corrupt rulers who filled in the void. In the US, people have seen their livelihoods snatched by immigrants, companies and corporations while politicians play nice to the monied. Trump's followers know what humiliation means. And Bernie is doing the best he can to expose to us who are willing to listen, the truths of the role of big money in our politics and governance.
5
During campaigns, candidates talk junk. Nobody is going back to waterboarding. Nobody is going to systematically violate the constitutional rights of Muslims. In 2008, Obama promised to close Guantanamo, reduce oil consumption, enact all kinds of gun control laws, and substantially increase our use of renewable energy. Common sense tells us that candidates say what sells during campaigns. The Republicans are in the middle of a hotly contested campaign, so they talk lots of junk. The Democratic campaign is effectively over, so Clinton can afford to be Presidential. Sometimes it seems like the Editorial Board was born yesterday.
5
The notion that the real Trump will emerge only after the primary campaign ends reflects hope rather than logic. Trump could not fulfill many of his promises because the Constitution would block his efforts. He couldn't send the police into Muslim neighborhoods because the president doesn't control the police. He couldn't build his great wall without money from Congress, and so on, through a list of his threats and guarantees. But his statements accurately show his mindset for dealing with problems, and his policies would flow directly from his chaotic substitute for thinking.
As for Mr. Obama's promises, he attempted to accomplish each of the goals he set forth in the campaign. That a recalcitrant Congress blocked him reveals more about that body than it does about the President's intentions.
As for Mr. Obama's promises, he attempted to accomplish each of the goals he set forth in the campaign. That a recalcitrant Congress blocked him reveals more about that body than it does about the President's intentions.
28
OK. So we assume he won't do what he says he will. Then what will he do? We still don't know that. It's a good reason to vote for someone with a track record in government.
16
And what did Bernie Sanders say? Or did the media forget to ask him?
408
The media didn't forget to ask. They refuse to publicize it.
Sanders was on CNN's Final Five and he was interviewed by Anderson Cooper. You can watch the full interview here:
http://www.rimaregas.com/2016/03/berniesanders-on-israel-palestine-middl...
Sanders was on CNN's Final Five and he was interviewed by Anderson Cooper. You can watch the full interview here:
http://www.rimaregas.com/2016/03/berniesanders-on-israel-palestine-middl...
158
Bernie believes that the working class should get free national security paid by the 1%. He believes that American Muslims should get generous benefits paid by the 1%. And he believes all foreign aid should be free to the working class and paid by the 1%. You would think that Sanders supporters would have learned by now how to answer any question in Sanders-talk.
10
Michjas,
A most nonsensical reply, and the reason why I bother curating videos and articles for occasions such as today. Anyone who listens to Sanders' interview will instantly realize how false your statements are, even if they don't fully agree with his approach. It is important for voters to have the opportunity to listen and make up their own minds - which makes the Times' behavior in this election cycle all the more egregious.
A most nonsensical reply, and the reason why I bother curating videos and articles for occasions such as today. Anyone who listens to Sanders' interview will instantly realize how false your statements are, even if they don't fully agree with his approach. It is important for voters to have the opportunity to listen and make up their own minds - which makes the Times' behavior in this election cycle all the more egregious.
117
There is nothing original in what Hillary Clinton said. It almost sounded like clichés, such as “We can’t allow terrorists to intimidate us into abandoning our values and humanitarian obligations”. We have to stop thinking like this is all about public relations.
The painful truth is that there is a war on the non-Muslim nations by a subset of the world’s Muslim population and that the enemy numbers in the hundreds of thousands. This is a fact. We may not like to hear it, but it is fact. And it is also a fact that this war is asymmetrical. It is much easier for a suicide bomber to kill dozens of innocent people than for the West to prevent that.
Three actions are needed to defeat these barbaric enemies of civilization.
First, the nations which have been victims of Islamic attacks must organize, speak with one voice, and act in unison. It must be a joint response. It must not be the United States acting alone or as the major combatant. After all, the terrorists are a greater threat to the Middle East, Europe and Russia than to the US.
Second, we must demand the total surrender of the terrorists, including all members of ISIS and Al Qaeda.
Finally, we must attack the enemy with brutal force, and accept the fact that we cannot yet do that without collateral damage. There is no acceptable alternative to complete victory in war. Otherwise, it never ends. The time has come for us to go on the offensive. Playing defense did not work.
The painful truth is that there is a war on the non-Muslim nations by a subset of the world’s Muslim population and that the enemy numbers in the hundreds of thousands. This is a fact. We may not like to hear it, but it is fact. And it is also a fact that this war is asymmetrical. It is much easier for a suicide bomber to kill dozens of innocent people than for the West to prevent that.
Three actions are needed to defeat these barbaric enemies of civilization.
First, the nations which have been victims of Islamic attacks must organize, speak with one voice, and act in unison. It must be a joint response. It must not be the United States acting alone or as the major combatant. After all, the terrorists are a greater threat to the Middle East, Europe and Russia than to the US.
Second, we must demand the total surrender of the terrorists, including all members of ISIS and Al Qaeda.
Finally, we must attack the enemy with brutal force, and accept the fact that we cannot yet do that without collateral damage. There is no acceptable alternative to complete victory in war. Otherwise, it never ends. The time has come for us to go on the offensive. Playing defense did not work.
2
The offence is what got much of this started. Education and economic development are two main tools to combat extremism and not going around and stepping on toes (left and right) for financial gain might help too.
More guns will not work when fighting fatalists because as long as one is left ready to die for the "cause" you have not yet won.
More guns will not work when fighting fatalists because as long as one is left ready to die for the "cause" you have not yet won.
13
I like it, although #1 has to happen before #3. I wonder if that is really possible.
1
Somebody commented in an earlier NYT article that all it takes is one more terrorist attack to get Trump elected as President. Im afraid such an attack has just occurred.
Seven months left till November....
Seven months left till November....
3
While I've noticed how giddy the Republicans on this site an others have become since this attack, high fiving each other and dusting off their tired JV team jokes; what I haven't noticed is any humanity from them, nor have I found any humanity from the neo-Fascist front runner, who instead spent his energies focusing his attacks on the wife of his nearest competitor.
There's a word for people who root for terrorist attacks to occur because it advances their own crooked political agendas. I'll let you research that one - you may learn something about yourself.
And if you are concerned that Obama was at a baseball game yesterday, remember where he was the night he directed the team that took out bin Laden.
There's a word for people who root for terrorist attacks to occur because it advances their own crooked political agendas. I'll let you research that one - you may learn something about yourself.
And if you are concerned that Obama was at a baseball game yesterday, remember where he was the night he directed the team that took out bin Laden.
56
Yup, as I recall, BO was making jokes about Trump just as OBL was meeting his demise. Maybe we can shows those pics of Dick Cheney with his feet up on his desk during the 911 attacks. Republicans are children....
6
I wouldn't be so sure. I think the Republicans are looking for a war to fight and President Obama has done exactly what the American people wanted him to do - stay out of them for the most part.
17
At last, reason is entering the debate.
15
What Mrs. Clinton says makes perfect sense.
The problem is that there is always a tremendous difference between the pans and statements of a candidate and an elected leader. The former deals with spin and persuasion; the latter with reality.
The reactions of candidates are expected and analyzed, but they are also not a bit irrelevant.
The problem is that there is always a tremendous difference between the pans and statements of a candidate and an elected leader. The former deals with spin and persuasion; the latter with reality.
The reactions of candidates are expected and analyzed, but they are also not a bit irrelevant.
5
My heart goes out to Brussels on this senseless, tragic day.
I hope you don’t exploit this in your zealous, selfish way.
Don’t agitate or rant or try to bait your chanting herds
Be careful with your conduct; aim for wisdom with your words.