All errors should be reported to

Wednesday, March 30, 2016

National Review writer: Forget Benghazi

(Language warning. Article quotes a liberal, er, a true blue conservative and don't you forget it!)

Remember Benghazi?

Well, comrade, a writer for the National Review wants you to forget all that. Hillary Clinton is better than Donald Trump on foreign policy. She's Reagan. He's Hitler.

David French of the National Review wrote:
We know what we’ll get from Clinton when it comes to foreign policy. She’s an internationalist interventionist with more muscular instincts than Barack Obama and less resolve than George W. Bush. She voted for the Iraq invasion but then went wobbly as the war dragged on. She backed the surge in Afghanistan, advocated intervention in Libya, and was famously more skeptical of the Arab Spring than Obama. Her “reset” with Russia was a disaster, but she’ll broadly back American allies, maintain our stewardship of NATO, and keep our other international commitments.
Trump’s foreign policy, insofar as he has a coherent foreign policy, is by contrast an entire casserole of crazy. At various points in the campaign, he’s promised that he’d order the military to commit war crimes by torturing terrorists and killing their families; he’s called our core alliances in question; he’s pledged to remain neutral in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians; and he’s switched anti-ISIS strategies so many times that no one has the slightest clue what he’d do. This is a man who has on multiple occasions endorsed a “bomb them all and take their oil” strategy for fixing the war-torn Middle East. He’d alienate every Muslim ally America has, including the Kurds, and he’s still completely mystified by the most basic defense concepts. The entire world would be less secure with his finger on the button.
Amusing. The writer praised Hillary for voting for a war that turned disastrous -- thanks in no small part to her abandoning our efforts and our soldiers in the middle of the war -- but David French denounces Trump for endorsing bombing people. He says that will alienate our Muslim allies.

Like the Iraq War just did.

You know, the one the National Review and I endorsed.

In reviewing her foreign policy credentials, David French made no mention of Benghazi, but he seems to think getting rid of Gadhafi was a good idea. Of course, that led to people crossing the Mediterranean from Tripoli, an invasion Italy could do without. But hey, Sarah Palin said bomb Libya, so it must be a good thing.

I was going to call the magazine the Irrational Review but I lost my appetite for such hijinks when I discovered Twitter is full of such nonsense.

And there is a rationality to the magazine. It is all about free trade and open borders.

French wrote:
On trade, Clinton will almost certainly be superior to Trump. Trump pledges to “win” through punitive tariffs that would increase the price of consumer goods and trigger trade wars, but he gives little indication that he understands the economics of trade, the reality of the American economy, or even the truth about American manufacturing. (It is not, in fact, disappearing.) Clinton, by contrast, would probably maintain the trade-policy status quo, and while that status quo creates winners and losers — as any status quo would — free trade has long been an overall positive for American families.
Of course, free trade is not an overall positive for American families. It is a negative. A Democratic Congress and a Democratic president foisted this upon the people in 1994 and since then, manufacturing jobs have given way to welfare and Walmart. Just how you connect this catastrophe to Reagan is beyond me. But the National Review does, because its staff thinks the Reagan argument wins every time.

But I make the Lincoln argument. He opposed having Free Labor compete with Slave Labor, having been both (Lincoln's father rented him out as a day laborer until Lincoln turned 18 and was emancipated).

Lincoln had insights sorely absent at the National Review.

But just as socialists cling bitterly to their discredited doctrine, so do these internationalists. They want cheap stuff and if the commies in China use slave labor, so what? Tough nookies on American workers. They should be smart enough to become National Review writers.

From Kevin Williamson two days ago:
It is also immoral. It is immoral because it perpetuates a lie: that the white working class that finds itself attracted to Trump has been victimized by outside forces. It hasn’t. The white middle class may like the idea of Trump as a giant pulsing humanoid middle finger held up in the face of the Cathedral, they may sing hymns to Trump the destroyer and whisper darkly about “globalists” and — odious, stupid term — “the Establishment,” but nobody did this to them.
They failed themselves. It wasn't Beijing. It wasn't even Washington, as bad as Washington can be. It wasn't immigrants from Mexico, excessive and problematic as our current immigration levels are. It wasn't any of that.
Nothing happened to them. There wasn't some awful disaster. There wasn't a war or a famine or a plague or a foreign occupation. Even the economic changes of the past few decades do very little to explain the dysfunction and negligence — and the incomprehensible malice — of poor white America.
The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible. Forget all your cheap theatrical Bruce Springsteen crap. Forget your sanctimony about struggling Rust Belt factory towns and your conspiracy theories about the wily Orientals stealing our jobs. Forget your goddamned gypsum, and, if he has a problem with that, forget Ed Burke, too.

Anyway, the National Review through its staff writers wants you to forget Benghazi. And at this point in time, what difference does it make?

By the way, I am back to thinking the general election will be Bernie versus The Donald. I await the National Review's endorsement of Sanders.


  1. National Review has gone from a somewhat respected opinion magazine to a hit squad. Pathetic. Arguing against someone's candidacy from a conservative perspective is ne thing, but they are over the top (and in the toilet). - Elric

    1. Well said Elric. I was a 28 year subscriber to NR but once they launched their jihad against Trump I was like, peace out bitches, and let my subscription lapse.

    2. I quit NR about 10-15 years ago. Can't remember for sure. It was when they began condemning other conservatives who were against legalization of marijuana. It's one thing to change one's position on something. But to turn on others on the same side of the political fence as you for hesitating to do so shows a lack of tolerance over questions that aren't deciding factors. After watching other instances of punching to the right and inconstancy in principle I said goodbye. Funny. These guys are supposed to be our principled leaders. Worthless.

    3. I used to go to NRO daily to read their articles and blogs, but ever since TDS has taken hold of them not so much. It's not that I am a big Trump supporter, but it's clear that there is a higher agenda at work, not Conservatism.

  2. I agree with you that I think it will be Bernie v Donald as Benghazi will sink Hillary (just not soon enough for some; but in time for primary). I also agree said NR writer is way off analyzing Hillary's foreign policy. But said writer is very much correct about Trump and his foreign policy which boils down to a lot of hard-hitting sound bites, which are just that. Sound bites. No specifics.

  3. Typically when you go into an NCAA tournament game, as a head coach, you don't reveal exactly what plays you're going to just say that you're going to take it to the opposition. Pretty sure Donald has done that.

    1. So you are voting for someone you trust on blind faith? Wow, small wonder radical groups have no trouble getting recruits with that type of thinking ... or lack thereof

    2. Just like Hill's and Bern's supporters; yessiree, Bob's your uncle!

    3. There you go again Nonnyass. Did he say he was going on blind faith. No. Again. You really suck.

  4. Think of the outrage if Williamson has written that black communities deserve to die. White people - the only demographic it's OK to bash.

  5. This is as funnay as the column by Jill Abramson stating that Cankles was fundamentally honest.

  6. Most recent comment there: " TruthBeTold • an hour ago

    Clinton, by contrast, would probably maintain the trade-policy status quo, and while that status quo creates winners and losers — as any status quo would — free trade has long been an overall positive for American families.

    Mr. French:

    The American working class was told that 'free trade' would benefit Americans. Sure, there would be some growing pains along the way and some people would lose their jobs but as a whole American workers would benefit.

    American workers were lied to.

    Now you blame the American working class for trusting you and not preparing what what was coming.

    You tell them, 'go back to school, move'.

    Go back to school for what industry that won't be there in 10 years? Move where? Sell the house, uproot the family, lose any equity in a desperate hope that maybe the next job will last long enough to provide stability for their family? And of course, the next job will start at entry level wage.

    How can families provide for themselves when they keep losing jobs and start over? How do they pay for a house? How do they build personal equity? How do they help put their kids through college? How do they spend to stimulate the economy when they don't have a disposable income? How do they save for retirement?

    The answer is obvious. The government will step in and make up for falling and lost wages.

    So called 'free trade' is nothing but allowing businesses to cut benefits and wages and have government pick up the slack.

    Is there a solution? Is there something the government can do other than dole out EBT cards and maybe pay for re-training programs? Is 'free trade' the boogeyman? No. Is illegal immigration the cause of every social/ economic issue? No but they do have a cumulative affect.

    This is why Trump has an appeal to real disaffected voters.

    Is Trump the answer? I'll be the first to say I don't know. But until the self-anointed 'smartest guys in the room' find a way to help the American working class get back on its feet and become self-supporting again instead of blaming them for the situation they didn't create, Trump will look like their only salvation."

  7. I still believe obama will indict hillary just before or just after the democrat convention as a way to pave the way for biden. Biden has been exceptionally quiet to avoid saying something stupid that could be used against him in the general election.

    1. I believe you're overthinking it.