The New York Times vs Bernie Sanders; the “steady hand” of Biden’s perpetual war vs the “insecurity” of Sanders’ peace
Reputed purveyors of journalistic integrity have shown remarkable consistency in being on the wrong side of perpetual war and regime change over the past 18 years. That bastion of “liberal” media The New York Times wantonly promoted the lies of George W Bush leading up to the war in Iraq, and routinely asserted that the Afghanistan war was somehow vital to our national security. They were as wrong as all Republicans and the vast majority of Democrats. Perhaps that’s why the New York Times lauds politicians who have repeatedly been wrong about disastrous interventions in the Middle East as being “level-headed” and “comfortable” with foreign policy. Even after Hillary Clinton’s bombing of Libya and assassination of Gaddafi, which has resulted in perpetual civil war and a failed state, in 2016 the New York Times endorsed her as a president who “would use American military power effectively.” Those legislators who aided and abetted invasions and proxy wars involving Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and Yemen are portrayed as the legislators who are most qualified to keep us safe, yet study after study has proven that their military adventurism has absolutely no correlation in reducing domestic attacks of international terrorism.
This from one of the New York Times more noble defenders of perpetual war and corporate America, former black rock analyist Sydney Ember addressing Bernie Sanders “dovish stances”:
“Yet Mr. Sanders’s dovish stances and his emphasis on domestic matters could also prove to be liabilities with voters who want a firmer response to foreign aggression than he appears to promote. They could also weaken his standing among Americans who are clamoring for an experienced hand in the international arena at a moment of global turmoil.”
Does Ember mean foreign aggression like that perpetrated by the governments of Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, or Yemen? Oh right, WE invaded and/or bombed THEM, in spite of the fact that none of these countries had showed any “aggression” indicating an attack on the United States. And by pushing for expanded diplomacy with our perceived enemies in lieu of sanctions and bombing, is Sanders then somehow promoting a weaker response to some nebulous form of “foreign aggression” that hasn’t even happened yet?
Ember tops it off by saying who wants a “dove” like Sanders when you can have a hawk like Joe Biden who is “at his most fluent and comfortable when discussing international affairs.” Ember’s establishment bias is exposed not only by her assertion that Biden can be “fluent and comfortable” when discussing anything, but in presenting Biden’s chronic poor judgment in the promotion of pre-emptive wars fought under false pretenses as some sort of admirable quality. Joe Biden‘s advocacy for the “Bush Doctrine” of pre-emptive war in the Middle-East is what NPR, The New York Times, The Washington Post and CNN all consider to be “mature” and showing a “steady hand”.
So it stands to reason that Sanders, someone who has voted against the first and second Iraq Wars, the second authorization for the Afghanistan War, and multiple military budgets (including all of Trump’s) would be seen as immature and unsteady in his lack of support for $6.4 trillion in unnecessary war, and that Ember would want to make certain that our counterproductive foreign policy continues on its current perilous trajectory by closing with a passage to reinforce the false narrative regarding “experience” and remind readers to be afraid:
“We don’t need to waste any more time,” said Korlu P. Jallah, 22, who attended an event for Mr. Biden in Waterloo on Saturday morning and said she was supporting him because of his experience. “We’re in a huge mess given the fact that we could possibly go to war with Iran.”
Still, she said, Mr. Sanders is her second choice.
Jallah’s second choice would be the guy who introduced bipartisan legislation to end our complicity in Saudi Arabia’s genocide in Yemen, and who was working legislatively to deter war with Iran prior to the assassination of Soleimani. Her first choice would be the guy with the “experience” that included leading cheers for the invasion of Iraq, supporting the surge in Afghanistan as well as the bombing of Libya, and voting in favor of every military budget. Certainly Ember and the rest of the media elite would disagree with Sanders pushback regarding the same adulation of Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy “experience” during the 2016 Democratic presidential primary, when he duly noted “there is a difference between experience and judgment.” Ember and her corporate media are preoccupied with experience but completely unconcerned when it comes to judgment, not the least of reasons being that their own questionable judgment has led to the deaths of over half a million Muslim civilians and several thousand American troops.
I will let Bernie Sanders himself offer a foreign policy vision that will almost certainly strike fear into the hearts of corporate media, both political parties, the military industrial complex and their talking-head “generals”, and every 2020 Democratic presidential debate moderator. But considering the negligent campaign for perpetual war perpetrated by all of these forces, it would be a sound strategy to listen to the presidential candidate who will stand against their conventional “wisdom” and their apocalyptic vision of American empire:
“As president, I will offer a different vision for how we exercise American power: one that is not demonstrated by our ability to blow things up, but by our ability to bring countries together and forge international consensus around shared challenges.
A test of a great nation is not how many wars we can fight or how many governments we can overthrow, but how we can use our strength to resolve international conflicts in a peaceful way.
I cannot do it alone. But maybe, just maybe, instead of spending $1.8 trillion a year globally on weapons of destruction, we can lead the world to address the issues that affect us all, like the existential threat of climate change.
So our job is to offer a different vision — a vision that one day human beings on this planet will live in a world where international conflicts are resolved peacefully, not by mass murder.”
