Clinton’s rhetoric on the Muslim world might be friendlier than Trump’s, but her record is much bloodier.
“There is no military response to terrorism. President Obama says that over and over again. It’s time we held him accountable to his own words,” Phyllis Bennis told Democracy Now!
IPS’s Phyllis Bennis tells the Real News Network that although Clinton rightfully used her national security speech to condemn the bigotry and danger of Trump’s positions, she didn’t lay out a much better alternative.
Phyllis Bennis on the Real News Network: “When the first crisis breaks, I’m afraid that a President Trump would immediately turn to the military.”
Thousands of Libyans remain internally displaced by ethnic tensions unleashed by the revolution.
Western intervention–ostensibly on humanitarian grounds–is largely responsible for the Malian crisis in the first place.
Whither Libya after the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi?
Mitt was no wimp, and Obama was no progressive, but Obama had the better plans, the better attacks, and the better handle on the truth.
Despite the recent killing of Amb. Stevens and unrest in Libya, President Obama defended intervention in Libya in his UNGA speech Tuesday. Phyllis Bennis participated in this discussion on the Huffington Post’s new live channel.
The deeper reason for the heated response from the Muslim world is not so much Western rhetoric but Western policy.
Anti-democratic forces in both the United States and the Arab world are using widespread embassy protests to discredit the pro-democracy movement.
The deadly attack on U.S. diplomatic personnel in Libya raises a whole host of uncomfortable questions.
Salafi extremists sought to exploit the turmoil in Libya to increase their influence.
The bad dream unfolding in Mali is the consequence of the West’s scramble for resources in Africa, and the wages of sin from the recent Libyan war.
Libya’s first democratic election went comparatively smoothly. But it’s what comes next that poses the greater challenge.