What else can you call it?
One more time, on the “bromance” between Trump and Putin….
“You got a lot of killers,” Mr. Trump told Bill O’Reilly of the slavishly pro-Trump Fox News. “What, you think our country’s so innocent?”
The editors at the Times take exception to this:
…rather than endorsing American exceptionalism, Mr. Trump seemed to appreciate Mr. Putin’s brutality…
I find nothing in Trump’s comments to suggest he “appreciates” Putin’s brutality. Trump merely stated, in the form of a question, an undeniable fact.
The editors of the Times are very good at listing in some detail Putin’s transgressions – not all of which have any factual basis (but facts cannot be allowed to get in the way of these editors).
There is a Wikipedia page dedicated to all US military operations since 1775. I count 70 US military operations since 1991 and the fall of the Soviet Union. There is no such page for Russia; there are two unique pages – one for Syria and one for Ukraine. That’s it. Off of the top of my head, I would add Georgia.
The US military interventions span the globe; the Russian military interventions are either directly on the borders of Russia or to a close, long-time ally. The US military interventions have killed, wounded or displaced countless millions of people. The Russian interventions? I will guess in the tens or hundreds of thousands at most.
Do the editors of the Times dare deal with reality? No. Not on this topic.
Speaking of Martians
On to the next topic:
Since taking office, Mr. Trump has shown little support for America’s traditional roles as a champion of universal values like freedom of the press and tolerance.
Martians value “freedom of the press and tolerance”? Are these really universal values? Returning to this planet, are these valued in so-called US allies like Saudi Arabia and Israel?
The Times might consider – these so-called universal values may not be universal and in any case are not the business of the US government outside of the United States. Tolerance is not the business of the US government within the United States, either. The Constitution offers freedom of the press; it says nothing of tolerance.
The Ends Justify the Means
The Times, like all apologists for the military empire that is the United States, accepts immorality if the (advertised) ends are noble:
At least in recent decades, American presidents who took military action have been driven by the desire to promote freedom and democracy…
Ask the millions of dead, wounded and displaced if they appreciate the “freedom and democracy” that they have achieved via US intervention. The ends justify the means only for those who benefits from “the ends,” and not for those who suffer through “the means.”
Whatever one might say about Hussein in Iraq, Ghaddafi in Libya, or Assad in Syria, the people in these countries weren’t dying by the millions before the United States intervened on their behalf.
…sometimes with extraordinary results, as when Germany and Japan evolved after World War II from vanquished enemies into trusted, prosperous allies.
This isn’t “recent decades.” This is more than seventy years ago. And it would be more accurate to describe Germany and Japan as vassal states, not “allies.”
A Stopped Clock…
The Times gets one thing right:
…Mr. Trump has…laid the groundwork for an aggressive campaign that could lead to conflict with Iran…
I wish Trump wouldn’t take actions that could lead to conflict with Iran. One reason Trump won the election is because many people in the United States are tired of war and are tired of paying for war.
Do you want to see terrorism and the refugee crisis lose steam? How about just stop bombing people. The Times could endorse precisely this policy – you know, the opposite of the policy endorsed by their preferred candidate.