The 2020 Democratic hopeful has defended dictators while calling for the U.S. to be more aggressive in killing suspected terrorists.
The secretary of state says there's no change to U.S. policy, but the U.N. ambassador says there can be no peace with Syrian President Bashar Assad.
In the strangest election of our lifetimes, have we just seen something like a slow-motion democratic coup d'état or some form of domestic regime change?
Wars for regime change are immoral. We have not been tasked by a Supreme Being to appraise foreign nations like a schoolmarm
In an internal "dissent channel cable," 51 State Department officers called for "targeted military strikes" against the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, a proposal that President Barack Obama has thus far resisted.
The U.S. and one of its principal allies, OAS (Organization of American States) Secretary General Luís Almagro, suffered an unambiguous defeat this week at the OAS, when Almagro's attempt to use the hemispheric organization against Venezuela was rejected unanimously by the hemisphere.
Unfortunately, Hillary's primary opponent has built another falsehood on top of his earlier one, and he took it for a spin at last week's Democratic debate. It goes something like this.
Can the Middle East be stabilized and if so what role should the United States and its allies play in doing so?
Policy implementation in the Middle East, especially in fighting the burgeoning threat of ISIS, depends on the trust of the citizens of these nations. Iraq and Libya may have taught our policy makers to be more cautious, but regime change in Syria continues to be our policy.
They say that imperial wars come home in all sorts of ways. It now seems that a version of regime change, Iraqi-style, has come home to roost in parts of Michigan -- but with a curious twist.