Ian Welsh makes a powerful point today on the degree to which we should pay attention when politicians claim that they have “learned from mistakes” made earlier.
"Hillary Clinton is not credible in having learned from the Iraq fiasco, because she was also for Libya. She didn’t learn the practical lesson (destroying a regime is easy, not having the country become a failed state is hard); nor did she learn the ethical lesson (don’t attack countries who haven’t attacked you.)
Clinton is not credible, because her actions have not changed. She’d be for the next Iraq in a heart-beat and find reasons why it was justified. Her rhetoric against Russia and Putin might as well be from the Cold War and is a great threat to world peace (and survival.)"
To some degree people know this, as is reflected by the fact that more than 60% of those polled answered no when asked if she was honest and trustworthy, and yet well over half of Democratic voters are voting for her anyway, and an overwhelming majority will do so in the general election.
Thank the media, who report at great length on what Hillary Clinton is saying and never, ever compare it to what she has done in the recent past. The media today does not consider it to be it’s role to report facts, but rather to pass on what it has been told by the establishment to pass on. We still have freedom of the press, but they no longer use it.