In an editorial entitled "The Pentagon’s Top Threat? Russia," The New York Times acknowledges:
"It is undeniable that Russia has become openly aggressive under President Vladimir Putin, who has violated sovereign borders by annexing Crimea and stoking civil war in Ukraine. A cease-fire in Ukraine was declared last year, but Russian forces still maintain a presence in eastern Ukraine, raising questions about whether Russia might try to extend its reach to the Baltic States.
There are other concerns as well. Russia has built a web of complex missile defenses that increasingly threaten NATO’s military access to airspace in parts of Europe, including one-third of the skies of Poland. Similar Russian missile buildups are underway in Crimea and in Syria, where the Russians have beefed up their air campaign on behalf of the Assad government."
But didn't Secretary of State Clinton present Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov with a "restart button" in 2009?
And if memory serves me correctly, it was Hillary who subsequently declared in 2011:
"There is a different leader in Syria now. Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer. What’s been happening there the last few weeks is – is deeply concerning. But there’s a difference between calling out aircraft and indiscriminately strafing and bombing your own cities, then police actions, which frankly have exceeded the use of force that any of us would want to see."
Yup, we're talking about the same Assad, who, with Russian assistance, is now starving out the inhabitants of the Syrian town of Madaya?
Yet, on the eve of the hotly contested Iowa presidential primary, The New York Times published an editorial entitled "Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Nomination," warmly alluding to Hillary's international expertise.
What am I missing here?