Who is Hillary talking to?
Obama has failed to help defeat islamists in Syria, leading to the growth of The Islamic State (The Radical Islamist Murderers Formerly Known as ISIS) and fails to define a foreign policy for the U.S.
This according to Hillary Clinton, who spoke to well-known foreign affairs reporter Jeffrey Goldberg in the liberal publication The Atlantic.
The “new” Hillary flexes her biceps over Iran, saying she was always against Iran having nuclear enrichment (except for when she wasn’t) and staunchly defends Israel as no liberal Democrat ever defends Israel, saying, “Israel has a right to defend itself. The steps Hamas has taken to embed rockets and command-and-control facilities and tunnel entrances in civilian areas, this makes a response by Israel difficult.”
“Just as we try to do in the United States and be as careful as possible in going after targets to avoid civilians, [mistakes are made]”, she told Goldberg, who asked if she believed that Israel had done enough to prevent the deaths of children and other innocent people.:
“We’ve made them. I don’t know a nation, no matter what its values are-and I think that democratic nations have demonstrably better values in a conflict position-that hasn’t made errors, but ultimately the responsibility rests with Hamas.”
So when did Hillary leave the Democratic Party and become a conservative Republican?
More importantly, who is she talking to?
Like her husband Bill and her former boss Barack, Hillary considers the politics and counts the votes before speaking in a controlled public setting.:
That’s why this American-centric conservative foreign policy stance is so interesting.:
The liberal reaction is expected.
The influential leftwing organization MoveOn immediately issued a fatwa against any Democrat criticizing Obama and taking a strong policy stance against Iran or entertaining “policies advocated by right-wing war hawks.”
Well, she did just that, especially regarding Israel.
Her positioning statements are interesting because they presume she will not have a strong far left-wing primary opponent more appealing to the liberal base.
She certainly isn’t trying to appeal to Republicans, is she? The GOP has an elephantine memory of her own crimes during her husband’s presidency including illegal possession of hundreds of her “enemies'” FBI files, campaign financing schemes that put her bundlers in jail, etc. as well as Benghazi.
Will a muscular approach to foreign affairs maintain her popularity with women when a liberal contender promising to keep their sons and daughters home away from battles comes forward? That is, after all, the liberal base that voted so enthusiastically for the man she is trying so hard to remove from her political universe.
Hillary wants to be perceived as competent; the anti-Obama.
President Obama has simplified his approach to foreign policy as “Don’t say stupid (stuff).” He doesn’t really use the word, “stuff.” We will, though.
Hillary takes aim at Obama’s lack of any foreign policy, saying, “Great nations need organizing principles, and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle.”
How can Democratic primary voters who want the troops home at any price and close Guantanamo pull the lever for a woman who says, “The failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad-there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle-the failure to do that left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled.”?
My God, that’s what conservatives and Tea Party Americans predicted!:
How Sarah Palin of her!
Hillary talks a good game but remember she was the one who did stupid stuff including taking the embarrassingly ill-fated “Reset” button to Minister Sergei Lavrov only to discover it read “Overcharge” in Russian. She’s also the giddy Secretary of State who foolishly tried to engage her Iranian counterpart, Manouchehr Mottaki, in a parking lot with no preconditions.
Can “Hillary the Hawk” win primary votes?
She’s counting on women voting for her because she’s a woman and presuming her more liberal opponent to be a much weaker candidate than Obama was in 2008.