Home | About | Donate

Clinton's Foreign Policy Speech Marred by Inherent Contradictions


Clinton's Foreign Policy Speech Marred by Inherent Contradictions

Deirdre Fulton, staff writer

Flanked by 19 American flags, Hillary Clinton gave a wide-ranging foreign policy speech on Thursday, in which she flayed Donald Trump for his "thin skin" and "dangerously incoherent" approach to international affairs.

The speech, delivered in San Diego five days ahead of California's June 7 primary, lambasted the presumptive Republican nominee as "temperamentally unfit" to be President of the United States. The full remarks are here.


Hillary Do you think 19 flags is enough?

Patriotism Perception Management Consultant Our research concludes that once the tens digit moves to 2, the little people perceive that as piling on.

Hillary Okay, stick with 19 then.


Hillary's speech was broadcast live on CNN and MSNBC, I don't know about Fox, at the same time Bernie was giving a news conference in Modesto, Ca., I doubt it will be covered at all. The MSM might cover an incident at Bernie's rally in Modesto, however, because of the negative vibes of Bernie being interrupted, again, by several animal rights people. Politics 2016, and so it goes.


"By contrast, Sanders supporters are divided, with 49 percent saying global problems would be even worse without U.S. involvement and 45 percent saying U.S. intervention usually makes matters worse."

Imagine what those poll numbers would be IF citizens actually saw footage of areas bombed back to the Stone Age and children left crying in the ruins. Or how about scenes of dead pregnant women for all those anti-abortion zealots?

These numbers represent the fruit of long campaigns of disinformation and LOTS of missing film footage and honest documentation.

They are responses to the continually assuring rhetoric that U.S. forces spread peace and Democracy and make the world safer. As if.


"Polls conducted in March and April showed that two-thirds (66%) of Democratic and Democratic-leaning registered voters who support Clinton for the party's presidential nomination say that world problems would be even worse without U.S. involvement—just 28 percent say U.S. efforts usually make things worse. By contrast, Sanders supporters are divided, with 49 percent saying global problems would be even worse without U.S. involvement and 45 percent saying U.S. intervention usually makes matters worse."

I can hardly believe this. Americans, on balance, or so it would seem, actually think the USA military machine is doing good around the world. Whereas in reality, not only have the results been tragic, "doing good" would be nothing more than a perception management goal. How deluded can the populace be?


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


Hillary's position on Russia is more dangerous by far than The Donald's, the following are two informative pieces, frightening pieces, given the U. S. position vis a vis Russia, especially in light of what is known about Hillary's relatonship with the Kagans, Vickie Nuland, in particular, regarding Putin.




This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


San Diego County is the biggest concentration of military industrial complex operatives and the military within California, rivaling Puget Sound for West Coast military supremacy.

This speech is intended to make sure that no voter in the County is unaware that she is the most hawkish candidate (still standing) when they vote on Tuesday.


Tweet from Glenn

Glenn Greenwald ‏@ggreenwald 52m52 minutes ago

Glenn Greenwald Retweeted Commentary Magazine
Neocon gushing for Clinton's "center-right" foreign policy speech

Glenn linked to the article from Commentary Magazine and praise from a neocon

And gushing is correct

Hillary Clinton just gave the speech of her life in attacking Donald Trump on foreign policy. I’ve been watching and listening to her for 25 years and wrote an entire book in 2006 warning America about the dangers of a Clinton presidency (a book almost as unsuccessful as her 2008 presidential bid, now available for $.01 on Amazon, and I’m not kidding). Never before has she pulled off a coup like this one — an extremely well-crafted and well-delivered broadside against Trump’s willful ignorance and ill-considered policy prescriptions, as well as a coherent presentation of a liberal internationalist approach to foreign affairs. (It was likely written by Jake Sullivan, who would likely be her secretary of state or national security adviser should she win in November.)

Her campaign over the past year has been a series of missed opportunities when big moments were called for, and her inability to rise to these occasions was one of the reasons she inadvertently helped midwife the challenge against her from Bernie Sanders. She has now sent Trump an unambiguous message: game on.

Now, there will be untold thousands of words of analysis devoted to this address, and much of it will properly center on the areas in which she factitiously and falsely defended her and Barack Obama’s foreign-policy choices from the Russian reset in 2009 to Syria in 2012 and, most especially, the Iran deal. But in its immediate aftermath, what is most striking is how determinedly Clinton decided to move herself to the center, edging to the center-right, on foreign policy matters and most especially on the complex issue of American exceptionalism.

With a few deletions and emendations here and there, this could have been Marco Rubio’s stump speech. It was many clicks to the right of Barack Obama — a striking fact, considering that she is still facing the possibility of a Sanders humiliation or two on Tuesday (including a loss in California) even as she will certainly clinch the nomination that evening. Her general approach has been to allow Sanders to pull her further to the left than she surely has wanted to go. She chose to risk the wrath of the Sanders leftists in order to speak more directly to the 15 percent of voters who don’t seem to know whom to vote for yet.

The Clinton Anti-Trump Speech

We know that she is going after Republican donations and we know she is a hawk. Like her position on Israel, she puts her cards on the table. Isn't it wonderful that this neo con thinks that this could have been Marco Rubio's stump speech!


Which is your favorite Trump card?


Legalize Torture

Build a wall to keep them thar Mexicans out

Ban all Muslims from entry to the US

Build up the Military

Concealed carry in 50 states

Use military threat in trade negotiations with China

Deregulate fracking and oil exploration and production

Gosh, so much to vote for as a Trump Neo Leftist.


Oh yes, the MSM has been so hard on the Trump. Even went so far as to cut from a Sanders victory speech, and instead focus on an empty Trump stage for 15 minutes.

Poor Trump. The MSM never really refutes his own personal brand of PC (political con) but gives him every opportunity to catapult more.

Poor Trump.

Take note. There is no personal insult whatsoever in my post. I'm taking issue with your position of apologizing for Trump in one way or another. It is called a counter argument.


Hillary supporters must love state sanctioned murder. She wants to execute Sick Boy in S. Carolina and use military power to preserve Empire, everywhere. "American woman, get away from me...". I love watching her Christian posing, her trigger-happy Big Bad Mama routine. Can we make her The Queen of Texas or The High Priestess of The New/Old Confederacy? And, let her fellow killing crew go with her to the make-believe Promised Land? She wants us all, her subjects, to be happy campers on the DLC plantation. ( Pulling hard here on right, straw boss. ). But what we really have here is a failure to communicate; you know, where's the damn peace and prosperity?


Raving psychotic.

Sure, he's incoherent. Is that actually worse than being coherently evil? Tough call, and Americans shouldn't be forced to be making it.

I'd put money down that her first act as a president will be to literally invade Syria. She's itching for "her war"; tired of cheerleading everyone else's. She needs her own directly ordered bloodbath to feel like she's really arrived to the hive-mind of capitalist power.

Hillary will, at a minimum, start at least one massive conflagration within her first few months in office. And she has the nads to accuse someone else of a temperament problem.


Holy Cow!


George W. is more or less a disgraced President for initiating our illegal war with Iraq. Hillary bought into the lies hook, line and sinker and voted for the war. That stupid war was and is the source of more problems than I can list here.
I remember how upset I was when "shock and awe" began. I just couldn't believe that my government was being so stupid and ruthless. I never felt that little Iraq was any threat to the mighty U.S. I was smart enough back then to know that the war was unnecessary and I'll never forgive anyone who sanctioned it.
My daughter, who wants to elect a female President, keeps telling me that Hillary is sorry for her vote and that she realizes it was a mistake. My daughter can't understand why I should continue to focus on past history. Too much bad stuff that can't be undone just can't be wiped away with an apology, and our current history is still tainted by that awful act.
Hillary had her chance at foreign policy and she flunked big time. Never Hillary!