Home | About | Donate

Hillary Clinton’s Flat and Misleading Foreign Policy Speech


Hillary Clinton’s Flat and Misleading Foreign Policy Speech

William Astore

On Thursday, Hillary Clinton gave a foreign policy speech in San Diego that was notably flat and misleading. It’s been getting decent reviews in the mainstream media for the zingers she tossed at Donald Trump. But when you listen to the speech (you can watch it here) and think about it, you realize how insipid and unoriginal it really was.


Wake up, the speech was a game changer. It showed that there is a way to attack Trump. Don't be mean like Trump, but use his own crazy statements and do it with some humor. Clinton succeeded where 16 Republican candidates failed. For the first time he is really on the defensive and it added to his woes such as his veterans benefit, the Trump University playbook, and criticisms of the Republican governor of New Mexico and the judge in charge of a trial on Trump University. Whatever Clinton said about her own foreign policy was the least important part of the speech. It was just a backdrop for her attack on Trump which the purpose of speech. The idea was to make Trump's suitability for the office of president the main issue of the general election. Clinton wants to make the general election a referendum on Trump not on her. The speech was a big step in that direction.


Hillary pulls to the left of Trump we are constantly being told but her speech shows that as usual in the push me pull you two headed game of America's two party system that Trump is also pulling Hillary to the right. But isn't that always how the game works? Well yes it is, however is it possible that the contest is that if America votes for Hillary that they will get the Warhawks and Neocon neoliberalism of dutiful empire version ...
...and if they vote Trump they get the same thing however with a little less restraint? Such restraint as there may or may not be in neocon circles dem or repub!
Bush/Cheney were bad but Obama was better? Well yeah but not by all that much. Obama was not as bad but hardly much better. Hillary would be worse than Obama which tells you how much more she is being affected by republican attitudes and perspectives. Our dutiful empire as process.

Were none of the other Republicans bad enough that only Trump could fit the 'worse than' role? Trump was allowed to rise by the media and only recently have they noticed that the Trumpenstein monster that they created has gotten away from them. That is the story but is it true? Is the end game that if you don't vote for the corporate pick - Hillary - then you end up with Trumpenstein instead. Was this typical comparison of the two right leaning candidates really set up so easily?
It sure looks like it was. Hillary was unpopular and so an even less popular Trump was needed. Bernie was too popular is why.

They robbed Americans of faith in our own democratic system to do this. It was a massive effort brought on by their awareness that Amercia wants change and they don't! They are hoping to get away with the theft quietly and that there won't be protest marches against their having rigged the system to force Hillary on us.

Hillary shows us her right wing credentials and how two faced forked tongued she really is! This was Hillary's "I am a progressive" foreign policy speech... Protest in Philly or end up with her. Not voting or voting Green and you end up with her ( or Trump).

Protest in Philly if you'd rather end up with Bernie.


When I was 17, I
Dreamed of being queen and
Having everything I wanted
But that was long ago and
Dreams are still a go so
Gonna be Queen of Chaos
When I was 17, I
Dreamed I gave a ring to
Future king and then I held him
And then I married him for
I seek power and all and
Gonna be Queen of Chaos
When I shall rule
I'll dance my cares away
Bomb countries everyday
I shall always listen
To Kissinger say
“You’re the Queen, you’re the Queen
You’re the Queen of Chaos”
When I shall rule
I'll dance my cares away
Bomb countries everyday
I wouldn't have to listen
To the people say
“Won’t you now please help us”
Gonna be Queen of Chaos

(apologies to Seals & Crofts)


I've heard nothing constructive regarding foreign policy from either Trump nor Hillary.

He says the Establishment has it all wrong and, trust him, he'll fix everything.
She says she's been doing a great job and we should elect her for more of the same.

He has no idea how to fix anything.
She's been making messes from Iraq to Haiti to Libya and Honduras.

Just a couple of sociopaths.


The closing statement is true:

"If she wins the presidency, she will be much like Brezhnev and Andropov, senior apparatchiks of an empire in denial of its own precipitous decline."

However, too many white guys make the case (overt or covert) that Clinton is worse than Trump without mentioning Sanders. That leads to the impression that they back Trump.

Trump's only ideas are those equivalent to "get rich quick schemes."

He's a juvenile narcissist who shows the emotional I.Q. of an angry adolescent.

His remarks about torture, against Snowden, about carpet bombing the Middle East, about building a wall against Mexicans, and universally indicting Muslims are all frightening in anyone, no less a would-be leader.

Before making a case for Trump, these experts should work for Sanders' campaign.

Now it's Parry, Astore, and who else... on the Trump bandwagon passing themselves off as Progressive thinkers?


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


Too bad SHE won't be in the general. The Clinton campaign, along with the DNC, will be investigated for election fraud. The PEOPLE are no longer being the quiet minions they expect! GO BERNIE!


"If she wins the presidency, she will be much like Brezhnev and Andropov, senior apparatchiks of an empire in denial of its own precipitous decline."

Brezhnev and Andropov didn't try to march the Warsaw Pact into Canada and Mexico to ring the USA with forts. Unfortunately, Hillary is much more like Khrushchev, moving missiles into Cuba, and nearly starting WW-III. The whole analogy of the article is an unfortunate sugar coating of Hillary as merely unimaginative and boring, which was sort of what Trump said about her speech so far. She's far more dangerous than "boring", something Trump didn't mind saying about George W. Bush, while calling him stupid for it. Odd that he hasn't noted something similar about Hillary yet ...


For a view of Khrushchev that is largely hidden by the Corporate Media, see James W. Douglass's 2008 extensively footnoted work of Historical Nonfiction "JFK and the Unspeakable - Why He Died and Why it Matters."

After the Cuban Missile Crisis, Khrushchev, President Kennedy and Pope John XXIII began a series of Communications, with the Saturday Review's Norman Cousins acting as Go Between, to radically change the nature of the relationship between the two great nations and to work towards Nuclear Disarmament and World Peace (remember that concept?).

Khrushchev and President Kennedy were ready to announce a joint venture to put a man on the moon (President Kennedy going so far as to issue a directive as such to NASA just ten days before he was murdered), an enormous first step that would have virtually ended the cold war.

The Powers that Now Be saw to it that that would never happen.

After the news of President Kennedy's murder reached Khrushchev, Pierre Salinger was told by an official of the Soviet embassy that he (Khrushchev) "...first wept, then withdrew into a shell. He just wandered around his office for several days like he was in a daze."

Jacqueline Kennedy's words to Soviet Representative Anastas Mikoyan, according to his interpreter, in the receiving line at President Kennedy's funeral were to "...tell Mr. Khrushchev, for me, that my husband and Mr. Khrushchev could have brought peace to this world by working together. Now Mr. Khrushchev will have to do it alone."

Khrushchev was put out to pasture by his own Government shortly thereafter, never again to be a factor in World Politics.


Khrushchev post Cuban Missile Crisis may have been a much more sober man, yes, and may have worked with Kennedy well. From that, one can conclude that he learned from his mistakes. Unfortunately, Hillary shows no such learning curve, and seems to grow worse after each mistake.

So to clarify my initial comparison, Hillary is worse than Khrushchev, and is certainly not Brezhnev or Andropov ...


For many people who are leery of a Trump presidency, Hillary’s hawkish and colorless conformity to the Washington system is more than enough to qualify her. If she wins the presidency, she will be much like Brezhnev and Andropov, senior apparatchiks of an empire in denial of its own precipitous decline.

The closing paragraph to article is so bloody true, and I believe obvious to anyone not fully immersed in Matrix.