Home | About | Donate

Hillary Clinton’s ‘Major Foreign Policy Address’ Was Anything But


#1

Hillary Clinton’s ‘Major Foreign Policy Address’ Was Anything But

Phyllis Bennis

In the last days before the California primary, where Democratic primary polls showed her neck-and-neck with Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton delivered a campaign speech in San Diego. Though her campaign billed it as a “major foreign policy address,” it looked more like a last-ditch attempt to position herself as the Democratic nominee ahead of a potentially embarrassing loss or close finish with Sanders in the nation’s most populous state.


#2

Hillary Clinton is trying to be more like Donald Trump. Trump gives a speech and the news media calls it ranting. Hillary Clinton gives the SAME speech and they call it "brilliant." Hillary cannot out Trump Trump no matter how hard she tries.


#3

For an even more devastating take on Hillary and Libya read Robert Parry:

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/06/04/libyas-chaos-theory-undercuts-hillary/


#4

" the barely useful climate deal in Copenhagen..."

In retrospect, it appears that the deal in Copenhagen was anything but barely useful. We can now see that it formed a foundation for the Paris climate agreement. Both the Copenhagen Accord achieved by Obama and Clinton in 2009 and the Paris climate agreement are based on voluntary pledges to reduce emissions. With the Copenhagen Accord only developed countries made such pledges but after Obama and Kerry achieved a breakthrough with China developing countries also joined in to make pledges in the Paris agreement. So for the first time almost all countries in the world are coordinating to fight climate change. That is not something to scoff at. It is a big deal and offers some hope of avoiding global catastrophe.


#5

And yet Obama continues to approve more offshore drilling and fracking - promoting the continued use of fossil fuels that the planet doesn't have time for. Oil continues to be transported in unsafe, loosely regulated rail cars causing releases to the environment and/or through pipelines with similarly loose regulations also causing releases to the environment - much of which goes unreported in the MSM.


#6

Clinton is far more dangerous than Trump simply because you know that HRC's allegiance are to the 1% that promotes such dangerous policies in the pursuit of profits. At least Trump may recognize an unjust war and reject it on that account. HRC on the other hand has never seen a war she doesn't support.


#7

Bennis is very wise on foreign policy, especially the Middle East. She is willing and able to cut through the BS of government-speak where the MSM revels in the mire. Great piece!


#10

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


#14

I don't disagree about the challenge of getting a global climate deal that all the parties could agree to is quite a feat. What is sad is that it will be even harder for all parties to implement what they've agreed to and that the agreement is not nearly enough - it falls far short of what is needed.

As for Copenhagen, US unwillingness to accept any responsibility for climate change and intransigence to even hear any of the proposals of the global south were primary factors in coming away pretty much empty-handed.

Note: China is ahead of schedule in achieving in what is agreed to in the binary China-US agreement. How is the US doing?


#16

Excellent article.

Terrifying, too. Clinton and Trump are both menaces albeit for different reasons. What are the chances Clinton will start a nuclear war? 1 in 10?


#20

War of Words - "Pathetic" or "Unfit" - Donald Trump's recent descriptor and assessment of Hilary Clinton is that she is "pathetic". For all intents and purposes, it is not a stretch to suggest that Donald Trump would seriously apply 'pathetic' as a Trumpolitic to describe other leaders: David Cameron is 'pathetic', Vicente Fox is 'pathetic', President Obama is 'pathetic'. "Pathetic" is indeed vicious but geez - "unfit" has far reaching consequences and America might consider a huge 'thank you' to Hilary Clinton for applying "unfit" to Donald Trump. "Unfit" is brilliant. The far reaching implications and consequences of Clinton's "unfit" is that Donald Trump is "unfit" to be Commander-in-Chief. Wow - 'President' Hilary Clinton has preemptively discharged Donald Trump from Commander-in-Chief - even before he takes office. 'President' Hilary Clinton has not only discharged Donald Trump from Commander-in-Chief but she added dishonor as a double dose i.e. she dishonorably discharged Donald Trump. She even left open the question of legality - can a President be dishonorably discharged on day one? Hilary, no doubt, soundly wins round one of the war of words.