Patrick J. Buchanan
Sen. Rand Paul raises an interesting question:
When has Hillary Clinton ever been right on foreign policy?
When has Hillary Clinton ever been right on foreign policy?
The valkyrie of the Democratic Party
says she urged President Obama to do more to aid Syrian rebels years
ago. And last summer, she supported air strikes on Bashar Assad’s
regime.
Had we followed her advice and crippled Assad’s army, ISIS might be in Damascus today, butchering Christians and Alawites and aiding the Islamic State in Iraq in overrunning Baghdad.
But if the folly of attacking Assad’s army and weakening its resistance to ISIS terrorists is apparent to everyone this summer, why were Clinton, Obama and Secretary of State Kerry oblivious to this reality just a year ago?
Consider the rest of Hillary’s record. Her most crucial decision as senator came in 2002 when she voted to invade Iraq. She now concedes it was the greatest mistake of her Senate career.
She voted against the surge in 2006, but confided to Defense Secretary Bob Gates that she did so to maintain her political viability for 2008.
This is statesmanship? Not voting your convictions about what is best for your country at war, so as not to antagonize the liberals in the Iowa caucuses?
In 2009, Hillary presented a “reset button” to Vladimir Putin’s foreign minister. In 2011, she supported U.S. air strikes to bring down Col. Gadhafi and celebrated in Tripoli when he was overthrown and lynched.
How did that work out?
Libya is today a hellhole of murder and mayhem, and Islamists are threatening a takeover.
Who did Hillary think would rise when Gadhafi fell?
Hillary’s failure to anticipate or prevent the Benghazi massacre and her role in the botched cover-up, all concede, are burdens she will carry into the primaries in 2016, should she run.
Where, then, has Hillary exhibited the acumen to suggest she would be a wise and savvy steward of U.S. foreign policy in a disintegrating world?
Article continues at wnd.com
Had we followed her advice and crippled Assad’s army, ISIS might be in Damascus today, butchering Christians and Alawites and aiding the Islamic State in Iraq in overrunning Baghdad.
But if the folly of attacking Assad’s army and weakening its resistance to ISIS terrorists is apparent to everyone this summer, why were Clinton, Obama and Secretary of State Kerry oblivious to this reality just a year ago?
Consider the rest of Hillary’s record. Her most crucial decision as senator came in 2002 when she voted to invade Iraq. She now concedes it was the greatest mistake of her Senate career.
She voted against the surge in 2006, but confided to Defense Secretary Bob Gates that she did so to maintain her political viability for 2008.
This is statesmanship? Not voting your convictions about what is best for your country at war, so as not to antagonize the liberals in the Iowa caucuses?
In 2009, Hillary presented a “reset button” to Vladimir Putin’s foreign minister. In 2011, she supported U.S. air strikes to bring down Col. Gadhafi and celebrated in Tripoli when he was overthrown and lynched.
How did that work out?
Libya is today a hellhole of murder and mayhem, and Islamists are threatening a takeover.
Who did Hillary think would rise when Gadhafi fell?
Hillary’s failure to anticipate or prevent the Benghazi massacre and her role in the botched cover-up, all concede, are burdens she will carry into the primaries in 2016, should she run.
Where, then, has Hillary exhibited the acumen to suggest she would be a wise and savvy steward of U.S. foreign policy in a disintegrating world?
Article continues at wnd.com
I like the picture at the top of your blog. Hillary isn't worth commenting on.
ReplyDeleteBBC - Thanks and I agree.
ReplyDeleteThat picture has been up so long it's time to rename this blog the "Greenbeerriver".
ReplyDeleteLOL
Hillary who?
Hilarious Rottingham Clintscum?
Oh... THAT Hillary.
Bob - Has been there for quite a spell hasn't it?
ReplyDeleteI think she's a freakin nightmare, but I think a lot of women will vote for her just because she's got an iny not an outy.
We need a woman president just to prove that they won't do any better of a job. I fully expect each next president to get worse than the last one.
ReplyDeleteAt least Bill entertained us with some blow jobs.
An iny not an outy?
ReplyDeleteDoesn't matter... been rusted shut for years.
Surprise of the decade:
The Gundeck just passed 75,000 pageviews.
BBC - Yeah we do need a woman president for that reason and if she did do better, that would be good too, as long as it's not Hitlery.
ReplyDeleteBob -
ReplyDeleteCLINTON HOME -
(BILL CLINTON'S UPSTAIRS BUTLER)
"What's the matter sir, you seem nervous?"
"It's Hillary, she's looking for the WD-40!"
75,000? Congratulations!
Yep, 75,000.
ReplyDeleteColor me totally surprised.
i think the old bag has been cloned and the copies are going rogue. at least she's giving obama a few headaches.
ReplyDelete