ELDER PATRIOT – It’s become apparent that Donald Trump’s America First message is resonating with voters concerned about the country’s deteriorating economic conditions. If Trump owns the single most important domestic issue, what does that leave for Hillary?
Page one of the New York Times printed a clear description of Hillary’s campaign plan prior to her “major foreign policy speech” last Thursday: “Clinton to Paint Trump as a Risk to World Order.”
In her attempt to sell this to the American people she will be helped by the #NeverTrump crowd who have benefitted so greatly from United States’ military adventurism.
But, does Mrs. Clinton’s “vast” foreign policy experience come with a record of success that she can sell to the American people? Is experience alone sufficient or is even a modicum of success necessary to warrant election to the presidency?
On the two biggest foreign policy decisions of the past sixteen years her record has proven to be abysmal.
She voted for the Afghan/Iraq war that has resulted in the useless death and injury to over fifty thousand of our young men and women. Useless because Iraq was a nation that had not attacked us and did not want war with us. Useless because the result has been a less stable Iraq than before our invasion.
Mrs. Clinton herself calls it her biggest mistake after having admitted that she did not read in full the classified National Intelligence Estimate that was delivered ten days before the vote to all members of Congress. That report gave a more subtle case for Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction than the Bush Administration’s abridged summary. As we came to learn, there were no weapons of mass destruction.
For this Clinton wants us to trust her, after admitting she couldn’t be bothered reading the NIE before deciding to put young American lives at risk.
As Secretary of State, Clinton was the architect of the joint U.S. NATO attack on Libya that Barack Obama now laments was the worst mistake of his presidency. The failure was a result of Mrs. Clinton’s lack of advance planning concerning how the peace would be won after the war had been won.
Two major decisions while serving with two different presidents resulted in two Clinton failures. Both mistakes were a result of her failure to properly prepare. And now she has the temerity to attack Donald Trump as the leader who threatens the world order. What is the difference between Mrs. Clinton and Paul Wolfowitz or George Bush whose policies delivered us to this mess? On the issue of liberal interventionism there isn’t any.
Mrs. Clinton used her speech to blast Trump for wanting to engage our antidemocratic adversaries as though something could be lost in such an endeavor. But this is exactly what Truman did with Stalin, Eisenhower did with Khrushchev, Nixon did with Brezhnev, and Reagan did with Gorbachev.
To criticize Trump for suggesting that he and Russian President Vladimir Putin might find some common ground as Reagan and Gorbachev did after meeting in Reykjavik exposes in Mrs. Clinton her continued embrace of irresponsible foreign policy. But then isn’t that what Mrs. Clinton has been all about, starting wars without planning for them?
While voting for the Iraq War she opposed the Levin Amendment that would have required the President to conduct vigorous diplomacy at the U.N., and would have also required a separate Congressional authorization to unilaterally invade Iraq. How many lives might’ve been saved had she, and congress, voted to be more diligent before voting? This is the record she chooses to run on. Perhaps this will work with her most strident followers and those few remaining Republicans who have likewise drank of the neocons’ Kool-Aid.
With the support of the #NeverTrump globalists Mrs. Clinton is hoping to paint Donald Trump as outside the political mainstream of both parties. Rank and file Republicans have already coalesced behind Donald Trump and his “talk first” strategy while close to half of Democratic voters have rejected Mrs. Clinton in favor of a party outsider who, like Trump, rejects the use of our military as a first resort.
In her quest for the presidency it appears Mrs. Clinton has started another war she wasn’t prepared to win.