"Since U.S. foreign policy directly affects 20 times more people than domestic-i.e. seven billion versus 322 million-then there's no doubt as to whom the "lesser-evilism" award goes to. It goes to Trump."
June 24, 2016, "The ‘Safe’ Risk of Hillary Clinton," Consortium News, Daniel Lazare
|March 30, 2012, St. Dept. photo|
"She (Hillary) is a hawk through and through. Her rhetoric was every bit as ferocious as George W. Bush’s in the days after 9/11, if not more so....
She persuaded President Obama to pursue “regime change” in Libya and spent much of March 2011 recruiting ultra-rich Qatar to join in the effort. But she said nothing when Qatar then poured $400 million into the hands of Islamist rebels who proceeded to spread chaos throughout the country. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Hillary Clinton’s ‘Entangled’ Foreign Policy.”]
Clinton has been no less reckless with regard to Syria. She beat Obama to the punch in calling for Bashar al-Assad’s overthrow, she’s consistently pushed for stepped-up support for the rebels, and, as recently as April (2016), she reiterated her call for a “no-fly zone” even though it would require massive military intervention and would almost certainly mean a confrontation with Russia....
Since U.S. foreign policy directly affects 20 times more people than domestic – i.e. seven billion versus 322 million – then there’s no doubt as to whom the “lesser-evilism” award goes to. It goes to Trump....
Rather than polls, what matters at this point are politics, i.e. a sense of the candidates’ relative ideological strengths and weaknesses. And it’s in this regard that Clinton is more vulnerable than her backers apparently realize.
Her speech in Cleveland following the June 12 Orlando massacre is a good example why. She began – inappropriately in view of the tragic circumstances – with the usual glib shout-outs to local pols:
“I want to thank your extraordinary senator, Sherrod Brown, for his leadership.…I want to thank your congresswoman, Marcia Fudge, who is both indomitable and indefatigable….I want to acknowledge the mayor, Mayor Jackson, who was here, County Executive Budish….”...
When she got to the serious stuff, the clichés only multiplied:
“This is a moment when all Americans need to stand together…we must attack it [i.e. terrorism] with clear eyes, steady hands, unwavering determination, and pride in our country and our values…the barbarity that we face from radical jihadists is profound…”
Once again, the effect was thoughtless and frozen. But then came something truly bizarre:
“Now, the third area that demands attention is preventing radicalization and countering efforts by ISIS and other international terrorist networks to recruit in the United States and Europe. For starters, it is long past time for the Saudis, the Qataris and the Kuwaitis and others to stop their citizens from funding extremist organizations. And they should stop supporting radical schools and mosques around the world that have set too many young people on a path towards extremism.”
Why bizarre? Simply because Clinton has been a national figure for two decades as First Lady, U.S. Senator, and Secretary of State, yet this was a rare recognition that there was something wrong with the U.S.-Saudi relationship. Otherwise, there has been almost nothing but praise. When the State Department negotiated a record $60-billion arms deal with Riyadh in 2010, for instance, her officials stated (somewhat redundantly) that the sale would benefit the Middle East “by deepening our security relationship with a key partner with whom we’ve enjoyed a solid security relationship for nearly seventy years.”
How do you have a solid security relationship with a country that funds extremist mosques that function as a terrorist breeding ground?
When King Abdullah died in January 2015, she and her husband put out a statement praising the Saudi monarch “for his support of efforts for peace in the Middle East” and “the kingdom’s humanitarian efforts around the world.” Since when do you advance the cause of peace by funding Al Qaeda?
To be fair, Clinton was surprisingly frank – once. In December 2009, she wrote in a State Department memo:
“While the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) takes seriously the threat of terrorism within Saudi Arabia, it has been an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority. Due in part to intense focus by the USG over the last several years, Saudi Arabia has begun to make important progress on this front and has responded to terrorist financing concerns raised by the United States through proactively investigating and detaining financial facilitators of concern. Still, donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.”
Double-Talk about Saudis
The language was tough and unsparing. But the memo is the exception that proves the rule since it was a secret in-house communication that only saw the light of day when Wikileaks put it on the Internet – a disclosure, by the way, that Clinton assailed as “an attack on the international community, the alliances and partnerships, the conversations and negotiations that safeguard global security and advance economic prosperity.” (Full quote here starting at 1:34.)
If it’s long past time now for the Saudis to cease funding extremist organizations, why wasn’t it long past time then (in 2009)? Why has Clinton repeatedly assured the American people that everything is fine when, as she now concedes, America’s “friends” are funding extremist forces that are trying to kill Americans in the streets?...
The amount of Persian Gulf money flowing to the Clinton family foundation is...anywhere from $51 million to $75 million. That’s a lot of dough. So voters will want to know whether Clinton intentionally held off criticizing the Gulf monarchies because she wanted them to fork over as soon as she stepped down as Secretary of State and that she is only doing so now because the money is in the bag and there is nothing to lose....
Since she entered the Senate, Al Qaeda has grown from a tiny band of conspirators to a major military force wreaking havoc from Indonesia to California. Yet now she expects voters to show their thanks by propelling her into the White House."...
Image caption: "U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton meetws with Saudi King Abdullah in Riyadh on March 30, 2012. [State Department photo]" 9/27/16, "(Hillary) Clinton’s Faulty New Scheme to ‘Fight’ ISIS," Consortium News, Daniel Lazare
Cameras rolled as Bill Clinton appeared on the debate stage as a "family member" of one of the debaters though he was also there as an "honorary chairman" of the Commission running the "debates." With trillions at stake, the globalists intend to deliver 16 years in the White House to the Clintons. As it happens, the Republican and Democrat Establishments are in complete agreement: "The elites of both parties are, as if by rote, extreme globalists." (The "two sides" occasionally pretend to be opponents, but just for show). Images above from debate one, 9/26/16, via justjared.com
Nov. 2015 article: "Bill Clinton is honorary chairman of Presidential Debate Commission that will decide how Hillary will battle it out on stage:"
Nov. 2, 2015, "Bill Clinton is honorary chairman of Presidential Debate Commission that will decide how Hillary will battle it out on stage," by Nikki Schwab, US political reporter for DailyMail.com
"The Daily Caller is pointing out that Bill Clinton serves as an honorary chairman of the Commission on Presidential Debates, which could create a conflict of interest if his wife Hillary Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee.
The commission is pushing back suggesting that Clinton's title has no actual power, but just a hint of influence over the debates could rattle Republicans, who are already angered over the last primary debate.
The Commission on Presidential Debates is the body responsible for sponsoring and producing the general election debates and has four honorary co-chairmen.
There's Clinton and former President Jimmy Carter who represent the Democrats. On the Republican side, the honorary chairman are two dead presidents– Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan – while the two living Republican presidents, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, dad and brother to candidate Jeb Bush, are not affiliated.
'The former presidents are just that, they are honorary co-chairs, they do not have any involvement in any kinds of decisions the commission makes either on an operational or a policy basis,' Janet Brown, the executive director of the Commission on Presidential Debates told DailyMail.com....
This cycle, the general election debates, three of which are planned along with one vice presidential debate, will be under even more scrutiny in light of the problems the Republicans are having with their primary debates.
Last night [Nov. 2015], a lot of issues came to a head as representatives from 12 of the 14 GOP presidential campaigns met in Washington and hashed out a list of demands for the remaining primary debates.
The demands included the temperature of the room – under 68 degrees, please – the location of the bathrooms, and more substantial items like always allowing opening and closing statements and equal questions to the candidates.
Republican candidates and supporters were upset over last week's CNBC debate, which wasn't just messy, but conservatives felt made a mockery of the candidates by asking them 'gotcha'-type questions.
Donald Trump, for example, was asked, ''Is this a comic book version of a presidential campaign?'
Many of the candidates were also critical of a question some were asked about Fantasy Football.
The Republican National Committee responded by suspending its relationship with NBC for a future February GOP debate.
The campaigns responded by trying to wrestle debate control away from the RNC and the media sponsors, which was the point of last night's discussion.
Moving into the general, there will be similar concerns about left-leaning debate moderators....
And Brown, the executive director of the commission, told DailyMail.com that the honorary co-chairmen, which includes President Clinton, is something the commission could look at in the future."