Good or Bad for the Jews

"Good or Bad for the Jews"

Many years ago, and for many years, I would travel to Morocco to visit uncles, cousins, and my paternal grandmother. Some lived in Tangiers;...

Friday, September 9, 2016

Hillary Clinton's Friday CINC Forum Redo

Just got through listening to Hillary Clinton give a statement to reporters following her meeting with a panel of foreign policy and national security experts. First, a disclaimer of sorts: I have worked for and with some of these experts, and they are legit, well, legit in an inside-the-beltway sort of way.  Let me leave it at that: they are people genuinely concerned about US national security, I don't necessarily agree with them, but they are good people.

Clinton, clearly, was trying to recover from her weak September 7 CINC Forum performance. She has adopted a new, calm, mellifluous speaking manner: no Janis Joplin-like screeching, no wild Joe Cocker-like hand gestures, no Mussolini-like chin in the air. What she said was fine--I couldn't find a link to the text, but am sure it will be out soon. She focussed on North Korea, China, protecting our allies, and dealing with the "growing challenges" in an "arc of instability." OK, fine. Some of her prescriptions were good, e.g., help ROK and Japan establish credible missile defense systems regardless of China's opposition to those. She talked about protecting the homeland from the growing terror threat. OK, fine. She got in a shot at Trump over Putin, saying that Trump is praising a guy who has annexed Crimea. OK, fine.

Some pesky questions keep coming up, however, and they're questions the pet journalists around her do not ask. Are you saying that what Obama and Kerry are doing is inadequate? Why aren't they pursuing a build up of ROK and Japanese defenses? How come the Obama-Clinton reset of relations with Russia didn't prevent Putin from acting in a nasty way? On NORK nukes, didn't the previous Clinton administration assure us that a deal had been reached with Pyongyang ending the NORK nuke threat? What about the deal with Iran? Why will that be any more successful? What about rebuilding the military?

Bottom line: the ONE question she must be asked every time is, when YOU had the power what did YOU do?

She's got nothing.

I am still voting Trump.


  1. I echo your points, Dip.

    Maybe it's also legit to ask, "What did you learn from the Russian 'reset', the Arab Spring;s going bad, North Korea, and China's behavior in the South China Sea?"

  2. What? You mean Jimmy Carter's NORK nuke deal on Clinton's behalf didn't end up being honored at *all* by NORK? But Jimmy's an 'elder statesman'!!! Say it ain't so!
    Seriously, I just about gagged when Clinton enlisted Carter to go sellout American security in the far east to rapacious dictators.

    That said, this is the BS that will be peddled:
    "The deal *was* working until Bush listed NORK as part of the 'axis of evil'.."
    Which is totally bunk, because all evidence points to the NORK nuke program never having even slowed down, they just setup 'the yongbyong diversion' and I'm not even sure Carter and Clinton *didn't* know it.

    It's about 'legacy' for these democrat presidents. They work on their 'legacy' and leave protecting the country and advancing its interests to the non-narcissists.

    Afaict, there is *no* discussion about NORK of any merit whatsoever that doesn't prominently focus on the word 'CHINA'.

    Honestly, I'm very surprised that Obama hasn't sold out Taiwan to China. It's one of those things, like Iran nukes, that can just be seen as a 'fait accompli', and can give a guy like Obama a 'feather in his cap' untarnished by the future disaster by simply 'withdrawing recognition'. It just seems like an 'obama thing', after all he need to 'solve the problem', whether there's a problem or not.

    I hope Trump wins, because Hillary will most definitely not immediately reverse course on Iran sanctions. If there's one thing our allies and enemies should learn, it's that they cannot trust from the US anything less than a *legally* ratified treaty. (Though we ain't getting those $2b in pallets of cash back..)

    - reader #1482

    1. apologies for the screed... the last eight years of foreign policy disaster has left me very upset for the future of our country, and another 8 years of that just is unimaginable.

      - reader #1482

  3. But...but...but Trump says mean things! Surely that outweighs obstruction of justice, treason, peddling influence to foreign countries while Sec State, and various other felonious activities characteristic of the Clinton MO.

    1482, no apology needed. I often feel like ranting myself. Unfortunately, another eight years or worse is perfectly imaginable. After Shrillery comes either Michelle or Chelsea, then Malia. We need a constitutional amendment saying that no spouse or offspring of a President may run for President. Enough with these dynasties,.

    1. Again ... Trump = venial sins ... Clinton = mortal sins. Ditto on the Constitutional amendment.

    2. Were William Henry Harrison and Benjamin Harrison (grandfather and grandson) such a disaster? While we could've done better, I didn't think the Bushes, pere et fils, were very bad.

      However, I am certainly not voting for Shrillary Shrooooooo, and should Moochelle, Chelsea, and/or Malia run, no way. We can't have the US gov't a vast experiment in women on training wheels.

  4. Unfortunately, it will be a cold day in hell before the press asks those questions. Hopefully Trump will make those points in the debates...


  5. "when YOU had the power what did YOU do?"

    Who dares ask that repeatedly of the evil invalid?

  6. In 2012, I thought Romney was the last chance for a soft landing. I still think so. Trump will be a hard landing but at least it won't be a crash.