Readings – Hillary Clinton’s ‘Entangled’ Foreign Policy

~ Readings features content from elsewhere. ~


Hillary Clinton, Wikipedia

In her foreign policy speech last week, Hillary Clinton spent a lot of time bashing Donald Trump, implying as Daniel Lazare says, “that because Trump is bonkers, Hillary must be the opposite, i.e. thoughtful and mature,” before going on to point out that “this is a woman who has had a hand in five or six of the major foreign-policy disasters of the post-9/11 period.”

Clinton says our alliances make us strong.  But, friendship in common interest is one thing; “entangling alliances”* inherent in the unavoidable differences in interests between our friends and ourselves are another.

*From the title and text of the article, “entangling alliances” is a reference to Thomas Jefferson’s inaugural address pledge for “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none.”


Hillary Clinton’s ‘Entangled’ Foreign Policy

Exclusive: Besides bashing Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton offered few specifics in her big foreign policy speech which stressed the value of “friends.” But those “entangling alliances” helped create today’s global chaos, writes Daniel Lazare.


Now that Hillary Clinton has clinched the Democratic nomination, her June 2 foreign-policy speech is looking more and more important. The reason is simple: Clinton is going to be all over Donald Trump in the coming months, punching away at his racism and xenophobia, his thinly veiled appeals to violence, and his fraudulent business practices.

But what she’ll no doubt hit him hardest on is his general unfitness to be anywhere near the nuclear button. As she put it in San Diego: “This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes – because it’s not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because somebody got under his very thin skin.”

It’s hard to disagree – the man does seem out of control. But what has critics choking on their morning coffee is the implication that because Trump is bonkers, Hillary must be the opposite, i.e. thoughtful and mature. As opponents ranging from ConsortiumNews’s Robert Parry toPaul R. Pillar, Jeffrey Sachs, Jeet Heer, Diana Johnstone, and Gary Leupp have pointed out, this is a woman who has had a hand in five or six of the major foreign-policy disasters of the post-9/11 period. So where does she get off calling Trump reckless? … Continue reading

This entry was posted in 2016 Election, Foreign Policy, Readings and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Readings – Hillary Clinton’s ‘Entangled’ Foreign Policy

  1. wordcloud9 says:

    So what’s your alternative? Writing in Bernie Sanders? Staying home and not voting at all? Voting for Donald Trump?

    Write-ins, staying home, or outright voting for Donald Trump all amount to the same time – putting Donald Trump in the White House. Putting the codes in Donald Trump’s tiny hands that launch weapons of mass destruction. Giving him the choice of who will be on the Supreme Court.

    Take a long, hard look at his most recent hate-fueled rant.

    And don’t forget, whatever you think about Hillary Clinton’s years of public service, at least she HAS years of public service. Donald Trump has NO EXPERIENCE in public service. NONE. ZERO.

  2. Queries says:

    We can only hope that the people with the where with all to, do make a change before it is too late, and gain at least a modicum of appreciation for the actuality of our situation by the time the Convention comes around on July 25, and act to prevent this disastrous match up.

  3. ghotiphaze says:

    There’s no reason to bash except during a debate. Anyone not aware Donny is nuttier ‘ n a bag o’ left-handed monkey wrenches isn’t going to bewitching Hillary anyway. But if that’s the only asset she can bring to the table.
    If Hillary doesn’t garner the votes to beat Trump it isn’t the fault of the voters. Her salesmanship is obviously lacking.

  4. ghotiphaze says:

    Ed. bash Trump

  5. So if I don’t vote for Hillary, I am responsible if she loses and Trump wins? Oh hell no. Her weaknesses are her own dong, and TPTB that are orchestrating her nomination should never have put forth such a flawed candidate.

    For someone like me who sees HRC as /, voting for the “lesser evil” is still voting for “evil.” In addition, to second Q, a lot can happen between now and 7/25.

  6. LOL, fish – “nuttier ‘ n a bag o’ left-handed monkey wrenches”

  7. Unless there is an untimely death, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton will be the major party nominees. Neither party is able to overturn the popular vote of the primaries, so hoping for that is whistling past the graveyard. One of them is going to be elected President of the United States in November, and sworn into office in January. The only thing fringe or third-party candidates can do is to act as spoilers. How did you like President Al Gore? You can put that in your pipe and smoke it.

    Regardless of all other considerations, the next President will nominate at least one, and possibly as many as three or four Supreme Court Justices. Keep that in mind. Who do you want shaping the SCOTUS for the next twenty five or thirty years?

    All else pales into insignificance when one considered what the SCOTUS is going to look like for at least one to two generations–or more.

  8. wordcloud9 says:

    I used to be a left-wing purist – until Ronald Reagan got re-elected and I went to a Workshop called “Four More Years – Where Do We Go From Here?”

    I asked the highest-ranking Democrat who was there, an aide to Senator Alan Cranston, how the party was going to get disaffected voters, and those who weren’t registered, to go to the polls. His answer was that the party was concentrating on the people who were going to the polls already.

    In other words, the Democratic Party moved to the Right to woo the current voters.

    If you don’t vote, or you write in some third party candidate, you don’t count, and the Democratic Party will continue to shift to the Right.

  9. ghotiphaze says:

    So my choice of the shape of the Supreme court for the next generation is more Citizens United or more Citizens United? More Patriot Act or more Patriot Act? More Wall Street theiving or more Wall Street theiving? Biggest difference I see is one has no clue what he’s doing and the other knows exactly what she’s doing.

  10. wordcloud9 says:

    If the Left Wing of the Party wants a say in who the NEXT Democratic candidate for President will be, then showing up at the polls for this year’s Democratic candidate is a must.

  11. The next judicial appointments will either be in the mold of Thomas, Alito and Roberts, or they will be more like Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsberg and Breyer. FWIW, Bill Clinton appointed Justice Stephen Breyer, who is considered the liberal intellectual counterweight to Scalia. Clinton also appointed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

  12. I bobbled part of my earlier comment – For someone like me who sees HRC as a proven disaster as SoS and further disaster should she become pres, voting for the “lesser evil” is still voting for “evil.”

    The US is an oligarchy in which the monied interests almost always get what they want, and big money views war as a profitable enterprise. This combined with H’s war hawk tendencies would put millions of lives at risk. I hear the supreme court argument, but as long as big money is pulling the strings, big money is who will have a sympathetic court.

  13. ragnarsbhut says:

    The only foreign policy of the democrats is to bend over and take up the ass the abuses we suffer at the hands of other countries.

Comments are closed.