On June 2, Hillary Clinton delivered a speech on foreign policy, though it was pretty much an attack on Donald Trump. MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski noted this when introducing the panel on Morning Joe, where the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haas, was invited to presumably to analyze the former first lady’s speech.
“You were going to be here to talk about Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy speech. I’m really not sure why you’re here now after watching that speech. It was a good attack speech. It was strong, but there’s no foreign policy in there,” said Brzezinski.
“I just happened to be in the neighborhood,” replied Haas.
Go over to Guy’s write up of Clinton’s speech and it’s dotted by attacks on Trump’s temperament, his mental stability, and his pervasive negative attitude towards the country regarding its state of decline. It was pretty much a ripping of a “know-nothing madman.” Yet, both Guy and America Rising Squared, a pro-GOP PAC, noted that Clinton’s shaky ground when it comes to foreign policy. After all, under she and Obama presided over serial failures aboard, explicitly showing the shortfalls, naiveté, and sheer incompetence within smart power diplomacy.
First, Guy’s take:
Even as she delivered blow after blow, Mrs. Clinton exposed herself to numerous policy criticisms and charges of hypocrisy. She said that America "stands up to countries that treat women as animals," ignoring the lucrative donations her family foundation has happily accepted from repressive nations. She praised the terrible and fraudulently-sold Iran deal that Trump rightly opposes, erecting strawmen as the only alternatives to striking a recklessly lopsided and concession-laden bargain with an evil regime that the US government just affirmed remains the planet's top state sponsor of terrorism. She suggested that Trump's poor judgment and juvenile impulses could embroil the United States in ill-advised conflicts and overseas interventions. This, from a woman whose record and rhetoric on Iraq has been craven at every level, and who championed and advocated costly misadventures in Libya and Syria.
She sneered at Trump's ridiculous secret plan to defeat ISIS, stating flatly that he doesn't actually have one. But ISIS' rise and proliferation was directly caused by the Obama/Clinton foreign policy, which insisted upon a precipitous and politically-motivated withdrawal from Iraq, and that manipulated and ignored intelligence that demonstrated that the terror army constituted a far more serious threat than a ragtag "jayvee" team. "There's nothing I take more seriously than our national security," she averred, hoping that viewers would simply forget how she knowingly and deliberately compromised our national security with her improper and unsecure email scheme -- about which she's endlessly lied, and for which she's under active FBI investigation.
Now, over to Jeremy Alder, communication director for America Rising Squared:
Hillary Clinton should only be talking about herself when it comes to a dangerous, failed foreign policy because that’s the only way to describe her record. Her disastrous decision-making on a slew of issues has been well-documented, from repeated missteps when dealing with Putin’s Russia to nonexistent planning for Libya to using a private email server for classified material that put American lives at risk, she disqualified herself from ever making foreign policy decisions on behalf of the United States again. If Hillary Clinton wants to highlight what a dangerous, risky and failed foreign policy looks like, all she has to do is look in the mirror.”
Here was their cheat sheet to Clinton’s serial failure:
Just look at her dangerous decision-making when it comes to Russia and it’s clear that she can never be trusted to make foreign policy decisions on behalf of the United States again:
? She orchestrated the failed Russian Reset that threatens U.S. interests around the world
? She exaggerated the effects of her deals with Russia, according to a nonpartisan fact checker
? She failed to keep America safe by using a private email server that individuals with Russian ties
reportedly tried to hack five times, while an ex-CIA officer said there’s a “100% chance” that her emails were targeted by the Russians.
Her repeated failures in dealing with such an important geopolitical player is emblematic of her failures as a whole. Whether it was her strong support of intervening in Libya or how her State Department dropped the ball on Boko Haram’s continued expansion, she has no business trying to tout her foreign policy credentials because they do not exist.
On issue after issue, Hillary Clinton made the wrong decision on behalf of America’s foreign policy. If she wants to talk about dangerous, risky and failed foreign policy, all she has to do is look in the mirror.
That’s why the core of the speech was an attack on Trump. I may not have a great record, in fact, it reeks of failure, but Trump is just insane. That’s the mindset. It’s the look whose worse pivot. Don’t get me wrong, there are some aspects of what Trump would do abroad, like killing the families of terrorists, that are just un-serious. Yet, given how he’s a master of media attention, maybe that’s what he wanted to do. For Trump, any day the media is dominated by him is a good day. For Clinton, the server, the analysis of her foreign policy record, her pervasive flip-flopping on policy (NAFTA, TPP), the IG reports showing that the private email system would have never been approved, nor did her team approach State Department officials for permission to establish said server—is the make up of a disastrous day in the news. Moreover, it all feeds into the narrative that she’s untrustworthy and dishonest. Right now, Trump is considered more honest than Clinton by a two-to-one margin, albeit Trump’s numbers in this area are also low. Nevertheless, it’s not a good figure for Clinton (19/35). Perhaps that’s why she came out guns blazing with this speech. To show voters that she’s the one who you can trust with the nuclear codes. At the same time, she’s widely unpopular. Yet, so is Mr. Trump. For many this year, it’ll be which poison to pick. Yet, with Trump, it’s a roll of the dice. You might get a placebo, which sounds a lot better than a concoction that is Hillary Clinton that’ll certainly end in a fatality.