Posted on 06/03/2016 7:00:04 AM PDT by McGruff
"Hillary Clinton's history of supporting interventionism puts her in a weird place to be portraying her opponent as trigger happy."
Flanked by 19 American flags, Hillary Clinton gave a wide-ranging foreign policy speech on Thursday, in which she flayed Donald Trump for his "thin skin" and "dangerously incoherent" approach to international affairs.
But that was just one of several statements that raised observers' eyebrows, in a speech that some said was full of fundamental contradictions—and hinted at Clinton's own hawkish positions.
Awkward: Hillary to give a speech on the very thing Dem pundits have spent a year desperately trying to ignore: her foreign policy.
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) June 2, 2016
Clinton talks about Iran alleged nuclear pursuit one second and Israel's "security" the next. Drink! for no mention of Israel's nukes!
— Sam Husseini (@samhusseini) June 2, 2016
Listening to this speech & Clinton's words on Iran, Russia, & Israel, SHE sounds like the neocon candidate. Why can't Kristol run her?
— Anya Parampil (@anyaparampil) June 2, 2016
#Clinton just put military action against Iran back on the table and criticized Trump for wanting to be "neutral" on Israel/Palestine
— Anya Parampil (@anyaparampil) June 2, 2016
Hillary Clinton's history of supporting interventionism puts her in a weird place to be portraying her opponent as trigger happy
— Yousef Munayyer (@YousefMunayyer) June 2, 2016
Like Clinton's love for Henry Kissinger, Benjamin Netanyahu, the king of Saudi Arabia, and Dick Cheney. https://t.co/O1CA0X5QJv
— Shazad Hamid (@ShazadHamid) June 2, 2016
Hillary: "America stands up to countries that treat women like animals"(!!!) pic.twitter.com/80m8GbUvQE
— Secular Talk (@KyleKulinski) June 2, 2016
Good Clinton speech, BUT: Clinton is going to run to the right of Donald Trump on Israel/Palestine. That should sober & disturb people.
— Jeet Heer (@HeerJeet) June 2, 2016
Hillary's foreign policy rhetoric mimics that of the GOP candidates' even in terms of phraseology and wording pic.twitter.com/VlZ45LouEo
— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) June 2, 2016
This isn't hard: if you're an interventionist hawk like @BillKristol, Hillary Clinton is your candidate, try as you might to avoid it.
— Conor Friedersdorf (@conor64) May 31, 2016
Clinton did not mention her Democratic rival Bernie Sanders in Thursday's remarks.
I didn’t post a link to the commie site but if you really want to go there:
I’m not responsible for any zika viruses you might acquire.
The projection is simply overwhelming.
Trump ought to obliterate her in a debate. I would like to see him stun her speechless....then apologize, and say he’d be willing to accept her Yorkshire Terrier imitation for an answer. That would be an all time presidential campaign classic.
Neocons are smitten with her.
But keeping America entangled with the world is not what most Americans want.
Trump can win here over Hillary, big time.
The Neocons and the Wall St War industry need Hillary to make more wars and regime changes in order for them to make money. It’s amazing that the hard left peace nicks don’t see this as they stump for Hillary and more wars and extreme profits for the War corps.
“Tell me Madame Secretary, you claim I’m a fraud for charging $35K for a multi-month course for which there is as much as a 98% satisfaction rate based upon feedback we have received. You gave speeches for $250K for 45 minutes that we all know were backhanded campaign contributions. Who’s the fraud, again?”
Vaporized.
That, my friends, is Liberalism in a nutshell.
From the parts I have seen on the news, it was not a foreign policy speech, only an attack on Trump.
Did not the witch just complain about Trump attacking people?
She cannot give a real foreign policy speech because it would only highlight her failures in that area.
Can she name any victories during her tenure as Secretary of State?
Trump can certainly identify many foreign policy failures she is responsible for.
Her speech was terrible - even honest Democrats admitted this. Yet some of the MSM headlines, hoping to sway the masses, all but declared it a masterpiece.
The hardcore Left wants Bernie.
Hillary is milquetoast and too compromising for them.
That’s been her problem all along.
As she pivots to the center, she risks shedding the most militant parts of the Democratic base.
Now Hillary has to calculate whether she can win the election without them.
I predict there will BE no debates in this election cycle.
She would be absolutely insane to get on the same stage with him.
POOF!
I bet Clinton does not agree to debate him.
I said the same thing. She does not speak without a script. She has no news conferences this year.
And I'm betting she is not the nominee. The dems would be insane to try to run with her. Bernie or Biden.
Oops. Sorry. Ignore the Amazon link. I got my copy/paste mixed up.
They would be crazy to run with her if she loses California. I got to be honest, I never see a bumper stickers of hers. Her rallies are poorly attended. I cannot believe she is legitimately in the lead.
“She would be absolutely insane to get on the same stage with him.”
What’s this “would” thing you speak of?
I agree, of course, but what’s her alternative? Trump would savage her on that basis (refuse to debate) alone. And, that point would leap to the head of the line of 15 other things he can ream her on. She’s in for a dime AND in for a dollar.
She can not stop believing her machine will take care of her inevitability. By that I mean, both pathogenically and tactically.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.