* * *
“Clinton to Paint Trump as a Risk to World Order.”
(*SNORT*)
Thus did page one of Thursday’s New York Times tee up Hillary
Clinton’s big San Diego speech on foreign policy.
Inside the Times, the headline was edited to underline
the point: “Clinton to Portray Trump as Risk to the World.”
The Times promoted the speech as “scorching,” a “sweeping
and fearsome portrayal of Mr. Trump, one that the Clinton campaign will deliver
like a drumbeat to voters in the coming months.”
What is happening here?
As Donald Trump is splitting off blue-collar Democrats on
issues like America’s broken borders and Bill Clinton’s trade debacles like
NAFTA, Hillary Clinton is trying to peel off independents and Republicans by
painting Trump as “temperamentally unfit” to be commander in chief.
* YEP.
(*NODDING*)
* "NEVER TRUMP" = "YES TO HILLARY" OR
"YES TO SOME OTHER DEMOCRAT LEFTIST" OR "YES TO RINOism."
PERIOD.
* FOLKS... AGAIN... I CAN'T OVER-STRESS THAT THE RINOs ARE
SCUM.
Clinton contends that a Trump presidency would be a
national embarrassment, that his ideas are outside the bipartisan mainstream of
U.S. foreign policy, and that he is as contemptuous of our democratic allies as
he is solicitous of our antidemocratic adversaries.
* THE "BIPARTISAN MAINSTREAM" OF U.S. FOREIGN
POLICY HAS BEEN A DISASTER FOR YEARS!
In portraying Trump as an intolerable alternative,
Clinton will find echoes in the GOP establishment and among the Kristol-Kagan
neocons, many of whom have already signed an open letter rejecting Trump.
* THE KRISTOL GANG SHOULD BE SHUNNED. PERIOD.
William Kristol has recruited one David French to run on
a National Review-Weekly Standard line to siphon off just enough votes from the
GOP nominee to tip a couple of swing states to Clinton.
(*SMIRK*)
* YEAH. GOOD LUCK WITH THAT, SCUMBAG.
(*SPITTING ON THE GROUND*)
* HAS NRO FIRED FRENCH YET? TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE
THE ANSWER IS "NO" - WHICH TELLS YOU ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT NRO.
(INDEED, FOLKS... GOOGLE "FIRED BY NRO" AND SEE WHAT YOU FIND;
THEY'RE CERTAINLY NOT ABOVE FIRING FOLKS I DEEP ADMIRE FOR NOT ONLY BEING RIGHT
MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, BUT FOR BEING PERSONALLY BRAVE ENOUGH TO TELL THE TRUTH.)
* NRO IS A DEN OF VIPERS.
Robert Kagan contributed an op-ed to a welcoming
Washington Post saying the Trump campaign is “how fascism comes to America.”
* NO. THAT WOULD BE THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION. (JACKASS!)
Yet, if Clinton means to engage on foreign policy, this
is not a battle Trump should avoid. For the lady has an abysmal record on
foreign policy and a report card replete with failures.
As senator, Clinton voted to authorize President Bush to
attack and invade a nation, Iraq, that had not attacked us and did not want war
with us.
Clinton calls it her biggest mistake, another way of
saying that the most important vote she ever cast proved disastrous for her
country, costing 4,500 U.S. dead and a trillion dollars.
(*NOD*)
That invasion was the worst blunder in U.S. history and a
contributing factor to the deepening disaster of the Middle East, from which,
it appears, we will not soon be able to extricate ourselves.
(*SIGH*)
As secretary of state, Clinton supported the unprovoked
U.S.-NATO attack on Libya and joked of the lynching of Moammar Gadhafi, “We
came. We saw. He died.”
* HE WASN'T JUST LYNCHED; HE WAS BRUTALLY TORTURED...
SEXUALLY ABUSED... AND THEN MURDERED BY "OUR" (HILLARY'S, OBAMA'S)
"ALLIES."
* I SHED NO TEARS FOR GADHAFI, BUT COM'ON... HAD THIS
HAPPENED TO SADDAM UNDER BUSH'S WATCH...
(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)
* FOLKS... THE SAME PEOPLE WHO RELENTLESSLY BASHED BUSH
FOR ENHANCED INTERROGATION OF TERRORISTS - NON-LETHAL, NON-DISFIGURING QUESTIONING
- DIDN'T BAT AN EYE AT WHAT WE DID TO GADAFI - AT THE ACTIONS CLINTON CHEERED. COM'ON...
(*SNORT*)
Yet, even Barack Obama now agrees the Libyan war was
started without advance planning for what would happen when Gadhafi fell. And
that lack of planning, that failure in which Clinton was directly involved,
Obama now calls the worst mistake of his presidency.
* WHICH HE OVERSAW AFTER THE CASE STUDY OF BUSH'S IRAQ
DEBACLE WAS ALREADY BEFORE HIM!
* TOTAL RECKLESSNESS. TOTAL IRRESPONSIBILITY. TOTAL
INCOMPETENCE.
Is Clinton’s role in pushing for two wars, both of which
resulted in disasters for her country and the entire Middle East, something to
commend her for the presidency of the United States?
* YEP. TO MANY IT IS! (AMAZING, HUH?) TENS OF MILLIONS OF
MORONS VIEW THIS AS "EXPERIENCE."
Is the slogan to be, “Let Hillary clean up the mess she
helped to make?”
(*HEADACHE*)
Whether or not Clinton was complicit in the debacle in
Benghazi, can anyone defend her deceiving the families of the fallen by talking
about finding the evildoer who supposedly made the videotape that caused it
all?
* OF COURSE SHE WAS COMPLICIT! AS WAS OBAMA! AS WAS
PANETTA! AS WAS PATRAEUS! (I'M STILL AMAZED THAT PATRAEUS HASN'T SUFFERED AN
"ACCIDENT" OR PERHAPS A "HEART ATTACK." HE MUST HAVE SOME
SORT OF FAIL-SAFE "IF I DIE THE INFO IS FORWARDED" PLAN IN PLACE
WHICH OBAMA AND THE CREW KNOW ABOUT.)
How many other secretaries of state have been condemned
by their own inspector general for violating the rules for handling state
secrets, for deceiving investigators, and for engaging, along with that cabal
she brought into her secretary’s office, in a systematic stonewall to keep the
department from learning the truth?
* FOLKS... BACK TO BENGHAZI... SHE WENT BACK TO SLEEP!
WHILE OUR MEN WERE FIGHTING FOR THEIR LIVES... SHE WENT BACK TO SLEEP! (AS DID
OBAMA!)
Where in all of this is there the slightest
qualification, other than a honed instinct for political survival, for Clinton
to lead America out of the morass into which she, and the failed foreign policy
elite nesting around her, plunged the United States?
If Trump will stay true to his message, he can win the
foreign policy debate, and the election, because what he is arguing for is what
Americans want.
They do not want any more Middle East wars.
They do not want to fight Russians in the Baltic or
Ukraine, or the Chinese over some rocks in the South China Sea.
They understand that, as Truman had to deal with Stalin,
and Ike with Khrushchev, and Nixon with Brezhnev, and Reagan with Gorbachev, a
U.S. president should sit down with a Vladimir Putin to avoid a clash neither
country wants, and from which neither country would benefit.
The coming Clinton-neocon nuptials have long been
predicted in this space. [After all, these scum] have so much in common. They
belong with each other.
* THAT THEY DO, PAT; THAT THEY DO!
* HEY JOHN SULLIVAN - YOU READING THIS, BUDDY?
But this country will not survive as the last superpower
if we do not shed this self-anointed role as the “indispensable nation” that
makes and enforces the rules for the “rules-based world order,” and that acts
as first responder in every major firefight on earth.
No comments:
Post a Comment