* * *
“Clinton to Paint Trump as a Risk to World Order.”
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.
* "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.
* 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.
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.
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...
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?”
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.