Hillary’s Two-Faced Foreign Policy

hill3Ever since Hillary broke with Barack over the virtues of doing stupid stuff, the editorial columnists have been pretending that she has some new and exciting foreign policy.

She doesn’t.

The left has denounced her as an interventionist. They just can’t explain how she is any more of an interventionist than her boss who bombed Libya, is bombing Iraq and wanted to bomb Syria. And all that is without mentioning his attempt to implement the Arab Spring’s regime changes.

The closest thing to a disagreement between them was over Syria and considering that Obama was days away from getting into Syria, that’s not much of a firewall.

Hillary took a cheap shot at Obama. The media spent so much time discussing the hugging summit that it completely ignored the fact that it was a cheap shot with no substance to it. Hillary and Obama have the same ideological DNA and get their ideas from the same narrow circles. Hillary doesn’t have a better or worse foreign policy. They both have the same foreign policy.

Hillary Clinton is trying to distance herself from the foreign policy of an administration in which she served as Secretary of State. Hillary is trying to distance herself from her own approach to international relations. That’s a level of schizophrenia that is a bit extreme even for a woman who sheds accents, identities and sports team affinities the way that a snake sheds its skin.

Hillary isn’t disavowing Obama. She’s disavowing Hillary.

The new Hillary is suddenly pro-Israel after spending years berating the Jewish State. She suddenly realized the importance of having a coherent foreign policy after having the same confused position on Iraq as John Kerry. And she’s somehow more of an interventionist than Obama even though they were both intervening in the exact same places.

Hillary is an interventionist. But so is Obama.

The non-interventionist, like the pacifist, is a mythical woodland creature who appears in the fables of many cultures. He isn’t however to be found in the vicinity of Washington D.C.

Break down the arguments of the non-interventionist and you will find a set of conspiracy theories explaining why every previous intervention was motivated by bad faith, secret agendas and racism. The non-interventionist doesn’t reject intervention; instead he contends that every previous intervention failed because it was carried out at the behest of the banks, the military-industrial complex, the CIA, the Jews, American arrogance and the oil industry.

But the non-interventionist who makes it into the White House is free to intervene as much as he likes because his motives are pure. He isn’t trying to secretly build oil pipelines or put money into Haliburton. By assigning evil motives to all his predecessors, he never actually learns anything from them and instead intervenes out of an unrealistic sense of self-confidence in his own judgment.

Because he is certain that they were evil and he isn’t, he believes that he can do no wrong.

A true non-interventionist would reject intervention wholesale. Our fake non-interventionists turn up their noses at it when their political opponents do it. But once they have the power, they intervene out of entirely pure motives like helping the Muslim Brotherhood take over countries.

Obama is a non-interventionist because he spends a lot of time hesitating and apologizing for each intervention. He doesn’t however bother getting permission from Congress or even UN approval. Why should he? His motives are pure.

Hillary’s crime is that she currently sounds somewhat less apologetic and uncertain about intervention, but that’s not policy, that’s pose. Hillary’s husband boasted on the day before September 11 that he passed on killing Bin Laden because of the collateral damage. And Bill Clinton is more of a hawk than his wife.

Anyone who thinks that Hillary is a hawk has forgotten how American personnel in Benghazi were left in a precarious security situation on her watch. It’s quite possible that Hillary might decide to bomb Syria. But don’t expect her to bomb in defense of American national interests.

She’s not that kind of interventionist.

Hillary Clinton knows that many voters are unhappy about American weakness. They don’t actually want war, but they want someone in the White House whom Putin will take seriously. And they know that isn’t Obama.

Hillary is temporarily talking tough to convince them that she’s the woman to make Vladimir respect America again. That doesn’t mean that she can stand up to Putin any better than Obama. Or that she will. But she needs uncertain Democrats to believe that the new boss will be different than the old boss, when the new boss is really the old boss in a pantsuit and with worse posters.

Unfortunately Democrats and Republicans don’t currently differ very much on foreign policy. Where they differ is orientation. And that’s more significant than it sounds.

Both Obama and McCain would have backed the Arab Spring, but McCain would have done it out of a misguided sense that it was in America’s national interest, while Obama did it to undermine American national interests.

The significance is not so much in the outcome as in attitude and in the tools that they use.

Obama and McCain would have both bombed Libya, but Obama holds the military in contempt and treats it that way. Obama and McCain would have both endorsed the Arab Spring, but Obama did it in a way that signaled American weakness. That is why Obama’s approach has weakened America even more than the actual outcome of his policies.

A country can survive bad policy. We’ve had bad foreign policy for much of the 20th century. But a leader who communicates that the bad policy is a symptom of national weakness is a disaster on a whole other scale. Both Carter and Reagan made mistakes, but Carter and Reagan sent two very different messages about American power even while they made their mistakes.

Leadership isn’t always about what you do. It’s about how you communicate your values.

Hillary Clinton is trying to package her old Obama policies with a new attitude, but underneath is the same old lefty radical who smooched Arafat’s wife, brought a Reset Button to Russia and apologized to Pakistan for a YouTube video.

We’ve already seen Hillary’s foreign policy on display in Pakistan, Russia and Benghazi. All the cheap shots at Obama won’t change the fact that Hillary’s foreign policy is another Obama rerun.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • truebearing

    Mom jeans vs the pantsuit. That may be the biggest difference between the two. The Soros owned leftist machinery behind them is exactly the same. Hillary may not be the racist Obama has proven to be, but she is no less vindictive, or unqualified.

    Obama and Clinton certainly qualify as interventionists, but the target of their intervention is America. They are both transnationalists bent on turning this country into a subordinate state to the UN. If Hillary wins, we trade evil for evil. Let’s hope Americans don’t get fooled again.

    • swemson

      Hillary was fired from her job as a staff attorney for the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate hearings by her supervisor Jerry Zeifman, the chief counsel of the committee. When asked why, Zeifman said that she an unethical and dishonest lawyer… In short she was a liar then and is a liar still. As such, she’s apparently perfectly well suited to be our president based on the standards of recent Democratic politicians holding that office…

      Like Obama, many who know her believe that she’s gay…. and while she shows no signs of being a muslim, she does however appear to be a US citizen, so in that respect, I guessed we should see her as an improvement over Obama……
      fs

      • truebearing

        Obama appears to be gay, too. Did you see the disgusting video of him wiggling his a*s on Fox last night as he was getting ready to hit out of a sand trap? It made his first pitch in mom jeans girly throw throw look macho.

        They’re both vile scum.

    • Ivan

      Yes. Transnationalist. Another phrase for that is Trotskyite international socialist. I always read your comments. They are usually about as good as the main article.

  • al_kidya

    Obama is a non-interventionist because he spends a lot of time…studying his balls, which, more than often, are in the rough.

  • Dyer’s Eve

    No wonder Bill f##ked around.

  • zanzamander

    I don’t know what is worse, Carter’s second and third term under Obama or Obama’s third (and even, god forbid, fourth!) term under Hillary Clinton.

    But going by my instincts of US voters, Democrats have got it under their belt no matter who they select.

    • kasandra

      Obama is infinitely worse. Carter was a self-righteous, naive, jerk but he did wake up to reality the last year or so of his term. Obama is a hard left ideologue who is incapable of dealing with a reality that differs from the narrative he has believed in his entire life. He cannot, and won’t, change. And the long lasting results of Obama’s regime will be more difficult to reverse. It will be years – or decades – just to restore our military or get entitlement spending under control.

      • rebaaron

        Reagan turned things around within two years, and it was straight up from there. It took just two bursts from the legislative engines: the tax cut and the increase in military spending.

        • kasandra

          We weren’t $17.6 trillion in debt then.

          • rebaaron

            I don’t have the numbers handy, or the conversion to 2014 dollars to 1979, but I do recall that inflation was 12% and interest rates were 18%. Still, i will concede things are much worse now, and we still have 2.5 years to go under Obama’s rule. Carter only had four years. Obama has eight. The congressional elections will tell the tale.
            May God have mercy on our souls.

    • nancinger

      I just don’t believe we will EVER elect another Republican president. Even if we did, he or she would have to be more a Democrat than a Republican. I’m old enough to remember what my country used to be and what it’s becoming. Very sad.

  • Taking care of business!

    With all of the sheeple about, “What difference does it make?!”

  • http://johnnyangeladvocacygroup.net JohnnyAngel Advocacy Group

    She is a commie just like Obama and just as dangerous. Those surrounding her are subversives she has been with all her life. What IDIOT would give her more power ?

    • Drakken

      50 % of the American population, if this vile woman is elected POTUS, this country as we know it is done.

      • IslamDownpressesHumanity

        Thanks to voter fraud there’s a good chance she will be elected regardless. What party (and Justice Dept.) has been trenchant in its opposition to voter ID? Despite the fact photo ID is already required for many governmental programs at the federal and state level?

        • johnnywood

          It would help if the 3 to 4million conservatives who stayed home in `12 would get up off their butts and vote this time.

  • kasandra

    Another brilliant analysis. Full of gems, my favorite of which is “That’s a level of schizophrenia that is a bit extreme even for a woman
    who sheds accents, identities and sports team affinities the way that a
    snake sheds its skin.” Thanks.

  • Docs357

    This woman acts like the country owes her a turn at being potus she has no none zip qualifications for the job. What she has is nerve holding no office what so ever having nothing to do with this administration runs up a fifty five thousand dollar tab for a private jet and stay in a three thousand plus dollar a night hotel to promote her book. Sticks the taxpayers with the bill and Obama lets her get a way with it ? They have gone over board if she can’t fly commercial let her pay for her own Gulf Stream and hotel. Imagine how she will rape the taxpayers if she has an office to charge it to. She should be doing hard time for the crimes she committed not living in luxury on the Backs of working men and women.

    • sid..goldberg

      They’re all warmongering Zio-pig Anti-Christ- ever since Woody Wilson( and maybe even Lincoln)

    • Ivan

      Exactly. Hard time. I’m sick of people playing with Hillary as if she’s not a criminal.

  • IslamDownpressesHumanity

    Has Shillariah continued to have ties to her favorite islamic fascists that are the OIC?

  • meanpeoplesuck

    Two faced is cuddling up with the Saudis while bin Laden carries out 9/11, cuddling up with Putin while he invades Georgia, and presenting yourself as a tough cowboy.

    • truebearing

      I’d ask you what you’re babbling about but how would you know?

    • CosmotKat

      No, two faced is disguising your hatred toward the country you were elected to lead by pretending to care while funneling money and support to America’s enemies like the Muslim Brotherhood.

      • IslamDownpressesHumanity

        Don’t forget Pakistain, a moslem state that sheltered OBL and sponsors/equips/trains islamic terrorists for actions against India.
        Who funds Pakistain? The US taxpayer.

        • CosmotKat

          “Who funds Pakistain? The US taxpayer.” Not by choice.

    • Ivan

      Blame bush. I’ll take that to mean you are conceding that Hillary is two faced, so your argument now is “everyone else is two faced also.” now that we have established that you agree that Hillary is two faced, will you now take a public pledge to not support her? Your own mother told you that 2 wrongs don’t make a right.

  • Solo712

    Daniel is being too kind to Hillary. Much of the Middle East policy of Obama has her stamp on it. Huma Abedin- need we say more ?

  • William

    Hillary is an old Goldwater Girl. She recently warned that soviet-style Communism will return to Russia.

    Remember, Bush ran as a non-interventionist in 2000, and we all remember how that turned out.

    • Drakken

      Yup, it is true, you really are dumber than a goddamn fence post. Useless idiots like you will vote for this abomination.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      So you’ll be getting clean for Liz in 2016? Or Ralph?

      • William

        Depends on who’s running. I would vote for Stein in a heartbeat.

        • Don Vito

          please not Dr. Frankenstein? For the sake of your offspring!

      • rebaaron

        Who are Liz and Ralph, and what does getting clean for them mean?

  • Ivan

    Amazing. She is trying to distance herself from her own foreign policy. This is something that would never occur to a conservative or someone who loves god. These people have hard hearts: they are sociopaths. In some ways, I feel the word sociopath fits hillary more so than obama. It’s hard to explain. I could give examples, but my heart forms it’s own impressions. Amazing article. Insightful. She is more likely to start a nuclear war than anyone in our history, precisely because she’s on such shaky ground. It’s like she has a chip on her shoulder. Also, Hillary has very poor judgment. This is something that hardly needs comment.

  • Ivan

    I understand how Daniel gets insights. Most of us here understand these people. I just want to know how he has so many insights. He clearly analyses these people in a logical straightforward manner. Perhaps it’s the discipline of his writing that allows him to come up with his conclusions.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      You have to look at the bottom line and filter out all the stuff they put on top

  • Ivan

    Isn’t it true that communists always have to focus on the future and distract from the disastrous effects of their policies? It’s like the Soviet Union with their new 5 year plans, never mind the string of failures so far.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      And the Commies always blamed conditions on the situation they inherited from the Communist regime.

  • William

    Hillary was a Goldwater Girl in her youth, which would explain why she’s worried about the Communists returning to power in Russia.

  • stephaniejmota

    s­­­­­­­­­t­­­­­­­­­a­­­­­­­­­r­­­­­­­­­t­­­­­­­­­ wor­­­­­­­­­king a­­­­­­­­­t­­­­­­­­­ home wit­­­­­­­­­h Google! It­­­­­­­­­’s­­­­­­­­­ by-fa­­­­­­­­­r­­­­­­­­­ t­­­­­­­­­he bes­­­­­­­­­t­­­­­­­­­ job I’ve ha­­­­­­­­­d. La­­­­­­­­­s­­­­­­­­­t­­­­­­­­­ Wednes­­­­­­­­­da­­­­­­­­­y I got­­­­­­­­­ a­­­­­­­­­ br­­­­­­­­­a­­­­­­­­­nd new BMW s­­­­­­­­­ince get­­­­­­­­­t­­­­­­­­­ing a­­­­­­­­­ check for­­­­­­­­­ $6474 t­­­­­­­­­his­­­­­­­­­ – 4 weeks­­­­­­­­­ pa­­­­­­­­­s­­­­­­­­­t­­­­­­­­­. I bega­­­­­­­­­n t­­­­­­­­­his­­­­­­­­­ 8-mont­­­­­­­­­hs­­­­­­­­­ a­­­­­­­­­go a­­­­­­­­­nd immedia­­­­­­­­­t­­­­­­­­­ely wa­­­­­­­­­s­­­­­­­­­ br­­­­­­­­­inging home a­­­­­­­­­t­­­­­­­­­ lea­­­­­­­­­s­­­­­­­­­t­­­­­­­­­ $77 per­­­­­­­­­ hour­­­­­­­­­. I wor­­­­­­­­­k t­­­­­­­­­hr­­­­­­­­­ough t­­­­­­­­­his­­­­­­­­­ link, go? t­­­­­­­­­o t­­­­­­­­­ech t­­­­­­­­­a­­­­­­­­­b for­­­­­­­­­ wor­­­­­­­­­k det­­­­­­­­­a­­­­­­­­­il

    >>>>>>>>>> http://x­u­r­l­.­e­s/a9vbw

    ======================================

  • USARetired

    Hilary’s two faces are a companion to her forked tongue!

  • rebaaron

    Wow! One of your best yet, and that is saying something. You have Hillary to tee – a shameless liar with nothing to offer America but more of the same. But where is our Reagan? Is there anyone who can win American hearts and minds, and the election? And knows how to turn things around. I remember the Carter years. We feared the Soviet Union, and they were winning, just as Islam is winning now, but the first time I heard Reagan speak on the campaign trail, I knew he was the man we were waiting for, and I felt hope. Norman Podhoretz was our spokesman then. He laid the intellectual groundwork for all that followed, and I thought we would never see the likes of him again, but you suddenly appeared in the pages of Frontpage Magazine, speaking with the same persuasive clarity he did. So tell me, do you see a Reagan in the wings? Because that is what it is going to take.

  • USARetired

    Hillary has two of everything, including @ssh@les !