While Hillary Clinton on Thursday outlined her plan to combat the Islamic State, the reality is she was really trying to distance herself from the baggage she and President Obama now carry.
As secretary of state, Clinton contributed to the botched wars in Syria and Iraq, helping facilitate the rise of the Islamic State now terrorizing the world.
In what was described by a French commando as “hell on earth,” the Paris attacks made it imperative for Clinton to distance herself from Obama’s weak policies that have contributed to the disturbing state of world affairs.
“Our goal is not to deter or contain ISIS, but to defeat and destroy ISIS,” Clinton said.
But as a Democrat seeking to succeed Obama, Clinton needs his support, along with the black vote to win the general election. That explains the following remark:
“Like President Obama, I do not believe that we should again have 100,000 American troops in combat in the Middle East,” Clinton said.
None of the Republican candidates for president are in support of sending troops back to the Middle East, but the comment reveals the difficult position she finds herself in, much of it of her own making.
“After all, there’s also the not-so-small matter of the FBI investigation into her mishandling of classified material on her private server,” wrote Michael Goodwin in his New York Post article, “Hillary can’t run from the messes she—and Obama—made. With a wink or a nod, Obama can call off the hunt, or give it the green light. It all adds up to a complex minefield, one Clinton can’t navigate in a single speech, even though she displayed her knowledge of the issues and players.”
Though she appears to be cruising toward the Democratic presidential nomination, even longtime Clinton fans are hoping she “bows out with grace.”
“Reality must be looked in the eye,” wrote Mary Dejevsky in The Guardian. “Clinton is a hugely divisive figure, including within her own party—and not primarily because she is a woman.”
Then there is the matter of the Clinton Foundation fundraising decisions.
“Any competent political adviser or ethics lawyer would have placed the Rosatom uranium power play in the outbox labeled ‘stinks to high heaven,'” wrote Michael Gerson in The Washington Post. “Hillary Clinton had been warned during her confirmation hearing that the appearance of impropriety would be magnified by the Clinton Foundation’s thirst for funding. ‘Every new foreign donation that is accepted by the foundation,’ said then-Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), ‘comes with the risk it will be connected in the global media to a proximate State Department policy or decision.’ The alarm was rung before the fire was set.”
In her speech on Thursday, she should have rebuked Obama’s dereliction regarding the threat posed by radical Islamic terrorists. Instead, she supported the president’s refusal to call Islamic terrorism what it is.
“It gives these criminals, these murderers more standing than they deserve,” Clinton said. “We must lead the world to meet this threat. This is a worldwide fight, and America must lead it.”
But given the conflicting messages, it’s hard to take what she says at face value.
“She’s a political weather vane,” Goodwin wrote. “That’s the real Hillary—the one who will say whatever is best for her at the moment. In that, and in that only, we can trust.”
See an error in this article?
To contact us or to submit an article
