What will Hillary run on, exactly?
November 15, 2014 1 Comment
But today [March 2014], the promise of a free and democratic Myanmar is rapidly receding as sectarian violence escalates and the government backslides on a number of past reforms….The House Foreign Affairs Committee unanimously passed a resolution this week calling on Myanmar’s government to respect the human rights of all minority groups in the country and end the persecution of the Rohingya people, an essentially stateless and largely Muslim ethnic group that has been singled out by both Rakhine Buddhists and the government of Myanmar.
How long before Hillary Clinton announces that she was never really in favor of President Obama’s Iran policy? It’s a serious question given her conclusion that sticking by the disastrous policies of her former boss will crimp her future plans. And let’s make no mistake: The Iran policy is a disaster.
Consider all that the Iranian regime has achieved since Obama has been in office. It kept sanctions at bay for a couple of years by allowing the Obama-Clinton team to imagine “engagement” was a good idea. It crushed the Green Revolution. It was allowed to brutalize, murder, rape and repress its people with impunity. It found a more intoxicating president who would give the useful idiots (Lenin’s phrase about the West and Communism is apt here) in the West the idea that there had been a change in Iran and that more “moderate” elements in Iran were ready for a deal.
The “reset” with Russia?
She’s drawing a lame distinction between Medvedev and Putin simply as an excuse for why her biggest initiative as Secretary of State now lies in ruins. Unofficially, of course, she’s also drawing a tacit contrast between herself and Obama: Things with Russia were fine during his first term but once she left State, everything went to hell.
The “pivot” to Asia?
Perversely, the pivot may have destabilized Asia and damaged security. The U.S. declared its intention to bolster military capacity in Asia, but increased deployments haven’t materialized and the Department of Defense has said they “can’t happen” due to plummeting Department of Defense budgets. Promising to strengthen the U.S.’s military position in Asia and then admitting the inability to carry through projects weakness and invites challenge.
Recognizing the military incapacity implied by Obama and Clinton’s Potemkin Pivot, China has aggressively asserted specious territorial claims.
Or will she simply tout her non-accomplishments and failures as generalized “experience,” while trying to distance herself from the President who she claimed ceded foreign policy to her, while simultaneously disagreeing with selective aspects of his purported micromanagement?
And will American voters even care, but instead vote for yet another “historic” candidate?
Perhaps she won’t have to thread those needles, because too few voters are paying attention.