Some said Hillary Clinton's speech was full of fundamental contradictions--and hinted at the former secretary of state's own hawkish positions. (Screenshot)
Jun 02, 2016
Flanked by 19 American flags, Hillary Clinton gave a wide-ranging foreign policy speech on Thursday, in which she flayed Donald Trump for his "thin skin" and "dangerously incoherent" approach to international affairs.
The speech, delivered in San Diego five days ahead of California's June 7 primary, lambasted the presumptive Republican nominee as "temperamentally unfit" to be President of the United States. The full remarks are here.
"Americans aren't just electing a president in November," Clinton said, "we're choosing our next commander-in-chief, a person we count on to answer questions of war and peace, life and death. The person the Republicans have nominated for president cannot do the job."
Clinton noted that Trump has praised leaders like Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korea's Kim Jong Un, quipping: "I will leave it to the psychiatrists to explain his affection for tyrants."
But that was just one of several statements that raised observers' eyebrows, in a speech that some said was full of fundamental contradictions--and hinted at Clinton's own hawkish positions.
After all, as journalist Robert Parry wrote in April, "If Clinton becomes President, she will be surrounded by a neocon-dominated American foreign policy establishment that will press her to resume its 'regime change' strategies in the Middle East and escalate its new and dangerous Cold War against Russia."
\u201cClinton talks about Iran alleged nuclear pursuit one second and Israel's "security" the next. Drink! for no mention of Israel's nukes!\u201d— sign up! husseini.substack.com (@sign up! husseini.substack.com) 1464895244
\u201cListening to this speech & Clinton's words on Iran, Russia, & Israel, SHE sounds like the neocon candidate. Why can't Kristol run her?\u201d— Anya Parampil (@Anya Parampil) 1464895247
\u201c#Clinton just put military action against Iran back on the table and criticized Trump for wanting to be "neutral" on Israel/Palestine\u201d— Anya Parampil (@Anya Parampil) 1464895247
\u201cHillary Clinton's history of supporting interventionism puts her in a weird place to be portraying her opponent as trigger happy\u201d— Yousef Munayyer (@Yousef Munayyer) 1464896181
\u201cHillary: "America stands up to countries that treat women like animals"(!!!)\u201d— Secular Talk\ud83c\udf99 (@Secular Talk\ud83c\udf99) 1464895916
\u201cGood Clinton speech, BUT: Clinton is going to run to the right of Donald Trump on Israel/Palestine. That should sober & disturb people.\u201d— Jeet Heer (@Jeet Heer) 1464898115
\u201cHillary's foreign policy rhetoric mimics that of the GOP candidates' even in terms of phraseology and wording\u201d— Michael Tracey (@Michael Tracey) 1464898335
\u201cThis isn't hard: if you're an interventionist hawk like @BillKristol, Hillary Clinton is your candidate, try as you might to avoid it.\u201d— Conor Friedersdorf (@Conor Friedersdorf) 1464731063
Clinton did not mention her Democratic rival Bernie Sanders in Thursday's remarks.
Pew Research Center surveys have laid bare how Sanders and Clinton supporters differ on foreign policy issues. Polls conducted in March and April showed that two-thirds (66%) of Democratic and Democratic-leaning registered voters who support Clinton for the party's presidential nomination say that world problems would be even worse without U.S. involvement--just 28 percent say U.S. efforts usually make things worse.
By contrast, Sanders supporters are divided, with 49 percent saying global problems would be even worse without U.S. involvement and 45 percent saying U.S. intervention usually makes matters worse.
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Deirdre Fulton
Deirdre Fulton is a former Common Dreams senior editor and staff writer. Previously she worked as an editor and writer for the Portland Phoenix and the Boston Phoenix, where she was honored by the New England Press Association and the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies. A Boston University graduate, Deirdre is a co-founder of the Maine-based Lorem Ipsum Theater Collective and the PortFringe theater festival. She writes young adult fiction in her spare time.
Flanked by 19 American flags, Hillary Clinton gave a wide-ranging foreign policy speech on Thursday, in which she flayed Donald Trump for his "thin skin" and "dangerously incoherent" approach to international affairs.
The speech, delivered in San Diego five days ahead of California's June 7 primary, lambasted the presumptive Republican nominee as "temperamentally unfit" to be President of the United States. The full remarks are here.
"Americans aren't just electing a president in November," Clinton said, "we're choosing our next commander-in-chief, a person we count on to answer questions of war and peace, life and death. The person the Republicans have nominated for president cannot do the job."
Clinton noted that Trump has praised leaders like Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korea's Kim Jong Un, quipping: "I will leave it to the psychiatrists to explain his affection for tyrants."
But that was just one of several statements that raised observers' eyebrows, in a speech that some said was full of fundamental contradictions--and hinted at Clinton's own hawkish positions.
After all, as journalist Robert Parry wrote in April, "If Clinton becomes President, she will be surrounded by a neocon-dominated American foreign policy establishment that will press her to resume its 'regime change' strategies in the Middle East and escalate its new and dangerous Cold War against Russia."
\u201cClinton talks about Iran alleged nuclear pursuit one second and Israel's "security" the next. Drink! for no mention of Israel's nukes!\u201d— sign up! husseini.substack.com (@sign up! husseini.substack.com) 1464895244
\u201cListening to this speech & Clinton's words on Iran, Russia, & Israel, SHE sounds like the neocon candidate. Why can't Kristol run her?\u201d— Anya Parampil (@Anya Parampil) 1464895247
\u201c#Clinton just put military action against Iran back on the table and criticized Trump for wanting to be "neutral" on Israel/Palestine\u201d— Anya Parampil (@Anya Parampil) 1464895247
\u201cHillary Clinton's history of supporting interventionism puts her in a weird place to be portraying her opponent as trigger happy\u201d— Yousef Munayyer (@Yousef Munayyer) 1464896181
\u201cHillary: "America stands up to countries that treat women like animals"(!!!)\u201d— Secular Talk\ud83c\udf99 (@Secular Talk\ud83c\udf99) 1464895916
\u201cGood Clinton speech, BUT: Clinton is going to run to the right of Donald Trump on Israel/Palestine. That should sober & disturb people.\u201d— Jeet Heer (@Jeet Heer) 1464898115
\u201cHillary's foreign policy rhetoric mimics that of the GOP candidates' even in terms of phraseology and wording\u201d— Michael Tracey (@Michael Tracey) 1464898335
\u201cThis isn't hard: if you're an interventionist hawk like @BillKristol, Hillary Clinton is your candidate, try as you might to avoid it.\u201d— Conor Friedersdorf (@Conor Friedersdorf) 1464731063
Clinton did not mention her Democratic rival Bernie Sanders in Thursday's remarks.
Pew Research Center surveys have laid bare how Sanders and Clinton supporters differ on foreign policy issues. Polls conducted in March and April showed that two-thirds (66%) of Democratic and Democratic-leaning registered voters who support Clinton for the party's presidential nomination say that world problems would be even worse without U.S. involvement--just 28 percent say U.S. efforts usually make things worse.
By contrast, Sanders supporters are divided, with 49 percent saying global problems would be even worse without U.S. involvement and 45 percent saying U.S. intervention usually makes matters worse.
Deirdre Fulton
Deirdre Fulton is a former Common Dreams senior editor and staff writer. Previously she worked as an editor and writer for the Portland Phoenix and the Boston Phoenix, where she was honored by the New England Press Association and the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies. A Boston University graduate, Deirdre is a co-founder of the Maine-based Lorem Ipsum Theater Collective and the PortFringe theater festival. She writes young adult fiction in her spare time.
Flanked by 19 American flags, Hillary Clinton gave a wide-ranging foreign policy speech on Thursday, in which she flayed Donald Trump for his "thin skin" and "dangerously incoherent" approach to international affairs.
The speech, delivered in San Diego five days ahead of California's June 7 primary, lambasted the presumptive Republican nominee as "temperamentally unfit" to be President of the United States. The full remarks are here.
"Americans aren't just electing a president in November," Clinton said, "we're choosing our next commander-in-chief, a person we count on to answer questions of war and peace, life and death. The person the Republicans have nominated for president cannot do the job."
Clinton noted that Trump has praised leaders like Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korea's Kim Jong Un, quipping: "I will leave it to the psychiatrists to explain his affection for tyrants."
But that was just one of several statements that raised observers' eyebrows, in a speech that some said was full of fundamental contradictions--and hinted at Clinton's own hawkish positions.
After all, as journalist Robert Parry wrote in April, "If Clinton becomes President, she will be surrounded by a neocon-dominated American foreign policy establishment that will press her to resume its 'regime change' strategies in the Middle East and escalate its new and dangerous Cold War against Russia."
\u201cClinton talks about Iran alleged nuclear pursuit one second and Israel's "security" the next. Drink! for no mention of Israel's nukes!\u201d— sign up! husseini.substack.com (@sign up! husseini.substack.com) 1464895244
\u201cListening to this speech & Clinton's words on Iran, Russia, & Israel, SHE sounds like the neocon candidate. Why can't Kristol run her?\u201d— Anya Parampil (@Anya Parampil) 1464895247
\u201c#Clinton just put military action against Iran back on the table and criticized Trump for wanting to be "neutral" on Israel/Palestine\u201d— Anya Parampil (@Anya Parampil) 1464895247
\u201cHillary Clinton's history of supporting interventionism puts her in a weird place to be portraying her opponent as trigger happy\u201d— Yousef Munayyer (@Yousef Munayyer) 1464896181
\u201cHillary: "America stands up to countries that treat women like animals"(!!!)\u201d— Secular Talk\ud83c\udf99 (@Secular Talk\ud83c\udf99) 1464895916
\u201cGood Clinton speech, BUT: Clinton is going to run to the right of Donald Trump on Israel/Palestine. That should sober & disturb people.\u201d— Jeet Heer (@Jeet Heer) 1464898115
\u201cHillary's foreign policy rhetoric mimics that of the GOP candidates' even in terms of phraseology and wording\u201d— Michael Tracey (@Michael Tracey) 1464898335
\u201cThis isn't hard: if you're an interventionist hawk like @BillKristol, Hillary Clinton is your candidate, try as you might to avoid it.\u201d— Conor Friedersdorf (@Conor Friedersdorf) 1464731063
Clinton did not mention her Democratic rival Bernie Sanders in Thursday's remarks.
Pew Research Center surveys have laid bare how Sanders and Clinton supporters differ on foreign policy issues. Polls conducted in March and April showed that two-thirds (66%) of Democratic and Democratic-leaning registered voters who support Clinton for the party's presidential nomination say that world problems would be even worse without U.S. involvement--just 28 percent say U.S. efforts usually make things worse.
By contrast, Sanders supporters are divided, with 49 percent saying global problems would be even worse without U.S. involvement and 45 percent saying U.S. intervention usually makes matters worse.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.