Tag Archives: foreign policy

Naturally

Posted on by
Reply

The board of the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation has decided to continue accepting donations from foreign governments, primarily from six countries, even though Hillary Clinton is running for president….

Other governments will be encouraged to contribute to the Foundation’s Clinton Global Initiative, carefully ignoring the fungibility of money.

Corporate campaign money is bad. But foreign government…money is good. She will, after all, be dealing with those foreign governments as peers (in every sense of that word) if she’s elected, not those corporations.

Oh, and the evils of corporate campaign money? That’s for the little people. Clinton’s campaign organizations, PACs, etc are expected to raise $1-$2 billion this campaign season.

Of Course

Posted on by
Reply

Fighting raged overnight [Tuesday night] and in the early hours on Tuesday on the outskirts of the rebel stronghold of Donetsk in eastern Ukraine despite an agreement reached by the Ukrainian and Russian foreign ministers a day earlier.

And a significant fraction of the rebel troops in the fight are Russian Green Men.

Russia wants Ukraine back in the Russian empire. Full stop.

Whatever Happened

Posted on by
Reply

…to the plaint that Congress’ bill asserting its capacity to approve or disapprove Obama’s coming Executive Agreement with Iran regarding the latter’s nuclear weapons program would fatally imperil those negotiations?

Now the guy who sits in the Secretary of State’s chair, John Kerry, is saying

Yesterday there was a compromise reached in Washington regarding congressional input. We are confident about our ability for the president to negotiate an agreement, and to do so with the ability to make the world safer.

The only change of substance was to withdraw a requirement that President Barack Obama certify every 90 days that Iran was not supporting terrorist organizations anymore.

But the bill no longer imperils negotiations? It never did, of course, that was just Obama’s knee-jerk reaction to anything Republican. The true change, if change it was, was the bill’s passage out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and onto the Senate floor by a unanimous 19-0 vote.

The 10th Amendment

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s an example of the 10th Amendment in action:

While the United States and Iran edge closer to a nuclear deal, nearly two dozen US states are imposing their own sanctions against Tehran—a move some say could derail fragile talks between the two countries.

The states, though, say they aren’t budging. In fact, Kansas and Mississippi are even considering adding more sanctions.

And

Several states across the country have put their own measures in place to punish Iran-linked companies operating in certain sectors of its economy, directing public pension funds with billions of dollars in assets to divesting from the firms and sometimes barring them from public contracts[.]

Other states doing this sort of thing include Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, New York, and Oregon, among others.

Would that the White House had similarly capable judgment.

Foreign Policy

Posted on by
Reply

Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy cred.

At a moment when foreign policy figures to loom larger in this presidential race than in recent election cycles, none of Mrs Clinton’s prospective opponents can match her credentials as a four-year secretary of state. Ordinarily that would be a strong selling point. Yet Mrs Clinton also is tied to Obama-era overseas initiatives that have largely proved unpopular and she’ll be hard-pressed to cite concrete achievements that she made happen on her watch, analysts say.

However, not only is she tied to Obama’s foreign policy failures, she has her own…accomplishments…from her stint sitting in the Secretary of State’s chair. Many of you might remember her 2008 Presidential campaign ad about answering the 3 am call. When she got exactly that call from a consulate that was under attack, Clinton’s attitude, as she said so defiantly in front of a House committee hearing, was “What difference, at this point, does it make!?

Then there are all of those emails she exchanged with her staff and Foreign Service officials—on her personally owned, set up, and maintained email server—of which she turned over to State print copies (only) of carefully selected emails and equally carefully and deliberately erased the rest. Which turnover and erasure she did only last fall after the emails were demanded. She is refusing to turn over her server for forensic analysis.

Then there’s her evident disinterest in the details of foreign affairs, details that might seem unimportant but that in their aggregate contribute to the laughingstock nature of State and of the United States on the world stage. Details like a red button she gave Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, a button ostensibly labelled “Reset” in English and in Russian. What the Russian word actually meant was “overcharge.” This carelessness was typical of Clinton’s time in the Secretary’s chair.