Clinton referred to Obama as “inexperienced, impulsive and indecisive — in short, a risk to the nation.”
Although Clinton serves on the Armed Services Committee in the Senate, I don’t believe she ever led our troops into battle, or prevented our troops from entering battle. In fact, she has essentially done nothing except give George W. Bush the authority to engage in an unjustified, unprovoked war.
She added “(Obama) wavers from seeming to believe that mediation and meetings without preconditions can solve some of the world’s most intractable problems to advocating rash unilateral military action without cooperation among allies in the most sensitive region of the world.”
I don’t have a clue to which “rash unilateral military action” she is referring. Also, I don’t see a problem at all with Barack Obama wanting to meet with world leaders without what she calls “preconditions”. What she means is that if she were president. she would not meet with people like Raul Castro, or the President of Iran, or the leader of Hamas unless there was a laundry list of what could be talked about, what couldn’t be talked about, and what are the specific intentions of the meeting. As if Barack Obama doesn’t understand how other world leaders who are not “on our side”, so to speak, operate. The whole point of these meetings would be diplomacy and an honest effort to have candid, meaningful conversation. How would laying out all of the “rules” of speaking to another human being establish open dialog and trust, I’ll never know.
With a half-dozen retired generals standing behind her, Clinton said she was the only candidate who could restore a U.S. foreign policy that had the right combination of diplomacy and military might. Said Clinton “We’ve seen the tragic result of having a president who had neither the experience nor the wisdom to manage our foreign policy and safeguard our national security”.
OK, is that why she voted to go to war in Iraq and refuses to say that it was simply the wrong thing to do?
Clinton also mocked Obama by implication, suggesting he would need a manual to understand the complexities of foreign diplomacy.
I’m tired of the mocking. What this country needs is a new approach, a new vision, and a new strategy for developing world peace. Even though Clinton has said “The same old faces, the same old players, and the same old ways of doing things in Washington doesn’t make someone “experienced”, it makes them stuck in a rut, unable to think outside the box”. And even though she has said “We have to change our tone and change our course.”, she has no intention of changing anyting. Her so-called experience comes from 15 years or so in Washington, playing the Washington game, and doing things the same way Washington does them now. That’s not what I’m looking for in my next president.