Nothing Wise, Safe about What Clinton Calls 'Smart Power'

On December 3, 2014, Hillary Clinton spoke at Georgetown University, saying:

“This is what we call smart power. Using every possible tool and partner to advance peace and security. Leaving no one on the sidelines. Showing respect even for one’s enemies. Trying to understand, in so far as psychologically possible, empathize with their perspective and point of view. Helping to define the problems, determine the solutions. That is what we believe in the 21st century will change -- change the prospects for peace.”

When I first heard this speech, my first reaction was, this is inane; did she really say those things?

Twenty months later, I feel the same.

What she said was inane. Banal blather.

In the 20 months that have passed, America has seen its enemies in action.

We have watched North Korea develop nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.

We have been trying to “empathize” with the North Korean dictators since the days of Bill Clinton to convince North Korea to give up its goal of having nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. We have provided them with bribes galore in the form of food and energy. In return, they have covertly built their WMDs and missiles, and most recently have fired three off -- sticking them up the noses of President Obama and the other gathered world leaders.

Has empathizing with their point of view induced them to forego their weapon’s programs? Has showing respect for the pot-bellied dictator advanced peace and security? Provided solutions?

Just this last week we have seen an Afghan immigrant who we brought to America and gave citizenship to, plant a number of bombs designed to kill and maim innocent American men, women and children. Earlier we saw two brothers plant pressure-cooker bombs at the Boston Marathon which killed and tore of the legs off nearby children.

How did we fail to show respect for them?

How does one understand the perspective and point of view of someone who sneaks around and plants bombs on street corners designed to slaughter women and children? Why would anyone in their right mind empathize with such miscreants?

In Africa, Boko Haran kidnaps 300 young teenage girls, and either forces them into marriages or sells them off as slaves. Do you really feel showing respect for these barbarians will advance 21st century peace?

Change the prospects for peace?

Would you empathize with someone who did this to your 11-year-old daughter?

Do you really believe we should try, so far as possible, to empathize with Boko Haran’s perspective and point of view?


In recent months we have employed “smart power” in our negotiations with Iran.

We have ended sanctions, paid them billions of dollars and paid ransom. And to what effect?

They make mock runs at our naval vessels, threaten to shoot down our airplanes, take more hostages, and provide support to terrorist groups around the world.

Negotiations make sense.

Real peace is better than war. But when your enemy uses negotiations to prepare for war, or to take steps that make America far less secure (such as N. Korea building WMDs and ballistic missile), then Mrs. Clinton’s “smart power” is delusion.

Or do you really believe that negotiating with ISIS will deter them from beheading captives, burning captured pilots in cages, or inducing ISIS wannabees in our country from killing Americans in our shopping malls?

We are told that Mrs. Clinton is the most qualified person ever to run for president.

That is not what her “smart power speech” indicates to me.

By John Donald O'Shea
Sep 23, 2016

'Smart' Hilary Says Some Stupid Things

Hillary Clinton’s cheerleaders forever portray her as a brilliant woman. She, herself, boasts that her ideas are "smarter."

Really?

Speaking at Georgetown University on Dec. 3, 2014, Secretary Clinton said "This is what we call smart power. Using every possible tool and partner to advance peace and security. Leaving no one on the sidelines. Showing respect even for one's enemies. Trying to understand, in so far as psychologically possible, empathize with their [our enemies'] perspective and point of view. Helping to define the problems, determine the solutions. That is what we believe in the 21st century will change -- change the prospects for peace."

Reading her Obama-esque remarks closely, what she calls “smart power” is twaddle.

“Every possible tool?” Would include biological weapons? Torture?

“Every possible partner?” Al-Qaida? North Korea?

“Leaving no one on the sidelines?” Negotiate with Islamic terrorists as they behead American captives? Slaughter female teachers in classrooms?

“Show respect for our enemies?” “Try to understand in so far as it is psychologically possible?” As they barbarically behead American captives? Burn pilots?

“Empathize” with their “perspective and point of view.” Whose view? The Islamic State's Al-Baghdadi? Boko Haram's Abubakar Shekau?

Will we allow the likes of Putin, Bashar al-Assad and Pol Pot, “to define the problems and determine the solution”? Accept their “final solution?"

Do we allow Hitler/Stalin-types or a Sharia caliphate to define for us the meaning of liberty and religious freedom?

Mrs. Clinton's words, rather than suggesting brilliance, suggest she is wantonly reckless in her use of language, naive to the point of being suicidal, or has a blithering idiot for a speechwriter. (But what of her judgment if she mindlessly regurgitates drivel written for her?)

Recall her Oct. 24, 2014 Boston speech: “Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs. You know, that old theory  -- trickle down economics. That has been tried. It has failed. It has failed rather spectacularly.”

If American corporations and business don’t create jobs, who does? Are all jobs created by the government?

Does Mrs. Clinton really believe General Motors, John Deere and our local hospitals don’t create jobs? Smart? Was she again wantonly reckless, utterly unfamiliar with who creates the vast majority of jobs in America, or is she simply repeating the blather handed her by a speechwriter?

But it’s not only her words. Her actions are more reckless. Since she became secretary of state, America’s enemies have had a field day. Russia has gobbled up portions of Georgia, Crimea and the Ukraine. Iran daily moves to having nuclear weapons. North Korea goes nuclear with impunity. Islamic terrorists are beheading Christians and Westerners throughout the Mideast, kidnapping children, bombing churches in Africa, and seizing large chunks of territory. Radical Islam is at war with America. While Americans are being beheaded, “Kumbaya” is no foreign policy.

Mrs. Clinton’s notion of smart power translates to suicide.

And now, Mrs. Clinton has enmeshed herself in an email scandal -- the same Hillary Clinton who in a June 20, 2007 campaign speech blasted the Bush administration: “Our constitution is being shredded. We know about the secret [Bush] White House email accounts. It is a stunning record of secrecy and corruption ... It is everything our founders were afraid of. Everything our constitution was designed to prevent.

So how does Mrs. Smart now justify using a secret email account, and setting up her own personal server -- which has allowed her to scrub any email that suggest wrongdoing, incompetence or corruption?

She mendaciously claims the law was changed after she resigned as secretary of state. If so, why was she blasting the Bush administration for secret emails?

The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) in 1995 adopted regulations which require preservation of official emails created on non-official accounts. The archivist interpreted the Federal Records Act to apply to email records: “Agencies with access to external electronic mail systems shall ensure that federal records sent or received on these systems are preserved in the appropriate record-keeping system.”

Smart? It is the height of arrogance/stupidity is to excoriate somebody for doing something, and then doing the same thing yourself!

And now, on July 28, when asked about her position on the Keystone Pipeline, Mrs. Clinton answered,  "I will refrain from commenting because I had a leading role in getting that process started ... And I think we have to let it run its course ... This is President Obama's decision, and I’m   not going to second-guess him ... If it’s undecided when I become president, I will answer your question.”

Only a voter too stupid to be allowed the vote would accept this answer. Only a candidate who believes her supporters too stupid to realize that this is a dodge would say something so cynical.

The whole purpose of a presidential campaign is to educate the voters as to your platform! This is reminiscent of Nancy Pelosi's hair-brained Obamacare statement: "We got to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it." But then, if the American people will elect a candidate sans credentials on a platform of "Hope and Change" .... ?

Now, according to the Washington Post, Bill and Hillary have "earned in excess of $25 million for delivering 104 speeches since the beginning of 2014." That's $240,000 per speech! Would you pay $240K, to hear Hillary say any of the "smart" things set out here? So, why are people and foreign governments paying $240K? 

Are they attempting to purchase "smart" or "influence?"

Posted: Thursday, August 13, 2015 11:00 pm, QCOnline.com

By John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2015

John Donald O'Shea