The Price of Hillary
No secretary of state will come to that office with stronger pro-Israel credentials or closer ties to the Jewish community than Sen. Hillary Clinton, Douglas Bloomfield assures his readers in The Jerusalem Post. Good for them, and for Bosnia's Muslims and Kosovo's Albanians; but for the rest of us Mrs. Clinton’s appointment as the third woman U.S. Secretary of State is hugely problematic. It heralds "the end of the world as we know it" in some ways, although neither she nor her coterie necessarily know what they are doing.
At the technical level, Hillary Clinton is likely to deepen the chronic crisis of the once-venerable institution at Washington’s Foggy Bottom, to which her two female predecessors have contributed in two different ways.
Madeleine Albright was an activist who will be remembered for her hubris (“If we have to use force, it is because we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see further into the future.”), coupled with studied callousness. Asked on “60 Minutes” about the death of a half-million Iraqi children due to sanctions, she promptly responded, “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price is worth it.” Her crowning glory was her premeditated 1999 war in the Balkans, prior to which she said that “the Serbs need a little bombing.” Her State Department contributed to the formulation, as well as execution, of Bill Clinton’s doctrine of “humanitarian intervention.”
Condoleezza Rice, less evil and more obtuse, will be remembered for nothing. She was an auxilliary tool of the Bush-Cheney team, with all key decisions made elsewhere.
Mrs. Clinton will try to rebuild the relative importance of the Department of State, which will become her personal fiefdom, but her labors will not be for the better. Her appointment, the most significant among several major figures from the Clinton era, belies Obama’s rhetoric of “change” when it comes to foreign affairs. There will be tectonic shifts, cultural and moral, at home. The established premises of an imperial presidency – which in world affairs inevitably translates into the quest for dominance and justification for global interventionism – will not be challenged, however.
Once it is accepted that Obama’s primary interest lies in an irreversible redistribution of power and money at home, it ceases to be surprising that he chose Hillary Clinton as his chief diplomat. Allowing her to indulge in some global grandstanding is acceptable to him, if that means the Clintons will not stand in the way of his domestic agenda. They are both revolutionaries, after all: that Mrs. Clinton is instinctively opposed to any traditional understanding of diplomacy became obvious during the primary campaign, when she accused Obama of “naivete” for saying he was willing to meet leaders of Iran, Syria and North Korea.
With Robert Gates staying at the Pentagon and Jim Jones as Obama’s national security adviser, there will be a lot of continuity in the U.S. foreign policy, not only with the 1990s but also with recent years. In Mrs. Clinton’s case there will be more lies, the hallmark of the family. During the primaries she listed a number of foreign policy accomplishments based on her husband’s legacy. She claimed that in 1999 she “negotiated open borders” in the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia to Albanian refugees from Kosovo, although the crossings were opened days before her arrival. She had repeatedly invoked her “dangerous” trip to Bosnia in 1996, including alleged snipers at Tuzla airport, whereas the Bosnian war had ended six months earlier and video footage shows smiling schoolchildren greeting her in Tuzla. (She later admitted “misspeaking” over sniper claims.)
In the same spirit Mrs. Clinton declared, in late 2002,
“Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members. I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the president’s efforts to wage America’s war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction.”
Hillary Clinton says that she has had second thoughts since that time, and a year ago she declared in Foreign Affairs magazine that “US troops should be brought home.” During the primary campaign, however, she was markedly less willing than Obama to commit to a withdrawal timetable. The woman who voted to authorize the Iraq war, and who parroted lies used to justify it, cannot be expected to clean up the mess created by that war. It is more likely that she will advocate a downsized, rebranded, and effectively open-ended U.S. occupation of Iraq for which the military has been preparing ever since the “Surge.”
In Afghanistan, far from disengaging, Mrs. Clinton will advocate greater troop deployments and an escalation of military activity. On Iran, during the primaries she sounded like John McCain: “I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran” if it attacks Israel, she declared last April: “In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.” She will negotiate with the mullahs, however, if Tehran’s tacit support is considered necessary for the achievement of her major ambition: a breakthrough in the Middle East.
Bill Clinton came closer than any U.S. president to brokering Arab-Israeli peace in the final year of his presidency, and insiders say that Hillary will place this issue at the top of her agenda. She is a favourite of the pro-Israel lobby, however, and it is unclear what she can offer, or do, in 2009-2010 that was not offered or tried at Camp David a decade earlier.
A Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank in return for recognition of Israel’s right to exist, security guarantees, and diplomatic recognition, is all fine but distinctly déjà vu. She will need to present a fresh formula, but to make it viable she will have to start by rephrasing her stated support for “undivided” Jerusalem. Considering the realities of American politics, she may find it harder to do so than Ehud Olmert, the city’s former mayor and – until recently – Israel’s prime minister.
The misnamed war on terrorism is the weakest spot in Barack Hussein Obama’s global agenda, and Hillary Clinton will do nothing to rectify the problem. Alone among leading contenders of either party, she has no section devoted to fighting terrorism on her website and had very little to say on it during the campaign. “We know we need global coalitions to tackle global problems like climate change, poverty, AIDS, and terrorism,” she declared, hinting at her priorities.
To confuse natural phenomena, human condition, and a lifestyle-inflicted disease with the most tangible real and present threat to Western civilization would be remarkable in any prominent public figure. In view of Mrs. Clinton’s appointment it is alarming.
That she does not understand the phenomenon of Jihad was evident during her U.S. Senate campaign, in the course of which on at least two occasions she hosted receptions organized by the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), a group that has promoted the activities of Hamas, Turkey’s fundamentalist Welfare Party, and the Muslim Brotherhood. Mrs. Clinton had to return $50,000 received from MPAC—the Jewish vote in New York was at risk!—but she justified her contacts by claiming that she was trying “to promote a framework for peace,” that included “lines of communication to many different groups and many different individuals.”
Her “framework for peace” in the Balkans is the same as her husband’s: unqualified support for Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo against their Christian neighbors. In her book Hillary’s Choice, Gail Sheehy recalls that she pressed Bill to start the Kosovo war in 1999. When he expressed concern that bombing could have undesirable effects, including the prospect of rising civilian casualties, Hillary persisted: “I urged him to bomb. You cannot let this go on at the end of a century that has seen the major holocaust of our time. What do we have NATO for if not to defend our way of life?”
There had never been a “holocaust” in Kosovo, of course, but to this day she sees the U.S.-led NATO aggression against Serbia as a good war. In her Senate speech before the Iraq war vote she pointed approvingly to her husband’s decision and drew parallels to the Bush administration’s rationale for removing Saddam from power.
On the slender plus side, Hillary Clinton appears to be less Russophobic than some of Obama’s advisors, notably Zbigniew and Mark Brzezinski. She has criticized the Bush administration’s “obsessive” focus on “expensive and unproven missile defense technology,” the deployment of which in Poland and the Czech Republic is a key point of contention between Washington and Moscow. She favors further reducing both sides’ nuclear arsenals, and also supports U.S. Senate approval of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. On the key issue of further NATO enlargement, however, both she and Obama will continue the Bush administration’s flawed policy of seeking membership for Ukraine and Georgia.
That Obama’s foreign policy may follow the neoliberal-hawkish Democratic tradition became apparent with the selection of Sen. Joe Biden as his running mate, and soon after the election with the appointment of Rep. Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff. It is not incidental that both were enthusiastic supporters of Clinton’s war against Yugoslavia in 1999, which marked a significant turning point not only for America and NATO but also for the West as a whole. It was the first time in American history that the principle of state sovereignty, and of the rule of law itself, were subverted in the name of an allegedly humanitarian ideology of velvet-totalitarianism.
The Clintons’ disregard for old international norms and mechanisms for the protection of national liberties, or their misuse as tools of their destruction, was as revolutionary on the global scene as Obama’s presidency will be domestically. In that sense Hillary Clinton’s appointment may reflect Obama’s understanding that they are partners in the same project of transforming reality to fit their ideological preferences. At a less lofty level this decision may nevertheless prove to be his first major blunder. It is difficult to imagine Obama – or anyone else – keeping the Clintons under control for an extended period of time. He has made himself hostage not only to Hillary’s inevitable games and whims, but also to the future conduct of her husband.
Bill Clinton made his comeback in September 2005, when he assembled 800 prime ministers, kings and other worthies to launch the Clinton Global Initiative to address „poverty, global warming, religious conflict and better governance.” He has gone far since. There are 208,000 donors to the William J. Clinton Foundation, which covers the Global Initiative as well as his presidential library. The list includes controversial associates like Frank Giustra, the Canadian billionaire who went with Bill Clinton to Kazakhstan and subsequently obtained a $425m mining contract there. Even as his wife was negotiating the Cabinet deal with Obama in late November, Clinton was in Kuwait giving a half-million-dollar speech on the global financial crisis, compliments of the host country’s National Bank. The potential for scandal is considerable.
Hillary’s ambition is another ticking bomb. She is presenting a smiling face now, but she detests the man who stole the nomination she regarded as rightfully hers. There will never be a relationship of trust and confidence between them.
“Two of the nation’s greatest secretaries of state in the modern period, Dean Acheson and Henry Kissinger, were not personally close but were intellectually bonded to their presidents,” notes Walter Isaacson, the co-author of “The Wise Men,” a book about America’s postwar foreign policy establishment. The comparison is not apt. Neither Acheson nor Kissinger were presidential hopefuls. Hillary Clinton, by contrast, sees herself as destined to be the first woman president. If the attainment of that goal demands contradicting, undermining, or otherwise betraying the first black president, she will do it.
With Obama at the Oval Office and Hillary Clinton at State, America is less likely than ever to rediscover a world in which she will be secure and free, and will not threaten security and freedom of others. Those goals are inseparable from the preservation of our identity and our liberty at home. They are unattainable because this country’s domestic liberty and identity are at greater peril than ever.
This government cannot articulate foreign policy strategies founded upon the notion of America as a real, completed nation, because the chief executive wants to turn it into a very different nation.
The United States could have and should have rediscovered the definable American Interest, and proclaimed it to be the foundation of its diplomacy, as befits a coherent and harmonious polity.
It was not to be, alas. May God help us all: Kyrie eleison.
39 Responses »
Trackbacks
- Conservative Heritage Times » Trifkovic Leaving Chronicles
- Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture | Your Home for Traditional Conservatism » U.S. Foreign Policy: Grim Continuity Guaranteed
Entries(RSS)
Srdija,
I am a little confused by the mention of Rahm Emanuel as "a enthusiastic supporter of Clinton’s war against Yugoslavia in 1999". Rahm Emanuel was a co-founder and co-chair of the Serbian Congressional Caucus, and is still a member as far as I know.
Well said dr. Trifkovic.
I am stunned that the president elect Obama would appoint this corrupt and dishonest woman, Hillary Clinton, as SoS.
Why would Obama opt for her is explained in this column very clearly. It is also clear that nothing will change in American foreign policy. We might see more corruption and scandals involving Clintons due to their unsaturated thirst for money and dominance.
Given Hillary’s craving to be a president, Bill might ask some of his financiers to grab a peace of land from some small sovereign country and establish a new country called HillBillistan . Clintons will make it America’s 51st state or the second District !
One thing is certain; America has finally found a job for Hillary! It is time now for Americans to repay her $ 13 million, money that she spent during her 2008 presidential race.
To Melana: Your confusion stems from your apparent failure to grasp that R.E.'s membership of the Serbian Caucus does not imply, by any means, that he is a friend of Serbia or the Serbs. It simply means that he is *interested* in Serbia... like Hitler was *interested* in Russia. The "Serbian Caucus" is a long-spent Potemkin's village that confuses the naive and covers the mendacious. Serbia does need representation inside the Beltway, but it is better to take no cure for cancer than to take Rahm's snake oil. With friends like him, the long-suffering remnant in the Western Balksns needs no enemies.
Thanks for another great piece of analysis, Dr. Trifkovic. It aptly articulates what many of us have been feeling. Myself, I have taken to summing up the matter of Obama's Administration (and especially Hillary Clinton's appointment to State) with her own famous four words: Change you can Xerox.
There are at the moment a couple of potential developments that make me uneasy.
1) If the financial situation continues to worsen visibly in the next two months prior to Obama's inauguration, the governing and media classes will consider that justification for giving his incoming administration carte blanche authority to enact all of their more dippy redistribution and bailout schemes. It's hard to imagine what could be worse for the U.S. economy right now than Obama's envisioned Great Society II. Incredibly, the full dimensions of the geopolitical and financial difficulties facing the Western world continue to escape the benighted Washingtonians with which he is populating his cabinet. The current deleveraging is only the end of the beginning. The markets have yet to digest the facts that Social Security and Medicare are insolvent, that 70 million aging Boomers have nothing to retire on, and that Japan and Europe have aging populations that are about to crash. The major stock averages could easily go down another 50% from here, as we enter a generation-long restructuring of the global order; a period of time just as long and dislocating as that between the Tennis Court Oath and Waterloo, the endgame of which no one can as yet foresee.
2) Obama may have ambitions to rapidly capture or kill Osama bin Laden in order to prove that he is tough on national security, which would mean an all-out military escalation in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The negative results of such a strategy are difficult to overestimate: a nuclear-armed Taliban in Pakistan, a proxy war with Russia in the Caucasus due to an ill-advised NATO expansion, Iran holding us hostage in Iraq, a sharp decrease in the world oil supply, a complete lack of imported manufactories from a crashing China,
and deflation as far as the eye can see.
Admittedly, these are worst case scenarios. I mention them because I believe these are the particular hazards we'll have to negotiate around over the next four years. Ironically, stagnation and malaise are our best allies right now. The more deadlock there is, the less action government is able to take, the better for us. If we can hold on until the mid-term elections we will almost certainly roll back the Democratic majorities in congress. Then we can start rebuilding a conservative movement along genuinely traditionalist and Monroevian lines. People are ready to hear the message, so let's keep up the good work.
Excellent article,and again I pay my highest compliment by simply saying "let's march".Kyrie eleison,yes.As you state,a long-suffering remnant at least remains in the Balkans.Yet,I bet there are still Serbs in Mitrovica and Banja Luka long after there are no more Frenchmen in Paris or Dutch in Amsterdam.How's that for a remnant?Kyrie eleison.Laughland has a good article in the online Brussels Journal on European Obamania if one cares to view it.The inevitable crash-and -burn of that mania will be good for them and good for.us.I'm now serene the kid became our new American Idol.Many,many opportunities here...
Is this appointment the product of some Cabinet-level Affirmative Action policy that demands a woman or a minority as SoS? Call me a male chauvinist pig, but aren't women particularly unqualified to be our top diplomat? A country's foreign minister has to be, first and foremost, and effective BS artist, don't they? And few women have that talent, the same reason not many good business executives or auto dealers are women.
Face it, we knew the Obama Administration was going to be a disaster of treachery and foolish risk-taking when it was discovered that virtually the entire Hedge Fund industry had bankrolled his campaign. Hedge Fund managers are some of the most reckless, duplicitous scoundrels in all of America.
Srdja, I'm sorry to read that you're leaving Chronicles, I'll have to read your work elsewhere. Maybe the Washington Times will have the fortitude to publish your columns in place of the usual neocon tripe that pollutes their Op Ed pages.
Anyway, I must take back what I said elsewhere on this blog. I figured BO would dip into the Council of Foreign Relations cesspool for the foreign policy shenannigans. Hillary is not a member, but alas, her no-goodnik husband is. The best we can hope for is that she brings in her old college girl-friends to help out, that might minimize the damage. Broads might not be so keen on war.
@4 The Fronde
The money end of the global economy will be worth watching over the next couple of years, but my guess is that part of the collapse going on now is the fat cat Khazars amassing capital in the US with an eye to investing elsewhere. Possibly India, maybe Indonesia. Russia might get some of the action too.
@3Srdja Trifkovic
I think I know what you mean that it has an inverted meaning like Jacob Schiff “League of Freedom” communist exile group which turned out to be anything but.
Same with the “independent” media to the “regime” (i.e. those who don’t go along with US hegemony) which turns out to be anything but independent funded by international front men like Rothschild’s George Soros or CIA affiliated Radio Free Europe, NED and USAID.
This went on during the 90’s in the Balkans against Milosevic and probably control the media there today and just now against Russia. Even the Russian electoral committee or something like that is financed by USAID.
Even human rights groups like Amnesty International was founded and is affiliated with MI6 who helped with a PR campaign coordinated assault with MI6/CIA in Lhasa just before the Olympics.
Human Rights Watch is financed by George Soros and Reporters without Borders is financed by NED.
In fact I don’t think there is any “independent” foundation, think tank or organisation that is truly independent.
george @ 9
A very close friend of mine who defected from the intelligence service of a Communist country in the late 1970's told me twenty years ago that the New Left, cultural Marxism, was more insidious than any spawn of the mind if the KGB and that he sensed the agenda of the New Left to be in the not-for-profit foundations. This observation, like so many of his observations, seems to be quite true.
Srdija,
Well, I was wondering why the Serbian Caucus made so little headway in turning the tide of anti-Serb sentiment, or preventing Kosovo recognition. That would certainly explain it. Thank you for your input. M
"No secretary of state will come to that office with stronger pro-Israel credentials or closer ties to the Jewish community than Sen. Hillary Clinton, Douglas Bloomfield assures his readers in The Jerusalem Post. Good for them; but for the rest of us, Mrs. Clinton’s appointment as the third woman U.S. Secretary of State is hugely problematic"
Isn't that exactly the problem that media pundits and government administrations evaluate and appoint those who are good for the 2% of the population?
I know the above paper is a Jewish newspaper but the national papers which are also Jewish owned like the Washington Post pretty much have the same opinions although they don’t say it directly like hyping up the Iran threat to the US.
@8Etienne Gervaise
Where did you hear Srdja Trifkovic was leaving Chronicles?
He read it in the December issue of Chronicles, George. I got my copy yesterday and was saddened by the announcement.
Where will we be able to read Dr. Trifkovic's articles? I do not always agree with your politics, but I find your angle on various subjects (not just about our Balkan homelands) important in getting to the truth.
@13David Collins
Shame because the war against Russia is just about to heat up with the Obama administration and it is just a matter of time before there is another provocation against Russia. (I theorised a false flag nuke bomb explosion at NATO headquarters in Brussels and it being blamed on Russia in late January early February).
Srdja Trifkovic is quite literally about one of three commentators that you can get an unbiased viewpoint in regards of issues regarding Russia.
Sick of hearing that Putins Soul phrase by main stream media pundits.
Did he give a date when he will be leaving?
I was expecting his commentary on the Karadzic’s trial in the Hague presuming he does not have an unfortunate “accident” or sudden heart attack or suicide like other Serb defendants.
I hope the comments about ST leaving Chronicles are not true.
If so, it will be easier to accept if a relatively well known venue picks up his commentary.
HC's comparatively pragmatic stance towards Russia as opposed to Serbia is along the lines of how big powers get treated with more respect (putting aside what seems to motivate others like ZB).
Regarding the comments made about Serb lobbying in the US, I frustratingly see how mainstream Russian views are undercut by not always having the best possible representation and the predominating establishment biases.
Dr.Trifkovic is leaving Chronicles?Please post your plans.I'm ready to march.
"Madeleine Albright was an activist who will be remembered for her hubris (“If we have to use force, it is because we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see further into the future.”), coupled with studied callousness."
"The Clintons’ disregard for old international norms and mechanisms for the protection of national liberties, or their misuse as tools of their destruction, was as revolutionary on the global scene as Obama’s presidency will be domestically."
Over the years, Dr. Trifkovic, you have helped me to see that the spirit of the "Bush Doctrine," whatever exactly that is, was born in the Clinton administration. I wish you the best in your post Chronicles career, and I'm sending a message from my guardian angel to yours to be on the ball in protecting you from those who would do you harm.
I suppose Oprah didn't want to be Sec-of-State.
Dr. Trifkovic,
Before I bumped into Chronicles as I paddled my pirogue down the network of bayous in the cyber swamp, I had not known of you. From and through Chronicles, I have learned much, much from each of the scholars, contributors and posting folk. Your insights have brought great understanding to me. It is my hope that you will appear as a guest at and on Chronicles from time to time and that you will let us know where we can find your wisdom in the written word. You closed the article supra with "Kyrie eleison," which is the proper and humble way for every Christian to approach God, particularly in the day in which we live. We Southerners still, cause though it may be "lost," close with that phrase of hope "Deo vindice!" Thus, let our day begin with "Lord, have mercy," for we are in need of His mercy, and end with that hope, "God having already vindicated!" His Peace to you, Dr. Trifkovic, as you quest in some other venue.
I don't see Hillary Clinton being elected as president at 68 years of age. Men are fortunate that we can be "ruggedly handsome" rather late in life. Witness Paul Newman. But nobody ever called Newman's wife, Joanne Woodward, "ruggedly beautiful." No, even at 60, Senator Clinton's looks are rugged without even a hint at being beautiful. Despite what feminists would want us to believe, men and women are profoundly different.
Secretary of State is as far as Mrs. Clinton climbs on the slippery pole. But I wonder if President Obama will have the nerve to fire her in his second term when he tires of her act. It should be fun to watch.
"Mrs. Clinton climbs on the slippery pole"?
I'd love to see Hillary pole-dancing. Some of us have a taste for over-ripe pears.
#21 Derek Leaberry: As the French say, unkindly, "men age like wine, and women like slippers,"
#22 Joseph: You are mildly sick, what with over-ripe fruit and all that, but your name implies a Levantine-French connection that makes your gourmand (as opposed to *gourme*) taste understandable, if not quite excusable.
Dr. Trifkovic,
You're always interesting and sometimes wise.
This from one who is occasionally interesting and rarely wise.
Gospody pomilui.
#24 Grumpy Old Man: Always focus on substance ("wisdom") rather than appearance ("interest").
I have always been edified by your penetrating analyses of foreign affairs and I, too, will miss your monthly contributions to Chronicles. Ideally, you would have made a most competent secretary of state; but in this day and age, I guess, we can't have ideals incarnated. God bless and best wishes to you in your new endeavors.
Although he may no longer be a regular at Chronicles, I hope Dr. Trifkovic still occasionally pens a column for Chronicles. His essay a couple years ago regarding the decline of European/Western Civilization was the most penetrating I've read in a long time.
Re# 23 Trifkovic : ..."women [age ] like slippers".
Really, Dr. T.?!!!!!
Remember what Charles DeGaulle said about treaties between nations:
"Treaties are like women's looks -- they last as long as they last."
Thank you, Dr Trifkovic, for your many insightful articles. You have opened my eyes to a lot of things. Will you be posting at Serbianna?
In addition to # 28 and # 23 Re: As the French say…“men age like wine” –
The fact is that wine is not getting better with age.
Having spent ten years working for a major wine producer in Serbia (and enjoying every minute of it) I would like to add this piece of trivia wisdom.
We indeed can compare our psycho-cognitive development and the way we have been influenced by different people who touched us by their wisdom and blessed us by their existence to the quality and aging of wine. Different grapes [just like different people, or men if you please], make wines with different aging profiles. There are many factors that have an impact on how long a wine should be held before drinking. In general, wines gain complexity and lose fruitiness as they age. Red wines also mellow and become softer as they age. Once a wine reaches maturity, it will usually plateau before slowly going downhill.
But our men do not need to despair – they will be loved for what they are.
Having Hillary and Obama both in high office will be an unmitigated disaster, fraught with terrible consequence. At least there may be some comic relief from the crisis which is certain to develop between these two. Just wait for the shenanigans to start. The problem is that the comedy may turn out to be too dark to be funny.
Like others here have said, I have learnt much from you, Dr Trifkovic. I wish you much success, wherever you may be going!
Alas, Dr. Trifkovic is leaving us just as life is becoming interesting (in the sense of the old Chinese curse). The election of Obama, his egregious official appointments and the playing out of the American economic charade to its end game all in a few months! It is a grand version of Belshazzar's feast and the handwriting is indeed on the wall. Who will take the good doctor's place and read it for us?
America's foreign policy is a jewish comedy that requires large amounts of cash to fund its force, that cash is losing value, fast.
Here's the question no one's asked yet what everyone wants to know: When Hillary meets with foreign leaders as Sec'y of State, will she or won't she be wearing her trademark paintsuit?
@35 .. and of course the juiciest tidbit of all, will she be hiring Susan Thomases to be her top aide? Which of her NYC cronies will be put on the UN payroll?
I don't remember Hillary every actually saying or DOING anything particularly pro Israel.
Western media big-lies have been sufficiently successful that one need only call the systematic destroyers of Israel 'pro Israel' a few thousand times, and no one can tell the difference.
In short: the State Department coerced theft of Israeli land, rendering it Judenrein, and creating Muslim nazi states therein (inspired by Husseini) cannot be called 'pro Israel' policy unless one has fallen for the Goebbels big-lie as carried out by CNN, NYT, etc.
Hillary (Emanual et al) have never taken a strong or vocal stance against said policy. This is 'pro Israel' only if one deems the theft of Serbian land, rendering it Serbenrein, and creation of Muslim nazi states therein to be 'pro Serbian' policy.