The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPat Buchanan Archive
Has Hillary Ever Been Right?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Sen. Rand Paul raises an interesting question:

When has Hillary Clinton ever been right on foreign policy?

The valkyrie of the Democratic Party says she urged President Obama to do more to aid Syrian rebels years ago. And last summer, she supported air strikes on Bashar Assad’s regime.

Had we followed her advice and crippled Assad’s army, ISIS might be in Damascus today, butchering Christians and Alawites and aiding the Islamic State in Iraq in overrunning Baghdad.

But if the folly of attacking Assad’s army and weakening its resistance to ISIS terrorists is apparent to everyone this summer, why were Clinton, Obama and Secretary of State Kerry oblivious to this reality just a year ago?

Consider the rest of Hillary’s record. Her most crucial decision as Senator came in 2002 when she voted to invade Iraq. She now concedes it was the greatest mistake of her Senate career.

She voted against the surge in 2006, but confided to Defense Secretary Bob Gates that she did so to maintain her political viability for 2008.

This is statesmanship? Not voting your convictions about what is best for your country at war, so as not to antagonize the liberals in the Iowa caucuses?

In 2009, Hillary presented a “reset button” to Vladimir Putin’s foreign minister. In 2011, she supported U.S. air strikes to bring down Col. Gadhafi and celebrated in Tripoli when he was overthrown and lynched.

How did that work out? Libya is today a hellhole of murder and mayhem and Islamists are threatening a takeover.

Who did Hillary think would rise when Gadhafi fell?

Hillary’s failure to anticipate or prevent the Benghazi massacre and her role in the botched cover-up, all concede, are burdens she will carry into the primaries in 2016, should she run.

Where, then, has Hillary exhibited the acumen to suggest she would be a wise and savvy steward of U.S. foreign policy in a disintegrating world?

Is this a convincing argument for the Republican alternative?

Hardly. The principal GOP voices on foreign policy, who get more airtime than Wolf Blitzer, are John McCain and Lindsey Graham.

Their track record: McCain wanted to confront Putin over South Ossetia. He and Graham wanted to arm Ukrainians to fight the Russians in Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk. They wanted Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia brought into NATO, so that if war were to break out, we would be fighting the Russians alongside them.

This year, Graham was trolling around a Senate resolution to give Obama a blank check to attack Iran.

Last year, McCain and Graham were for attacking Assad’s army. This year they are for bombing ISIS, which is attacking Assad’s army.

But if Hillary, McCain and Graham have been repeatedly wrong about Syria, what do we now? Answer: Stop and think.


First, this war in Syria and Iraq, like all such wars, is eventually going to be won by soldiers, by boots on the ground, by troops who can take and hold territory. And in such wars, as Napoleon said, God is on the side of the big battalions.

America should declare to friends and allies in the Middle East, as Nixon did to our friends and allies in Asia in the Guam Doctrine of 1969, that while we will stand with them when they are attacked, they, not we, will provide the soldiers for their own defense.

No nation is less threatened by ISIS than ours. And as the Syrians, Turks, Kurds and Iraqis have the proximity and manpower to defeat ISIS, they should do this job themselves.

Turkey shares a 550-mile border with Syria and could march in and crush ISIS. But if President Recep Tayyip Erdogan wishes to play games with ISIS, out of hatred of Assad, let him and the Turks live with the consequences.

As for Syria’s army and regime, which either defeats ISIS or dies, let us cease impeding their efforts by backing a Free Syrian Army that has rarely won a battle and is only bleeding the Syrian army.

Kurdistan and its ethnic cousins in Syria, Turkey and Iran are capable of defending themselves, and we should encourage any nation, including Iran, that is willing to send them the weapons to fight ISIS.

As for Baghdad, if it wants its Sunni lands back, it either should fight for them or accept their loss. We Americans are living today with the consequences, in considerable losses of blood and treasure, of fighting other people’s wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.

Yet, we are suffering not at all from having kept out of other people’s wars — in Georgia, Crimea, Donetsk, Syria and Iran.

Speaking of the debate over U.S. air strikes in Syria, the New York Times writes, “There are too many unanswered questions to make that decision now, and there has been far too little public discussion for Mr. Obama to expect Americans to rally behind what could be another costly military commitment.”

Sometimes the Times gets it right.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the new book “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.”

Copyright 2014

• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Hillary Clinton 
Hide 8 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. “Hillary Clinton is someone I’ve known for a long, long time. She’s a patriot. I think she’s doing a lot of the right things. She’s very tough. … and she’s got the right instincts” -Condoleezza Rice

    I call ‘it’ a ‘bi-partisan bag of maggots.’ So, what it ‘it’ ?

    The Doug Coe cult running the war-hawk prayer circles in DC, of which Hillary (not only Condoleezza & ‘friends’) is a member:

    Insofar as the middle east policies, incompetence/insanity seems to be the rule:

    Now, if one wished to dig into the history of the NAZI meme driving the culture behind the curtain, here are the facts:

    And here is the larger contemporary motive in action, with geopolitical application and consequence:

    And Israel in the mix of this, only compounds the lunacy of it all:

    And, of course, it all follows with example of why you should never expect any of it to change, because no one at the levers of power has the motive or guts to call a spade a spade:


  2. Keep them fighting each other, and never let any of them win. Has that not been the strategy all along?

  3. PeterB says:

    For many years now we’ve all been told, over and over again, that Hillary C is an extremely smart and astute person. Nearly a genius. Yet can anyone remember a single thing she’s ever said or written, after all these years of constant exposure, besides trite and small phrases such as ‘what difference does it make’? There’s nothing there. Other foreign policy advisors such as Kissinger and Brzezinski have written books laying out their views for others to examine. What has she ever written besides “It Takes a Village” and the most recent book meant to bolster her chances for a presidential nomination (both were probably ghostwritten anyway) ? She’s ridden her husband’s coattails to public life yet is hailed as a feminist heroine. Oh, but they’ll keep repeating the same thing about what a smart cookie she is.

  4. I fear the election of Empress Clinton will be the harbinger of death to the US. I am glad that Rand Paul intelligently pointed out Empress Clinton’s folly. That is the Rand Paul that I would vote for!

    Pat Buchanan wrote:
    “America should declare to friends and allies in the Middle East, as Nixon did to our friends and allies in Asia in the Guam Doctrine of 1969, that while we will stand with them when they are attacked, they, not we, will provide the soldiers for their own defense.”

    Who? I bet those 28 pages missing from the 9/11 report would shatter any notion that the US has friends and allies in the Middle East. Why else would they hide it? We shouldn’t be helping them. We need to help ourselves by improving our solar technology for energy, responsibly use our oil reserves, and work on water desalination technology so when the rest of the world is thirsty like the Middle East we can ship them some bottled water for a price. Also America’s so called friends and allies have been the major aggressors. Saudi and Libyan citizens happily went to Iraq to kill Americans:

    “Saudi Arabia and Libya, both considered allies by the United States in its fight against terrorism, were the source of about 60 percent of the foreign fighters who came to Iraq in the past year to serve as suicide bombers or to facilitate other attacks, according to senior American military officials.”

    Why isn’t Empress Clinton taken to task for supporting people who murdered Americans, other coalition forces, and Iraqis? Why should the US help this regional insurgency that has American blood on its hands. Only anti-American Israel/Saudi apologist would. Does anyone know what became of those Libyan freedom fighters that went to Syria after they brought down Gaddafi?

  5. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    1988-1992 Bush 1. 1993-2000. Bill Clinton. 2001-2008 Bush 2. 2016-? Hillary Clinton ?.

    Is it just me or is the American presidency starting to look a bit like the old Hapsburg dual monarchy of Austria-Hungary?

  6. Priss Factor [AKA "Andrea Ostrov Letania"] says:

    Buchanan may have been more right about things, but did he come close to being president?

    Hillary is close.

    Being right matters less than serving the right masters. Pat should know that.

  7. @Anonymous

    I’ve made the same observation some time ago. Very disturbing to watch. This latest link in the chain must be stopped.

  8. @Anonymous

    That suggests that our elections are about as legitimate as pro wrestling

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Pat Buchanan Comments via RSS