SecState in a Headband?

So, the Obama administration’s “smart diplomacy” on Iran is not working. And this is very troubling, indeed. Iran is test-firing increasingly advanced missiles at a time when, as Ed Morrissey notes, the B+ President Obama has awarded himself includes having both “made progress toward halting” nuclear weapons in North Korea and um…cancelling our installation of missile shields in Eastern Europe.

Read all of Ed’s piece, and then consider for a second how difficult it is to be president, particularly when you’re a president who has promised something like “world peace and unicorns and sanctions” to your base, built on foundations of endless, and naive talk.

Speaking of “naive,” that was a word then-Senator Hillary Clinton often applied to then-Senator Barack Obama’s foreign policy ideas, until she became his Secretary of State. And speaking of Hillary Clinton, let us remember how inconsistent she can be. In 2006, she railed of the Bush Administration that it was:

. . .a mistake for the U.S. to have Britain, France and Germany head up nuclear talks with Iran over the past 2 1/2 years. Last week, Iran resumed nuclear research in a move Tehran claims is for energy, not weapons.

“I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and chose to outsource the negotiations,” Clinton said.

This from the same woman who once denounced Bush for “arrogantly proceeding without the international community…” regarding Iraq.

He disregards the “international community” and calls Iran an “axis of evil”, that’s bad. He includes the “international community” in handling Iran, and that’s bad, too.

Let’s not lose sight of that point. When Bush went into Iraq, with soldiers from the UK, Australia, France Italy and even Fiji assisting, that was arrogant uni-lateralism. When he bowed to his critics and allowed Europe to lead the way in a multi-lateral dealings with Iran, that was “outsourcing” diplomacy and wasting critical time.

Given how ineffective the multi-lateral approach has been, I am inclined to agree with Mrs. Clinton about the waste. It’s all rather irrelevant, now, since there is a new government in place in the United States, one that -we are told- is not at all arrogant, and that all nations just love to pieces as it practices “smart” diplomacy, and not “stupid American cowboy” diplomacy.

One of these days I will sit down and write a list of all the countries we had excellent working relationships with in 2008, that have been dissed and disappointed by America in 2009, but for now, I just want to say that Senator Hillary Clinton was correct about Obama’s foreign policy naivete, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is not serving her own ambitions well by tying herself to Obamian policies that will continue to fail, as long as they are rooted in a “trust and don’t bother verifying” philosophy.

You know, the sort of philosophy that says, “awwww, the Lockerbie terrorist is dying? Aw…that’s sad. And we’re like…compassionate and stuff! Let’s release him so he can go home and die…or, umm…disappear, as the case may be.”

Also, I’m sorry, but no Secretary of State who wants to be taken seriously should be in a headband. Mrs. Clinton looks tired, yes, and she should. But that headband, to me, is saying, “I am in a bind…” Or, it says “they’ve got me stuck in Wonderland.”

Oh, indeed you are, Mrs. Clinton. I think your own foreign policy might have been smarter than Obama’s, but his is the one you’re charged to deliver.

H/T Gateway Pundit

Related:
Jennifer Rubin: Hillary Clinton, Dictators and Doubletalk and Hillary admits failure on Iran

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • lethargic

    No, it does not say “in a bind,” it says “12 years old.” My daughter looks pert and smart in a headband. Hillary — what is she, 60-something? — just looks dumb. Does her staff hate her, maybe?

  • http://littlemissattila.com Little Miss Attila / Joy McCann

    I’m going to give her a pass on the headband; she hasn’t indulged in years.

    But I’m utterly mystified about why 1) she took the job of SoS, and 2) why she is still in it.

    Maybe she’s looking for a moment of maximum impact to step down, and/or wants to make sure it’s after the 2010 elections, so she can’t be accused of hurting the party.

  • RandyB

    Hillary is planning to challenge Obama for the Dem nomination in 2012. Her service as SoS is both part of her plan, though what role it plays is not yet clear, and the result of the backroom deal that prevented a floor fight for the nomination at the 2008 Dem Convention.

  • JJM

    “I think [Hillary Clinton's] own foreign policy might have been smarter than Obama’s, but his is the one [she's] charged to deliver.”

    Which is why I thought it was so politically astute of the Obama administration to offer her the Secretary of State position.

    Of course, she couldn’t resist, could she? Anything – anything – to be involved in the levers of power. But she’s now effectively neutered.

    The most credible potential Democrat rival and critic of the administration has to be silent.

    And with every day she is silent, she becomes more invisible…

  • Alice

    We canceled our TV service 4 months ago and were not watching news even then, so I have not seen video of Hillary in a long time.

    It looks like she has had ‘some work’ done around her face, and I wonder if the headband is one of those that pulls the face back some.

  • Pingback: » Links to Visit – 12/16/09 NoisyRoom.net: Where liberty dwells, there is my country…

  • Brooklyn

    Of course, the description of the policies and diplomacy Mr. Obama offered as being ‘naive’ was quite accurate. But these are the concepts being offered as a whole, via the modern Democratic Party, including Mrs. Clinton.

    The sophistry of the Clinton existence, is to convince all they are more moderate, centrist, etc., when they are just as “naive” as the rest of the Democratic Party.

    For example, Mrs. Clinton would try to label the mindless conceptions of Mr. Obama as misguided, while in reality, she not only advertised the same, the record clearly suggests the Clintons practiced the same.

    Hillary and Bill not only appeased a killer named Arafat, a nutty Dictatorship in North Korea, negligently ignored the monstrous death of Al Qaeda, etc., Hillary Clinton as Senator wrote opinion pieces published, calling for MORE appeasement during the Bush Administration tenure.

    In a famous push to gain some political attention, trying to diminish the Bush Administration, Hillary Clinton advocated for a re-appeasement of North Korea. She ignorantly, dishonestly, etc., presented the idea that the Clinton-Carter deal with North Korea was working wonderfully, after it had been revealed all along KIM was cheating in an alarming fashion. Mrs. Clinton blamed the Bush Presidency, and screamed for doing more “naive” efforts in response to the exposure of the former Clinton failure.

    That is the sad reality of today. Many Conservative Pundits, desperately hoping to encourage more sound policy, sometimes have entertained something about the Clintons that they were not.

    The very vapid Mr. Beck, suggested once he would have preferred Mrs. Clinton over the Maverick, yet, she was the primary force with Bill who tried to Nationalize Health Care in the 1990′s. The Clintons are just as extreme as Mr. Obama, Mrs. Pelosi, Mr. Reid, etc., as the rest of the modern Democratic Party.

    It is the level of deceit, which is more intense, which often creates delusion over the true Clinton existence. Mrs. Clinton has helped create this mess she now comments upon.

    Smart Power is another arrogant flop.

    Change being a big joke.

  • http://sevenoaks-jeanne.blogspot.com/ Jeanne

    The headband merely says to me, “I am having a bad hair day.” She’s allowed a few of those.

    On a more serious note, Iran with the ability to lob missiles at Europes scares me. Bad.

  • dry valleys

    Perhaps the headband is some kind of stress reliever. It’s hard to ease the burden of being in David Miliband’s presence for so long, pretending not to hate him, & holding back from brutally slaughtering him as any right-minded person would. :)

    Really, have you seen them “laughing” together & even making joking comments?

    On a more serious note, this is a more positive view of Hill’s time in office than anything on offer in these parts!

  • http://jscafenette.com Jeanette

    I haven’t seen her in a headband since her more frumpy days of the Clinton campaign and presidency. I guess it’s on too tight and depriving her brain of oxygen these days.

    Then again, if she’d wash her hair more frequently she wouldn’t need a headband. It looks to me as though she’s growing out the greasy hair.

  • DRS

    The headband says” I used to a feminist.
    And a person. Really !”
    Check old vids of ‘serious’ Radcliffe types from the ’60′s and ’70′s. Lots of headbands.

  • http://hillary4president.org Hugh Shevlin

    I have two guesses about Hillary headband thing

    I guessed Hillary was too busy thinking on how to serve everyone in the nation — headband can be a great and easy way to fix it (less time needed).

    Or

    She just want everyone to see the expression in her face. Not hiding anything from the people.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X