WaPo | Seven years into the Obama presidency, it is fair to ask Clinton:
Are jihadists a bigger or smaller problem than when you took office as secretary of state?
Is Russia acting in concert with — or in opposition to — our Middle East interests? If the latter, can we say our Russia policy was a failure?
Aside from rhetoric, how is your policy regarding the Islamic State any different from the president’s?
What is the point of a Syrian-negotiated settlement, if Iran, Russia and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad are in ascendancy and we are virtually absent? Is Secretary of State John Kerry wasting his time then?
Why do Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia openly complain about our lack of staying power and reliability?
With Israel, was it a mistake to focus so intently on settlements?
Would you have negotiated a deal with Iran that lifted the missile and conventional arms embargoes, did not restrict its missile program, allowed self-inspection, did not specifically tie sanctions relief to full disclosure of possible military dimensions (PMDs) and released $150 billion to Iran while it was still holding Americans against their will and destabilizing its neighbors? If not, why did you support the deal?
Where, other than Cuba and Iran, do we have better relations now than we did seven years ago?
You oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Wouldn’t that be a blow to our Asian allies and a boost to China?
Clinton, like the president, talks a good game. No one can filibuster better in a debate. She can recite meetings and paper agreements. She can boast of her frequent-flier miles. But in the real world, outcomes matter. For the Obama-Clinton-Kerry team, it is increasingly hard to see what positive achievements –tangible gains — they attained. It is easy to reel off a list of failures. Why then does Clinton deserve a promotion?
0 comments:
Post a Comment