Last year’s presidential campaign featured stark differences on foreign policy. Hillary Clinton was called a “NeoCon,” because she was seen as the candidate who would be involved in foreign military adventures. But Donald Trump was so against “foreign entanglements” that he even trashed the last president of his own party, George Bush, for trying to be the “world’s policeman,” and for “regime change.” In fact, Trump was often called an “isolationist.”

But that has changed. In fact, in a story entitled “Donald Rodham Clinton,” Politico suggests that Trump is now the same as Hillary in foreign matters.

Previously, Trump said NATO was obsolete. Now, he salutes it, Clinton-style, as a “great alliance.” Previously, he lavished kisses on Vladimir Putin and Russia. Now Trump and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson have taken a Clintonesque stand against Russia, admitting to low levels of trust between the two nations. Then: No war in Syria. Now, Trump is bombing Syria with the sort of glee Clinton would have brought to the mission. And on and on it goes, with Trump adopting Clintonian stances on Chinese currency manipulation (doesn’t exist!) and the Export-Import Bank (for it).

Hillary Clinton’s presidency would have been a family affair, with Bill and Chelsea mobbing the White House with their advice; Trump has seated daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner at on his roundtable and acts on their guidance. Hillary Clinton would have recruited pros from Goldman Sachs; Trump has brushed the rafters of his administration a beaming gold with guys from Goldman. Hillary Clinton would have gone to war with the Republican Congress, vowing to campaign against them once they refused to pass her legislation; Trump has come close to realizing that goal, telling the leader of the troublesome House Freedom Caucus, “Mark, I’m coming after you.”

. . .the Trump administration continues to blur into something resembling a triangulating Clinton presidency, especially as Bannon’s influence on the president fades from full moon to gibbous. Trump’s Clintonification has not gone unnoticed by his base. Any day now, I expect the president to trademark his 2020 campaign reelection slogan: “Stronger Together.”

The Daily Caller also wrote that Trump has been Clintonesque.

Hillary Clinton achieved a victory this week, when President Donald Trump launched airstrikes against the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad. No vital interests of the United States or its allies were invoked or involved. A single rationalization sufficed: He did it for the children.

Trump vividly validated the observation of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger that, “Military missions and foreign interventions are [now] defined as a form of social work.”. . .

No one denies that protecting children is worthy. Yet when it becomes the sole justification for armies of government functionaries – let alone mobilizing real armies – we may not be getting the full story. . .

How far one nation should invade other people’s countries to protect them from their own governments has become a hotly debated topic. The track record is not good. The fashionable doctrine of “Responsibility to Protect” was invoked to justify Clinton’s bombing of Kosovo and again in the decision to attack Iraq in 2003, though this rationalization was probably gratuitously tagged on. In both cases, it is not clear that we saved any lives, though we took many, and we destabilized these regions in ways we could not predict or control, with consequences to this day.

Even Ann Coulter criticized Trump, in Breitbart.

War is like crack for presidents. It confers instant gravitas, catapulting them to respectability, bypassing all station stops. They get to make macho pronouncements on a topic where every utterance is seen as august.

On the other hand, Trump’s Syrian misadventure is immoral, violates every promise he ran on, and could sink his presidency. . .

Back in 2013, when President Obama was being egged on to attack Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack far more sweeping than this latest one, Trump tweeted:

— Aug. 29, 2013:

“What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval.”

— Aug. 31, 2013:

“Be prepared, there is a small chance that our horrendous leadership could unknowingly lead us into World War III.”

— Sept. 1, 2013:

“If the U.S. attacks Syria and hits the wrong targets, killing civilians, there will be worldwide hell to pay. Stay away and fix broken U.S.”. . .

My nightmare scenario: Trump and Jared watching TV together and high-fiving: DID YOU SEE THE NEWS! THEY LOVE YOU! All Trump had to do was pointlessly bomb another country, and it was as if a genie had granted his every wish. . .

We want the “president of America” back — not “the president of the world.”

Trump is just getting started, but so far, his activist foreign policy seems more like business-as-usual in Washington, rather than working to “fix broken U.S.”


  1. As with any other person, once he became president, Donald J Trump had to see all things from a different perspective. Has he been attempting to fix some of America’s myriad of problems, yes he has. Has there been obstruction of his plans by the Democrats and of judges playing politics, why yes there has.

    Comparing President Trump to the Anti-Christ also known as Hillarry Clinton borders on sacrilegious. Only the few who have been president know of the immense problems that they face daily. Are there similarities between the presidents on international issues? Why of course there are.

    But I for one would rather have Donald J Trump handle them, then Hillary Clinton.

    • Pray tell me of any policy similarities of any former US president that are even close to those of Donald Trump. What he promises today will not be the actions he will take tomorrow. While campaigning, Trump advocated strenuously that Obama must not attack Syria. As president, when he heard Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime was reported using banned chemical weapons on its own citizens, Trump, influenced by daughter Ivanka’s tears (his words), fired 59 cruise missiles onto the Syrian air base determined to be involved in the attacks.

      During the campaign, Trump derided China as a currency manipulator, arguing that they are “raping our country” with their trade policy. He vowed to designate China a currency manipulator on day one. On April 12, Trump abruptly changed his mind on China entirely, telling the Wall Street Journal that he does not label China a currency manipulator. Giving no reasons for the change of heart.

      As a candidate, Trump argued repeatedly that President Barack Obama shouldn’t play golf. Trump, as president, routinely takes time, and his security detail, to Trump-branded golf courses. Trump has played golf over 5.5 days a month so far. More even than President Eisenhower who was well known for his love of the game.

      There are many more examples of Trump’s mind boggling incompetence if you’re interested.

      • Incompetence or did he just rationally think thimgs through and act one way or the other. I realize that being impulsive a la Bill Clinton or inaction as in the case of Barack Obama is more your style.?

        Watch and learn from President Trump. The Democratic clowns you have had for president recently must have really been a let down for you.?

        • Like Trump, you speak (write) in Stengelese. If you are having difficulties determining between incompetence and rational thinking, I am at a loss for words.

          Your oblique reference to Bill Clinton is, I am assuming, about Kosovo. This attack was ordered by NATO, not President Clinton. The planes and pilots used to drop the bombs were from England, France and other nations, as well as the United States. It was not a spur of the moment, Trump style bombing.

          I do watch Trump and I have learned a lot. Which means, the worst of Trump is yet to come.

          • You know that hatred is a form of LOVE.? Could it be that you have subconsciously resigned yourself to the fact that you will be writing tirades against President Trump for 4 most likely 8 more years? ?

            It is just that your liberal stance will keep you from openly accepting President Trump as your Commander in Chief. You know it deep down but the ostracism by your fellow liberals were you to show it openly, would be too much for you to bear.?

            • Straight Shooter…Are you studying Freudism or did you just read the old Clinton 2016 campaign ads that read “Love trumps hate.”

              You assume too much. You attach labels without just cause. I am an independent voter and I try to vote for the most qualified person. I do not take into consideration party affiliation, their religion, or if they are white, black, brown or yellow. My only qualification is “will this person abide by the constitution as it was written”. Off the top of your head: Do you know anyone one in congress, or our president, that is willing to help all the people, all the time?

              It is very difficult, impossible, to follow a commander in chief who is a known liar, a known thief, a known racist, a known adulterer, a known back peddler who just gave himself and his mega rich buddies a huge tax break. As Warren Buffet said “when there’s a tax cut, either the deficit goes up or they get the taxes from somebody else.” Somebody else ranges from citizens who make 125,000 and under per year. Trump also eliminated most (left two) of the helpful deductions for these same group get on their income tax.

            • Aside from being an Independent, I also hope that you are fair minded. President Trump is 70 years old. Who do you know that has lived 7 decades on this Earth, is as PURE AS THE DRIVEN SNOW? The majority of people in Congress or Senate are over 50 years of age, so as you said not one of them is without sin.?

              You and I, believe it or not, are actually quite alike. I too want somebody you describe, but outside of heaven I am afraid there is no such person.

              If we go back to the last presidential election, you have a stark contrast in the respective candidates of the major parties. First you had the odds on favorite to win, Hillary Clinton. A woman so vile, elitist, back stabbing, thieving, utterly corrupt MEGLOMANIC. Then there was Donald J Trump, a man with sins in his past, but a saint in comparison to his opponent. I as well as many others voted for the unknown who offered hope.?

Comments are closed.