Kirsten Gillibrand Delivers the World’s Most Ignorant Foreign Policy Speech Daniel Greenfield
https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/274433/kirsten-gillibrand-delivers-worlds-most-ignorant-daniel-greenfield
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has only one admirable quality. Determination.
Sadly that determination isn’t yoked to anything except her ambition. Gillibrand has no notable skills. She’s managed to rub everyone the wrong way. But that hasn’t made her give up her senseless 2020 campaign. Senator Gillibrand may not know anything or be qualified for anything. But she won’t let that stop her. And so she delivered a speech on foreign policy to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.
The only thing the speech lays out is that Gillibrand is barely qualified to work as a receptionist in an organization dealing with foreign policy.
Gillibrand starts off by boasting that she had traveled to Syria. When you’re from New York, visiting Syria is really impressive.
In Jordan, we met with Syrian refugee mothers. These are women who had to flee their home country because President Bashar al-Assad decimated entire neighborhoods and villages and tortured and killed tens of thousands of political prisoners.
After we spoke for a bit, these women looked me straight in the eye and one got straight to the point: “You are so afraid of Osama Bin Laden. When you turn a blind eye to people suffering here in Syria, you’re creating thousands of Bin Ladens every day.”
No example more powerfully demonstrates how our endless wars, our abandonment of diplomacy, and our lack of strategy have hurt our credibility abroad and made us less safe.
Osama bin Laden wasn’t a war refugee. And if anything, he used American intervention in the Gulf War to kickstart a Jihad against America.
But Kirsten Gillibrand doesn’t actually know anything. And her speech somehow even gets dumber.
We have an obligation and a moral duty to extricate ourselves from endless battles that turn people against us and cost trillions of dollars—which could be spent more wisely abroad to address root causes of terrorism
Wait, is Gillibrand arguing for or against interventionism?
She just started her speech arguing that our failure to do anything about Assad in Syria is creating new Bin Ladens. Now she complains that we have to extricate ourselves from endless battles.
I’ll say this loud and clear: From his campaign’s conspiring with Russia to his reckless confrontation with Iran, the President of the United States is degrading our standing in the world and making our nation less secure.
People who say things loud and clear generally have nothing to say.
Also, Iran is backing Assad in Syria.
Does Gillibrand want to stop Assad in Syria. Or doesn’t she? Her opening claims that if we don’t stop Assad, we’ll be creating tens of thousands of Bin Ladens. Then she pivots to warning about the dangers of interventionism.
If Gillibrand’s speech made any less sense, it would be delivered in Hungarian.
In fact, his hawkish administration and erratic positions risk dragging us into a new war at this very moment with Iran—one that our allies will not support, that could cost many Americans and allies their lives
Which allies don’t support it? Also if they don’t support it, how could it cost them their lives?
And his disrespect to our allies, coddling of adversaries and dictators, and bellicose threats of war undermine our standing
Wait… Trump is coddling adversaries and making bellicose threats of war? At the same time.
Pick an argument and stick with it. For at least one sentence. Please.
We must protect Americans with precision, technology and a strategy that recognizes the threats of the 21st Century.
Protect Americans with technology? This is truly a breakthrough strategy.
There’ll be no more protecting America with pointy sticks under President Gillibrand.
Meeting the terror threat does not require holding territory. We know that terror groups have metastasized. They recruit and plan via borderless computer networks, and can strike us and our allies regardless of physical control of a country.
That was a compelling argument before ISIS tried to create its own terror state backed by a fortune in oil.
My administration would end U.S. support for the Saudi war in Yemen
I’m sure Iran appreciates Senator Gillibrand’s support for its takeover of Yemen. Oddly, Iran doesn’t seem to realize that holding territory is irrelevant because there are computers.
I will continue our country’s unbreakable bond with our closest ally in the Middle East: Israel. As I have always done, I will do everything in my power to defend it and protect it. This also means supporting security in the region. That is why I strongly disagreed with President Trump’s decision to stop providing long standing assistance to the Palestinians
I love Israel so much I want to keep supplying the Islamic terrorists attacking them with money.
I will strategically leverage diplomatic steps to curb aggression and carefully articulate our national security goals
Carefully articulating things is important. Kirsten Gillibrand has to carefully articulate everything because she’s reading everything from a teleprompter.
Comments are closed.
