COMMENTARY | According to The Weekly Standard, Hillary Clinton is taking pains to distance herself from the foreign policy that she helped to develop and vigorously defended during her term as Obama’s secretary of state in her new memoirs.
“In her new book, Hillary Clinton picks out a few foreign policy topics that she thinks are now safe, even helpful, to express disagreement with the course taken by the Obama administration. She wanted to arm and train the Syria rebels, while Obama did not. She thought it unwise to call for Hosni Mubarak to step down immediately, while Obama wanted him gone.
“She acknowledges that the Obama administration’s demand for a settlement freeze from Israel as a precondition to talks with the Palestinians ‘didn’t work.’ Yet she also seeks to exculpate herself from this failure by claiming that she was against the policy from the beginning.”
The problem is that Clinton took the lead on beating up on Israel in general and Prime Minister Benjamin Nettanyahu in particular. This is going to be a problem if she decides to run for president. Any primary opponent worthy of the name is going to use this discrepancy with objective reality with great zest. Since her Republican opponent in 2016 will not be Mitt Romney, who famously choked on taking Obama to task over Benghazi, she will be absolutely be castigated.
One can hope that if Clinton is the nominee, she has to face Ted Cruz, a master debater and a known, unabashed friend of Israel. One does not have to think Israel is in the right at all times to wonder out loud what a President Hillary Clinton Middle East foreign policy will actually be. Will it be the appease our enemies and attack our friends version that she and President Obama practiced? Or will it be the version suggested in the memoirs? She will have to come up with a better answer than, “What difference does it make?”