http://nypost.com/2016/06/02/clintons-warnings-about-trump-actually-describe-her/ Clinton’s warnings about Trump actually describe … her
By Post Editorial Board
June 2, 2016 | 8:53pm
That was a “major national-security address”?
Hillary Clinton’s folks billed her San Diego speech Thursday as a big deal. And it certainly was a prime opportunity to lay out her views on foreign policy and America’s role in the world.
But what she delivered was a 45-minute rant against Donald Trump — with nary a clue about her plans for leading America on the international stage.
Worse, her string of dump-on-Trump quips might’ve worked better if she had substituted her name for his, starting with her attack on Trump’s “series of rants” — a perfect description of her own speech.
Clinton tried to portray Trump as “dangerous.” But what do you call it when a secretary of state, to shield herself from accountability, stores classified e-mails (some beyond “top secret”) on her private, unsecured server, leaving them vulnerable to hackers the world over?
Or who goes home for the night with a US consulate besieged by al Qaeda-linked terrorists — then later lies to the victims’ families about how a YouTube video was to blame?
Clinton called Trump “temperamentally unfit” to be commander-in-chief. But how would you describe an ex-top official who continually lies to the public and holds herself above the law?
Trump “doesn’t understand” the world, she said — but then denied that the world has laughed at President Obama’s weakness. She even claimed we’re “safer” with Obama’s deal with Iran, which gives the mullahs a clear path to nuclear weapons and hundreds of billions to fund terrorism.
Who doesn’t understand the world?
More: Hillary said Trump would “embolden” our enemies. Yet, like Obama, she can’t even bring herself to call ISIS what it is: “radical Islamic extremists.” How does she think the terrorists are reacting to that?
Clinton’s aides say her speech is just the start of a push to paint Trump as “dangerous” and unpredictable. But maybe America would be safer if world leaders — from Russia to North Korea to Iran — actually worried about how our president might respond to aggression.
As opposed to a president like, say, Clinton — who can’t be trusted by Americans.