Archive for the ‘Foreign Policy’ Category

Anyone watching this video has to wonder whether Tucker Carlson has paid attention the last 12 years:

Here’s the transcript that calls his analytic skills into question:

CARLSON: The question I would ask, and I’m not endorsing Rand Paul, but I do think you need a moment of national reckoning where we ask a simple question: what is the lesson from the last thirteen years of Iraq? Have we learned anything? How would we proceed differently based on what we just saw? And the other candidates, most of them I would say, are committed to this ‘We’ve learned nothing. The world’s exactly as it was on September 12, 2001. That is not…I don’t think that’s a recipe for success. I …
BRET BAIER: But do you think that this is a pathway to the GOP nomination?
CARLSON: I don’t. I absolutely don’t. Laura is absolutely right. He’s getting hammered. You’re pro-terrorist. Again, I’m not defending Rand Paul. I’m not an advocate for his campaign. But I think the question hangs in the air what have we learned?
LAURA INGRAHAM: There’s a big debate out there that has to be had. Will it be had? Will it be had when there’s just one person making the case and an entire field saying ‘Oh no. It has to be this way. It’s an interesting debate. We should have it.
CHARLES LANE: I listened to that soundbite of Rand Paul and was just reminded of why he’s not…of why he’s getting criticism. The things he says are sloppy and superficial. To literally blame the rise of ISIS on the hawks in the Republican Party is just ridiculous. Let’s face it. There are so many other factors that’ve gone into it and furthermore, it isn’t about how do we unring all the bells that were run in the past that may have led us to this point. The problem now is how do we deal with this menace?

If Carlson wants to re-litigate whether we should’ve invaded Iraq, he’s free to do so. It’s just that that’s a waste of time for policymakers. If historians want to debate it, fine. That’s their responsibility.

If Carlson wants to make sure that we don’t make the same mistakes again, the big picture answer is exceptionally straightforward. Don’t elect a person who thinks that fighting terrorists is an afterthought. Don’t elect a person who isn’t committed to winning.

One straightforward lesson worth learning is that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton told us in 2007 and 2008 that they weren’t qualified to be commander-in-chief. President Obama has been a terrible commander-in-chief. If she got elected, Hillary would be just as terrible as commander-in-chief as President Obama is because they’re both committed, as they’ve said repeatedly throughout the years, to “ending wars responsibly.”

The biggest lesson Republicans need to learn is to a) trust their generals more and b) loosen up the rules of engagement, aka ROE, so that U.S. military forces can efficiently kill the terrorists as quickly as possible. The other shift that’s imperative is that they must make clear that the Sunnis and Kurds will be protected and that Iran’s generals won’t be permitted as military advisors to Iraq.

The biggest reason why the Sunnis didn’t fight in Ramadi is because they were stuck in a lose-lose situation. If they defeat ISIS, Iranian Shiites would wage war against the Sunnis. If the Sunnis waged war against the Shiites, then Iran and President Obama would persecute them.

During the Anbar Awakening, U.S. soldiers fought alongside the Sunnis. They established a trust with the Sunni soldiers. The result was the Sunnis running AQI, ISIS’ predecessor, into Syria. We don’t need to send 150,000 troops into Iraq to obliterate ISIS. Military experts say that 20,000-25,000 troops, combined with an aggressive bombing campaign, should devastate ISIS and restore Iraqi trust in the United States. This time, though, it’s imperative that we negotiate a status of forces agreement to keep a stabilizing force in Iraq. That stabilizing force would keep the troops and the Iraqi government in line, prevent the Iranians from spreading their influence in the region and prevent the return of ISIS.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Initially, I thought that Rand Paul’s foreign policies weren’t as ignorant as his dad’s. While I still think that it’s impossible to get more whacked than Ron Paul’s foreign policy views, his son’s view of things is getting more frightening by the day. This video provides proof:

Here’s the key part:

“Graham would say ISIS exists because of people like Rand Paul who said, ‘Let’s not go into Syria.’ What do you say to Lindsey?” said Scarborough.

“I would say it’s exactly the opposite. ISIS exists and grew stronger because of the hawks in our party who gave arms indiscriminately, and most of those arms were snatched up by ISIS,” said Paul. “These hawks also wanted to bomb Assad, which would have made ISIS’s job even easier. They created these people.”

Thank God Sen. Paul will never be the Republican nominee. That type of stupidity is frightening.

First, which generals gave weapons “indiscriminately” to Iraqis? Second, doesn’t Sen. Paul know that pulling U.S. troops from Iraq is why ISIS formed and grew? It’s indisputable that the most important pivot point was President Obama pulling the last U.S. troops out of Iraq. Prior to that, the Sunnis felt like Ambassador Crocker was keeping al-Maliki in check. Sunnis also knew that U.S. forces had their backs because they were fighting side-by-side.

Sen. Paul’s belief that ISIS was created by the U.S. is fantasy. Whether they’re called ISIS or al-Qa’ida in Iraq, terrorists essentially owned western Iraq, especially Anbar Province. That’s why the Surge became synonymous with the Anbar Awakening. If Sen. Paul wants to dispute that, let him argue with the military’s timeline of events. Good luck with that.

Sen. Paul’s fanciful statements undoubtedly satisfy his father’s followers. They just aren’t the truth.

In 2006, then-Candidate Amy Klobuchar talked daily about “responsibly ending” the war in Iraq. At the time, I was disgusted with the thought of “ending wars” because it didn’t speak to winning wars. Starting in 2007 and continuing through 2008, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama talked about “ending wars responsibly”. Obama picked up on the nation’s mood first, which propelled him to an election victory.

There’s nothing honorable about “ending wars responsibly” because there’s nothing honorable about losing wars. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton lost 2 wars and are on their way to losing a third war (against ISIS) because they quit fighting. When the world’s only true superpower quits fighting against terrorists, it sends the signal that fighting terrorism isn’t a priority.

That’s why the Gulf Arabs humiliated President Obama at his summit. Their leaders didn’t show up because they think he’s sold them out. They’re right in thinking that.

Recently, Hillary’s former associates were asked what her foreign policy accomplishments were. After a minutes-long awkward pause, they settled on Myanmar being her biggest accomplishment. They’re doing Hillary a disservice. Let’s stipulate here that accomplishments aren’t necessarily positives. In this context, they’re noteworthy moments during Hillary’s stewardship of the State Department.

First, she gave the Russians a reset switch, which told them they could do virtually anything, including annexing Crimea. Next, she helped end the war in Iraq, which helped the Iraqi people transfer from being ruled by an oppressive dictator to being governed by an incompetent prime minister to being ruled by a new group of oppressors. Third, she led the fight to ‘liberate’ Libya from Kaddafi’s rule. That ‘accomplishment’ led to terrorists taking over Libya. That led to her fourth ‘accomplishment’. Thanks to Hillary’s shoddy planning for the aftermath of the fight against Kaddafi, terrorists took control of Libya. Those terrorists then assassinated U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and 3 other American patriots.

That’s what happens when American leaders aren’t committed to winning wars and obliterating terrorists. I don’t want politicians who will responsibly end wars. I’d want someone like Bill Whittle in control. When ISIS beheaded the American journalists, President Obama was forced into pretending like he gave a damn. Bill Whittle had a different perspective:

Hillary might not be the appeaser that Obama is but she’s still an appeaser.

If we need to increase bombing raids per day to eliminate ISIS, let’s get it done. If that bombing campaign needs forward-located troops to pinpoint where the terrorists are, send them in. But, for God’s sake, let’s not do these things with the timidity and foolishness that have hallmarked the Obama-Clinton foreign policy.

A stunning document captured during the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound didn’t speak highly of Hillary Clinton. Here’s what the world’s greatest terrorist thought of Hillary and US foreign policy:

UBL: The Secretary of State declared that they are worried about the armed Muslims controlling the Muslim region. The West’s position towards the Libyan revolution is a weak one. The western countries are weak and their international role is regressing.

You can practically hear UBL’s rejoicing in the Obama administration’s use of “smart power’. It’s obvious that he wasn’t afraid of Hillary’s foreign policy, either.

Pacifist birds of a feather flock together.

Actually, these pacifist birds run a foundation together. Follow this link to watch ABC’s interview of Osama bin Laden in 1998. At approximately the 3:50 mark, UBL calls the US military a “paper tiger.”

Our people realize that, more than before, the American soldier is a paper tiger.

Because the military takes its orders from its commander-in-chief, they leave hotspots like Mogadishu if that’s what the commander-in-chief orders them to do. That’s what they were told to do by then-Defense Secretary Les Aspin. UBL thought that the US military were paper tigers because Bill Clinton lacked the will to fight. Does anyone seriously think that the US military couldn’t have wiped out al-Qa’ida if they’d been given permission to wipe them out?

Bill Clinton once ordered troops into Bosnia. He explained that he was just trying to “level the battlefield.” Bill Clinton didn’t care about winning a war. That’s why he went half-heartedly into a military confrontation.

Based on UBL’s documents, he thought Hillary was as soft as her husband. He nailed it when he said that “the western countries are weak and their international role is regressing.” Certainly, President Obama has abandoned the Middle East, the Arabian Peninsula, eastern Europe and north Africa. Let’s remember that bin Laden was assassinated in 2011, years before ISIS was called the JV team. ISIS and al-Qa’ida knew that they could operate without consequences with Hillary as Secretary of State and President Obama as commander-in-chief.

With ISIS expanding and Iran destabilizing the Middle East, why shouldn’t they hope for a Hillary administration? If she becomes president, they’ll have the time to plan their next terrorist attack on the United States. They’ll know that they can operate freely and openly.

Bill Clinton was seen by UBL as a paper tiger. Hillary was seen by UBL as a shrinking violet. If we want the terrorists to run rampant until they strike us again, all we have to do is elect Hillary.

If Hillary wasn’t worried about the Clinton Foundation’s donations-for-influence scandal, she’s worried now. This time, though, it’s personal:

Almost a decade ago, as Hillary Clinton ran for re-election to the Senate on her way to seeking the presidency for the first time, the New York Times reported on her unusually close relationship with Corning, Inc., an upstate glass titan. Clinton advanced the company’s interests, racking up a big assist by getting China to ease a trade barrier. And the firm’s mostly Republican executives opened up their wallets for her campaign.

During Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State, Corning lobbied the department on a variety of trade issues, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The company has donated between $100,000 and $250,000 to her family’s foundation. And, last July, when it was clear that Clinton would again seek the presidency in 2016, Corning coughed up a $225,500 honorarium for Clinton to speak.

In the laundry-whirl of stories about Clinton buck-raking, it might be easy for that last part to get lost in the wash. But it’s the part that matters most. The $225,500 speaking fee didn’t go to help disease-stricken kids in an impoverished village on some long-forgotten patch of the planet. Nor did it go to a campaign account. It went to Hillary Clinton. Personally.

First, the fact that Hillary supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership won’t sit well with Elizabeth Warren’s wing of the party. In the interest of being proactive, please forgive me for being a sexist pig for calling Sen. Warren by her first name. But I digress.

Lanny Davis, James Carville or, perhaps, George Stephanopoulos will undoubtedly pop out of the Clinton’s mansion and defend Hillary to the death, insisting all the while that she didn’t commit a crime and that there’s no quid pro quo involved.


Charismatic speakers like Hillary frequently command 6-figure-per-speech honoraria. There’s no doubt that Hillary’s a spell-binding, charismatic speaker who’s worth every penny of that $225,500 stipend. The fact that Hillary’s running for president and the company wants to influence Hillary on trade deals is totally immaterial. Everyone knows that the Clintons are the most altruistic people in the world. People questioning Hillary’s honoraria must be sexist, too.

The latest episode in the Clinton money saga is different than the others because it involves the clear, direct personal enrichment of Hillary Clinton, presidential candidate, by people who have a lot of money at stake in the outcome of government decisions.

Hillary’s always been known as having chutzpah but this time takes the cake. There’s nothing she can say that would get Hillary out of this mess.

From there, things get messier for Hillary:

Corning’s in good company in padding the Clinton family bank account after lobbying the State Department and donating to the foundation. Qualcomm and did that, too. Irwin Jacobs, a founder of Qualcomm, and Marc Benioff, a founder of, also cut $25,000 checks to the now-defunct Ready for Hillary SuperPAC. Hillary Clinton spoke to their companies on the same day, October 14, 2014. She collected more than half a million dollars from them that day, adding to the $225,500 had paid her to speak eight months earlier.

And Microsoft, the American Institute of Architects, AT&T, SAP America, Oracle and Telefonica all paid Bill Clinton six-figure sums to speak as Hillary Clinton laid the groundwork for her presidential campaign.

Vox’s reporter on this nailed Hillary with this commentary:

By this point, most Clinton allies wish they had a button so they didn’t have to go to the trouble of rolling their eyes at each new Clinton money story. The knee-jerk eye-roll response to the latest disclosure will be that there’s nothing new to see here. But there’s something very important to see that is different than the past stories. This time, it’s about Hillary Clinton having her pockets lined by the very people who seek to influence her. Not in some metaphorical sense. She’s literally being paid by them.

I could turn this post into a much longer post with all the material I have here. Instead, think of this as laying the foundation for Part II.

The sad truth is that, with the Clintons, their excesses are the norm.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

During President Obama’s press conference with GCC nation leaders and delegations, he said some utterly laughable things. Here’s the video of the entire press conference:

Here’s the partial transcript I did to highlight what Charles Krauthammer called President Obama’s weasel words:

PRES. OBAMA: I invited our GCC partners here today to deepen our cooperation and to work together to resolve conflicts across the region. I want to thank each of the leaders and delegations who attended. We approached our discussions in a spirit of mutual respect. We agree that the security relationship between the United States and our GCC partners will remain a cornerstone of regional stability and our relationship is a 2-way street. We all have responsibilities and, here at Camp David, we have decided to expand our cooperation in several important and concrete ways.

First, I am confirming our ironclad commitment to our GCC partners. As we’ve declared in our joint statement, the United States is prepared to work jointly with GCC member states to deter, confront and defend any GCC state’s territorial integrity that is inconsistent with the UN charter. In the event of such aggression or the threat of such aggression, the United States stands ready to work with our GCC partners urgently to determine which actions may be appropriate, using the means at our collective disposal, including the potential use of military force for the defense of our GCC partners. And let me underscore that the United States keeps its commitments.

If I recall correctly, Charles counted 5 sets of weasel words in that final paragraph:

  1. The United States is prepared to work jointly with
  2. urgently to determine which actions may be appropriate
  3. I’m confirming our ironclad commitment
  4. including the potential use of military force

That’s 4 sets of weasel words that mean nothing. Combined, though, they aren’t as frightening to GCC member states as this statement:

And let me underscore that the United States always keeps its commitments.

I don’t recall the exact wording Charles used in conveying what he thinks President Obama’s statement meant but I’ll come close with this paraphrase:

This is President Obama’s statement of abandonment of the GCC member nations.

Remember, this summit was called by the Obama administration to assure them that he wasn’t a terrible ally. These nations wanted a written statement saying that a) the United States wouldn’t abandon them and b) the United States would provide military supplies to GCC member nations. Instead, President Obama stopped well short of those commitments. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates have every right to worry that the Obama administration will do next to nothing if Iran tries destabilizing these Arab nations.

UPDATE: Here’s the video and transcript of Charles Krauthammer’s analysis of President Obama’s summit:

President Obama trying to reassure Gulf nations by committing to help protect them from external attacks, including not ruling out the potential use of military force and we’re back now with our panel. I gather that you don’t view this as Article 5 of the NATO agreement.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: This was absolutely pathetic. If this was meant to reassure the Gulf states I’m sure their hair is still standing on end. Let’s go over this. There are a few ellipses here. In the event of such aggression, the United States stands ready, that’s a weasel word number one, to work with — weasel word number two — with our partners to urgently determine — boy, that’s rough, that’s a weasel phase number three — what actions — well, he doesn’t say what actions, just any actions — that’s the fourth.

And now the kicker, “may be appropriate.” I mean, I have never seen a statement with more caveats in it, which would give any less confidence to any ally. Obama, if you noticed, was reading that. That wasn’t a bad ad-lib. That wasn’t Jeb answering the wrong question. That was a prepared statement for a summit that is meant to reassure the Gulf Arabs that we are not selling them out. That was a sell out announcement.

WALLACE: I was going to follow up with that. The whole point of the summit was to try to assure the Sunni, the Gulf states, the six nations around the Persian Gulf led by Saudi Arabia that we aren’t going to sell them out with Iran and that they can be sure of their security. Should they be reassured?

KRAUTHAMMER: They should be terrified. In fact, in one with of the other answers he was answering the objection that we’re going to be unleashing billions of dollars into the Iranian treasury, which they will obviously use for the mischief, the destabilization that they are doing in the region, including Yemen, Syria, et cetera, threatening the Gulf Arabs.

His answer was, among other things not to worry, is that Iran has a lot of economic needs and they have made a commitment to their people to invest in infrastructure. So, they are not going to spend it, I assume, on Hezbollah, Hamas the Houthis and all the others. That is preposterous. And any Gulf Arab who hears that would be triply terrified.

I wrote here that Saudi King Salman had snubbed President Obama’s invitation to attend a summit on his administration’s negotiations with Iran. This article says that other Sunni Gulf nations are following King Salman’s lead:

  1. The tiny island kingdom of Bahrain said separately Sunday that its delegation would be headed by the country’s crown prince, Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa.
  2. The sultan of Oman, Qaboos bin Said, is also among those staying away.
  3. Health issues are also expected to keep the president of the United Arab Emirates, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, from attending.

4 of the 6 leaders of the nations invited to the Summit refuse to attend. This is a major public snub for President Obama:

Abdulkhaleq Abdullah, a professor of political science at Emirates University, told the Associated Press Gulf leaders were staying away to signal their displeasure over the nuclear talks.

“I don’t think they have a deep respect, a deep trust for Obama and his promises. There is a fundamental difference between his vision of post-nuclear-deal Iran and their vision,” he said. “They think Iran is a destabilizing force and will remain so, probably even more, if the sanctions are lifted. … They’re just not seeing things eye to eye.”

Check out this video:

If anything is clear, it’s that Hillary Clinton’s policies can be purchased. Russia wants to buy American uranium. Not a problem. Hire Bill to give a speech and I’ll approve the purchase. The Saudis wanted Hillary to ignore their treatment of women. Not a problem. Contribute $25,000,000 to the Clinton Foundation and I’ll develop a blind spot. Hillary thinks that the United States is waging a war on women because taxpayers won’t pay for birth control pills they think are abortifacients. Hillary doesn’t think that the Saudis are waging a war on women even though they treat women like property and allow genital mutilation.

It’s amazing the types of twisted thoughts a deceitful person can pretzel themselves into if they’re desperate to please everyone all the time. Hillary desperately wants to keep the Democratic field all to herself. She desperately wants to keep Elizabeth Warren on the sidelines. To quote Ron Fournier, “If Elizabeth Warren called for full Communism, Clinton would be at the barricades the next day.” Hillary desperately wants to convince people that she’s listening to them. She isn’t:

Hillary has been a presidential candidate for weeks. (Some might think it’s years.) She still hasn’t said how she’d grow the economy for the middle class. All she’s said is that she wants to be “a champion for everyday people.”

It’s impossible to be “a champion for everyday people” when you’re putting your policies up for sale to the highest bidder. It’s impossible to be that champion if your family’s foundation is constantly accepting multimillion dollar contributions from multinational corporations, international businessmen and foreign countries with terrible human rights records. Champions for everyday people should fight for small businesses and reduced regulations. Hillary the Champion of Everyday People has fought her entire political career for overregulation of small businesses and higher taxes on entrepreneurs.

She’s done that because she’s a wholly owned subsidiary of major multinational corporations. When they contribute to the Clinton Foundation, she dances to their tune. BTW, shouldn’t Elizabeth Warren, who’s always talking about how the game is rigged against everyday people, be upset about Hillary’s betrayal of everyday people? Shouldn’t Hillary’s sellout be enough provocation to get Sen. Warren into the race? Isn’t it possible that she isn’t interested because Sen. Warren isn’t worried about the game being rigged?

You can’t be for everyday people when your highest priority is pandering to multinational corporations and foreign countries with terrible human rights records. That’s what bought-and-paid-for corporatists do.

The question before the American people is whether they’ll settle for the political equivalent of a used car salesman or whether they’ll demand a fresh face with new ideas.

This morning’s reading has included the latest information on how the Clintons used Hillary’s official position as head of the State Department to enrich the Clinton Foundation. After that, I read more about Milwaukee County DA John Chisholm’s fishing expedition into conservatives’ political activities. After I finished with that, I read this article about the federal government’s confiscation of Marvin Horne’s agricultural crop.

After reading these articles, it’s clear that progressive policies are ruining the United States. It’s equally clear that we won’t recognize the United States if these policies continue. The nation that our Founding Fathers will have been confiscated by progressive thugs who hate the Founding Fathers’ United States.

Let’s start by talking about the constitutional protections progressives threw into a trash can during Chisholm’s fishing expedition. The thugs (I won’t call them law enforcement officers) that raided Cindy Archer’s home told her she couldn’t talk about the raid to anyone and that she couldn’t get a lawyer to represent herself. Then they repeated these actions in 9 more homes. The thugs had search warrants but it’s questionable how valid they are. According to the Constitution, you need to tell the judge what evidence you have to get a warrant. Telling the judge ‘We think Ms. Archer has information that will help our investigation’ won’t cut it.

What’s worse is Ms. Archer being told that she couldn’t get an attorney. Here’s the text of the Sixth Amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Having thugs in uniforms tell Ms. Archer that she couldn’t talk with a lawyer is un-American and fascism.

KEY QUESTION: Do we want to live in a nation where the government is used as a weapon against citizens exercising their right to participate in the political process?

Next, let’s talk about the Clintons using Hillary’s position at the State Department for personal gain:

Was there a quid pro quo? Based on the Times reporting, there was certainly a lot of quid (millions in donations that made it to a Clinton charity; a half-million-dollar speaker’s fee) and multiple quos (American diplomatic intervention with the Russians; approvals when the Russian firm offered a very “generous” price for Uranium One). The Clinton perspective is that, although the approvals were delivered by the State Department when Clinton led it, there is no evidence that she personally delivered them, or of the “pro” in the equation.

The Clintons’ defense didn’t include an outright denial of wrongdoing. What’s telling about the Clintons’ denial is that it stopped short of denying that they were involved in influence peddling.

KEY QUESTION: Do we want to live in a nation where the well-connected get rich without contributing anything of value to the economy?

Finally, let’s look at how weaponized government confiscated agricultural products without compensating farmers for the products they produced. The Horne family raised lots of raisins on their farm. The USDA (US Department of Agriculture) ordered them to limit their production of raisins. When the Horne family refused to accept the government’s demands, the USDA fined them $700,000 for not obeying the government.

Farmers should have the right to grow however many crops as they want. The government shouldn’t be able to limit the quantity of products they produce. It’s the farmers’ property. It’s their right to do whatever they want to do with their property as long as they aren’t physically harming others.

KEY QUESTION: Did the Founding Fathers intend for the government to limit the size of an individual’s crops? Or did the Founding Fathers write the Constitution in such a way that limited the federal government’s authority in telling individuals what they could do?

When government can tell people that they don’t have the right to counsel, that government has confirmed that they’re a lawless regime. When government dictates to farmers what crops they can grow and how much of that crop they can grow, then that government has become the people’s dictator, not its servant. When individuals use their official government responsibilities to enrich themselves, then we’ve reached a point where those individuals have stopped being public servants.

It’s at that point when weaponized government must be defanged and the individuals involved in these activities must be stripped of their ability to enrich themselves. It’s imperative that citizens of good faith halt the Democrats’ culture of corruption.

For years, Democrats have hitched their wagon to Hillary’s star. In 2002, Democrats tried talking Hillary into running against George W. Bush. She declined, supposedly to run for the open seat rather than run against a well-financed incumbent. Now, Democrats have a problem on their hands.

Josh Kraushaar’s article highlights the difficult situation Democrats are facing:

Democrats didn’t fully appreciate the size of the gamble they’re taking on Hillary Clinton by assuming she’s their strongest 2016 candidate, but they’re sure finding out now.

Forget the email server. The latest revelation—that a Canadian mining company with close ties to the Clinton Foundation sold its uranium business to the Russians with approval from Clinton’s State Department—is more damaging than any of the previous controversies that have buffeted the campaign.

The story goes to the heart of several serious, growing vulnerabilities that Clinton will be facing, sooner or later. First, the perception of foreign entities paying the Clinton Foundation and later getting favorable treatment from the State Department raises the spectre of foreign governments buying access at the highest levels of the U.S. government—a politically potent allegation should any connection be proven. The fact that Clinton reportedly concealed the company’s donations to the foundation from the Obama administration only raises the reason for suspicion.

Hillary’s apologists have insisted that she didn’t break the law since this story broke. That remains to be seen but it’s irrelevant. It isn’t that committing a crime is insignificant. It’s that selling US foreign policy to the highest bidder is disgusting.

There’s nothing coincidental about Bill Clinton getting oversized speaking fees and $145,000,000 in contributions came into the Clinton Foundation while Russia was tried buying uranium from the United States through a proxy in Kazakhstan.

Third, it raises the question of what other actions she took as secretary of State that would have the consequence of enriching her family through the Clinton Foundation. Former President Bill Clinton made a half-million speaking to a Russian investment bank promoting the mining company’s stock shortly after the corporate takeover. That badly threatens to undermine her positioning as a populist fighter for the “everyday” American—an image her campaign has been assiduously pushing with her low-key launch.

Last weekend, John Podesta was confronted by Hillary supporters at a fundraiser. Specifically, they bombarded him with questions about her biggest scandals. When your chief fundraisers are questioning you, you’ve got problems.

Q: How do you give a chameleon a nervous breakdown? A: put him against a plaid background.

Hillary’s nervous breakdown moment will hit when Republicans and moderators ask how she’ll solve the international crises she’s created. Will she admit that her decisions contributed mightily to the ISIS crisis? Will she admit that her giving the Russian foreign minister emboldened Putin? Will she admit that the Arab Spring was a total disaster?

I can’t see that happening.

Meanwhile, the Republican candidate can simply say that his foreign policy won’t make the mistake of capitulating to Iran or Russia. The GOP candidate will just have to lay out a comprehensive strategy rather than jumping from one hotspot to the next without a real strategy.

Hillary isn’t a great candidate. If her last name was Stein instead of Clinton, Democrats would have run her off.