My initial reaction here is that I’m not quite sure what to make of this from the New York Post, but I know I don’t trust it:
Hillary Clinton heaped some rare praise on her former arch-enemy Donald Trump for his handling of the Gaza peace deal in a recent interview.
“I really commend President Trump and his administration,” Clinton told CBS News 24/7 Friday.
“As well as Arab leaders in the region, for making the commitment to the 20-point plan and seeing a path forward for what’s often called the day after,” she added
Frankly, after many years exposure to her and her tactics I get worried about anything that Clinton approves of. In this case, it makes me re-evaluate the whole thing. She’s correct as far as she goes, of course, but I really must wonder a bit at what can only be described as a turnabout for Clinton. Is this simply a matter of her trying to regain relevance in a world that’s left her well behind?
Or is there, perhaps, something larger happening here? I suspect there is.
The Post article goes on to mention the grudging approval of Obama and Biden’s National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan. Is this Democrat capitulation, the recognition that there’s simply no other way to interpret these events?
Clinton has been very public on her views that Hamas must go, particularly in a paywalled Atlantic article in 2023, in which she suggested that Hamas will never abide by any peace deal with Israel. That was pretty much in line with the caution that I expressed the other day.
To this, Matt Margolis points out that:
Ever since President Donald Trump brokered the historic peace deal between Israel and Hamas, the left has followed a predictable script—either praising the outcome while refusing to credit Trump or scrambling to hand the credit to someone else entirely. That’s exactly what Joe Biden’s former Secretary of State Antony Blinken is now trying to do.
The deal, which involves releasing the remaining hostages and requires Israel to pull back to a predetermined line inside Gaza, aims to create a buffer zone to disarm Hamas. In his self-congratulatory thread on X, Blinken actually tries to spin the Trump-brokered ceasefire as “building on” what Biden supposedly achieved. He gushes about how the plan “builds on a post-conflict framework developed under the Biden administration,” as though the same crowd that spent four years appeasing Tehran and lecturing Israel suddenly became Middle East visionaries.
It’s almost comical: the guy who spent his tenure presiding over one foreign policy humiliation after another now wants credit for the stability emerging under Trump. Blinken’s revisionist history is so transparent it’s almost sad—trying to polish the legacy of a failed administration that couldn’t stop chaos anywhere it touched.
Yes, that has been the historical pattern, particularly with the democrats in general and the Clintons. They’ve always tried to make an angry mob chasing them look like a parade they were leading.
So, as Matt observes, they’re trying to make it like they’re crediting Trump with building on regional stability that Biden supposedly established, a laughable concept.
Do not be fooled here. There’s no way the John Q. Milquetoast of a Biden administration could ever establish stability anywhere in the world. The fact is that American strength was what sealed the deal, and that’s a quality Biden and his people have never had.
Of course, this might actually be a strategic move. If she’s correct in her assessment in the Atlantic article that Hamas will blow this deal. Are the Democrats setting up an ability to link Trump to that failure?
Ready for honest reporting and commentary that puts the American people first—not the career politicians in Washington? Join PJ Media VIP today. Get 74% off your membership when you use promo code POTUS47.
