What’s Hillary’s Foreign Policy Agenda for US if elected…?

[concerned citizen23]

Does anyone have any idea what her foreign policy agenda would be if elected?
Who benefits?
Who does it serve?
Is it a global domination plan?

Does anyone know this info for any of the candidates for that matter?

We know with Bush we got the:

Project for the New American Century / Rebuilding Americans Defenses
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

And a version of this policy is posted on the White House website:
September 2002
“The National Security Strategy of the United States of America”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html

Sort to important information we should know BEFORE we elect someone to the office.

[Bitwit1234]

1. First women will have to wear veils and burkas

Men will be water boarded and sent to fight in IRAN. She will take all the taxes herself and let everything fall apart. But she might buy a ranch in South America and then flee there.

While the saint would plan to make America safe. He is so good as his bullshit he could probably convince some of those who are really flaming Hillary.

[Bitwit1234]

2. And you know what - these stupid things I post make as much sense

as the stupid threats you Obama supporters and Hillary bashers make.

[NewHampster]

3. Why don't you read it instead of listening to 3rd. parties

Americans are ready for a leader who will restore America's reputation in the world, and Hillary is prepared to lead America back in the right direction.

The next president's most urgent task will be to restore America's standing in the world to promote our interests, ensure our security, and advance our values.

America is stronger when we lead the world through alliances and build our foreign policy on a strong foundation of bipartisan consensus. As president, Hillary will lead by the words of the Declaration of Independence, which pledged "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind."

From the Hillary for President web site http://hillaryclinton.com/issues/security/

[BootinUp]

4. Try this

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=1233

a snippet

As we face this landscape of failure and disorder, nothing is more urgent than for us to begin again to rebuild a bipartisan consensus to ensure our interests, increase our security and advance our values.

It could well start with what our founders had in mind when they pledged "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind" in the Declaration of Independence. I think it's fair to say we are now all internationalists and we are all realists.

This Administration's choices were false choices. Internationalism versus unilateralism. Realism versus idealism. Is there really any argument that America must remain a preeminent leader for peace and freedom, and yet we must be more willing to work in concert with other nations and international institutions to reach common goals?

The American character is both idealistic and realistic: why can't our government reflect both?

I want to suggest three principles I believe should underlie a bipartisan consensus on national security, and consider how they apply to some of the most difficult challenges we face.

First, and most obviously, we must by word and deed renew internationalism for a new century. We did not face World War II alone. We did not face the Cold War alone. And we cannot face the global terrorist threat or other profound challenges alone either. A terrorist cell may recruit in southeast Asia, train in central Asia, find funds in the Middle East and plan attacks in the US or Europe. We can stop a deadly disease anywhere along the line as it hopscotches from continent to continent -- or we can wait until it arrives at our own doors. We can deal with climate change together now or excuse its calamitous consequences later. We can turn our back on international institutions, or we can modernize and revitalize them, and when needed get about the hard work of creating new ones.

Second, we must value diplomacy as well as a strong military. We should not hesitate to engage in the world's most difficult conflicts on the diplomatic front. We cannot leave the Middle East to solve itself or avoid direct talks with North Korea. When faced with an existential challenge to the life of our nation, President Kennedy said, "Let us never negotiate from fear, but let us never fear to negotiate." Direct negotiations are not a sign of weakness. They're a sign of leadership.

Third, our foreign policy must blend both idealism and realism in the service of American interests. If there is one idea that has been floated about over the last six years that I would like to see debunked, with all due respect to some of the political scientists in the room, it is this false choice between realism and idealism.

Is it "realist" or "idealist" to stop nuclear proliferation?

Is it "realist" or "idealist" to come together on global warming?

Is it "realist" or "idealist" to help developing nations educate their children, fight diseases, and grow their economies?

And is it "realist" or "idealist" to believe we must turn around the ideology underpinning terrorism?

More