The Clinton Doctrine

By Tom Quiner

Presidents are often defined by foreign policy doctrines.

The Reagan Doctrine famously overwhelmed the Soviet Union by supporting freedom movements and communist resisters in Europe and Central America.

The Monroe Doctrine telegraphed U.S. intentions to consider further colonization of North or South America by European nations as an act of war requiring U.S. military response.

In the 2008 presidential campaign, liberal television reporter, Charles Gibson, infamously tried to trap Sarah Palin into explaining the Bush Doctrine, a multi-faceted policy. At its core, it stated that in order to keep our borders safe from future attacks on our homeland, we will root out bad guys being harbored in hostile countries.

It is fair to ask, what is The Clinton Doctrine? It is self-evident:

The Clinton Doctrine leverages the influence of Bill and Hillary Clinton to increase their wealth, even if the consequence of influenced-policy is harmful to our nation.

Put another way:

The Clinton Doctrine puts Clinton interests ahead of national interests. In other words, they’ll sell out the United States for big bucks.

It is a doctrine of greed.

It is a doctrine of disloyalty.

It is cynically immoral.

Liberal pundits suggest that their entire greedy gambit is too complex for stupid voters to understand. Even more, they state that the Clintons have been through scandals before, and they always seem to come out unscathed.

In fact, sometimes they come out better than ever.

With another Clinton presidency in the offing, it is worth revisiting Peter Schweitzer’s book, “Clinton Cash,” that puts the pattern of Clinton wealth enrichment on full display.

I don’t think the pattern is difficult to understand. The most famous example was reported by the liberal New York Times:


–> A Canadian uranium mine owner gives the Clinton Foundation $2 million.

–> The Clinton Foundation fails to report the largesse to the White House in violation of Ms. Clinton’s promise otherwise.

–> The Uranium company buys up mines all over the world and wants to cash out by selling them to a Russian based company controlled by Vladimir Putin, our enemy.

–> The sale requires Clinton’s approval.

–> She says yes.

–> Uranium is critical to our nuclear defense capabilities. Now Vladimir Putin controls a fifth of our uranium needs.

Whereas a Donald Trump proudly proclaims his willingness to buy influence, “Clinton Cash” presents one example after another tainted with the whiff of influence peddling.

Whereas previous presidents espoused doctrines that they believed represented the best interest of the country, the Clinton Doctrine is all about Bill and Hillary.


Voters get it. The question is, who is least repugnant: influence peddlers or influence buyers?


  1. parrillaturi on June 10, 2016 at 12:19 pm

    The Clintons have never labored, nor relied on it for their monetary gains, but rather on their conning, and expressive promises, which have been found to be lies upon lies. The public has been duped, and the Clintons, or pied pipers continue to lead the masses to their chosen destruction. Their motto, “Don’t ask what we can do for you, but what you must do for us.” To me, that’s the Clinton Doctrine. Good post. Blessings.

    • quinersdiner on June 10, 2016 at 1:45 pm

      Thank-you, and thanks for writing!

  2. mamaemme on June 11, 2016 at 4:24 pm

    I still have a hard time understanding why anyone would vote for her, including people I respect, people who are not corrupt themselves……I’ve compared the Clintons before to Ahab and Jezebel, and I think that analogy still holds. It seems so obvious to us, so why is she so close to the presidency?

    • quinersdiner on June 11, 2016 at 5:33 pm

      Because the Republicans have selected the worst possible opponent to Hillary.

      • mamaemme on June 11, 2016 at 6:24 pm

        I agree with you about Trump, but I think there are still a lot of people who would vote Hillary no matter who the Republican candidate was. Saw a good license plate today: NO HLARY