Hillary Clinton claims Trump will withdraw US from NATO if elected: 'He means what he says'
By: Anders Hagstrom (Fox News)
Hillary Clinton doesn't seem to realize she is providing an endorsement for reelecting Donald Trump. Clinton is stuck in the past which has become an obstacle to the future. NATO doesn't serve a useful purpose for the United States any longer.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton warned this weekend that former President Trump will try to withdraw the U.S. from NATO if he wins re-election in November.
Clinton made the claim during remarks at the Munich Security Conference in Germany, telling U.S. allies that they should take Trump's claims to heart after the former president warned NATO countries to contribute their fair share.
"We have a long struggle ahead of us, and the obvious point to make about Donald Trump is take him literally and seriously," she said. "He means what he says. People did not take him literally and seriously in 2016. Now he is telling us what he intends to do, and people who try to wish it away, brush it away, are living in an alternative reality."
"He will do everything he can to become an absolute authoritarian leader if given the opportunity to do so. And he will pull us out of NATO even though the Congress passed a resolution saying that he couldn't without congressional support, because he will just not fund our obligations," she said.
Clinton's comments seemed directed toward NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg, who has said he is confident the U.S. will "remain a strong ally and committed ally" regardless of the outcome this November.
Trump has been heavily critical of NATO on the campaign trail in recent weeks, doubling down on his claim that member countries should not receive protection if they do not pay their share toward NATO's budget.
Stoltenberg did say last week that Trump's rhetoric does "undermine" the security of the alliance.
"The whole idea of NATO is that an attack on one ally will trigger a response from the whole alliance and as long as we stand behind that message together, we prevent any military attack on any ally," Stoltenberg said.
"Any suggestion that we are not standing up for each other, that we are not going to protect each other, that does undermine the security of all of us."
Stoltenberg said last week that Trump's rhetoric does "undermine" the security of the NATO alliance.(Omar Havana/Getty Images)
While Stoltenberg expressed concern over Trump's remarks, the former president's comment did spark a rush to confirm member countries' contributions in the coming year.
The NATO chief announced that 18 of the alliance's 31 members are on track to meet their pledges of contributing 2% of GDP to the group. European states are on track to contribute $380 billion this year, and Germany will meet its 2% pledge for the first time since the Cold War.
The figures show a dramatic uptick compared to 2023, which saw just 11 NATO allies meet their 2% spending pledge.
Anders Hagstrom is a reporter with Fox News Digital covering national politics and major breaking news events. Send tips to Anders.Hagstrom@Fox.com, or on Twitter: @Hagstrom_Anders.
Tags
Who is online
222 visitors
NATO hasn't prevented Europeans illegally entering the country to request asylum. The United States has deliberately adopted a bipartisan policy that abandons defending its own borders and sovereignty. And NATO (or the United Nations, for that matter) doesn't seem very concerned that the integrity of US sovereignty is being threatened. So, why should the United States prop up NATO to defend European sovereignty?
The flood of illegal immigrants will unavoidably make the United States less Eurocentric. US dominance of the North and South American continents will supplant increasingly irrelevant Cold War neoliberal policies. Joe Biden is throwing Hillary Clinton under the bus. Maybe Trump is on to something, after all.
If Europe won't defend itself, they deserve what they get. I think somebody already said that.
Except, if Europe doesn't defend itself, that will bite us in the rear later, don't you think? We're going to need all the allies we can get if China pulls the trigger.
But Article 5 won't come into play there. I don't think there's anything that NATO would do in the event of war between the US and China, although individual countries (like England) might.
Many people misunderstand what Article 5 actually says and means.
It really says if involked it's up to the member nation to determine the assistance they deem nessisary.
Something to think about really , it says nothing about boots on the ground or direct involvement, and assistance comes in many forms.
True, but it also places a geographical limit to such attacks. An attack in Asia would not fall under either Article 5 or Article 6 so I don't believe that NATO would invoke Article 5. Individual countries would not be limited by NATO in this however.
Yes, the former 'president' said that he would let Russia/putin do whatever the hell they wanted to do to them.
That's what he and you meant by deserve, 'right'?
Point that's being missed snuffy , is that art 5 leaves the response to its activation to the individual members and what they deem appropriate and nessisary.
I am keeping in mind, the EU even though an economic entity has provisions similar to both NATO and the UN for Europe's defense against aggression.
Just as the US has agreements all around the world outside NATO,in those specific places.
I wouldn't be too worried about talk of the US getting out of NATO, I would start getting concerned if the US starts pulling troops out of Europe.
Not that I think that would happen either, but one never knows anymore.
Article 5 was invoked after 9/11 and a list of countries supporting the US included both NATO and non NATO missions.
Some very small countries, Denmark, North Macedonia, Albania, Bosnia Herzegovina, and Montenegro, had combat troops in Afghanistan for years.
It's interesting that 4 of the 5 countries have large Muslim populations or are majority Muslim with the exception of Denmark.
Yes, but I believe that was because the attack (9/11) happened in North America as per Article 6. Without that attack I don't know that those countries would have contributed in Afghanistan. That's the point I was trying to make. If the US goes to war with China due to a Chinese attack on Taiwan, due to the wording in Article 5 and Article 6 I do not believe that NATO would be involved. Also as I stated, that would not impact what individual countries decide to do.
If the attack had been in Afghanistan and not the US, IMO, Nato would have joined in. On the other hand in the China/Taiwan/US confrontation, NATO would not become involved, of course as you stated individual countries could. What is most interesting is what Japan and South Korea would do in the Pacific if China attacked Taiwan.
And the Philippines as they also have a stake in what happens in that area.
Exactly and along with Vietnam who also has a large stake in this and is not a friend of China.
Taiwan is by far the world leader in semiconductor manufacturing. I think a lot of people would be very concerned if China started flexing it's military muscle.
There was an article the other day about Taiwan moving part of its operations to Japan, which they have a good relationship with.
That's interesting. Probably to keep China's fingers out of that cookie jar.
I think that is just the way the Europeans want us to feel.
Europe doesn't even have enough of a military presence to handle Russia; they will be of zero help against China.
Which is the reason we are looking at South Korea, Japan, and Australia. We will need countries on top of those as well.
If China pulls the trigger Europe will be wishing they had made that EU military they threatened Trump with forming. The US will not be able to defend NATO border states from Russia an fight China as well. NATO w/o the US is nothing; and Russia/China both know it.
NATO was jumping on the US avalanche heading into Afghanistan. "Look see we're helping".
We wouldn't have needed their help if Bush Jr wouldn't have allowed the US to be pulled into yet another failed attempt at nation building. Search and destroy with minimal boots on the ground to locate and paint targets- and call it good. Play whack-a-mole Taliban/Al Qaeda as needed to make sure neither return to power.
They thought the "war" was going to be done in a matter of days. Not 20 plus years. Which is the reason they bailed on us (outside of England and France- who still like to think they are empires and world powers).
Oh fuck. This thing again?
Thing is, Congress passed a bill and it was signed into law, that no president can do this without the approval of Congress, since trump was in office.
"We have a long struggle ahead of us, and the obvious point to make about Donald Trump is take him literally and seriously,"
That is today. Tomorrow it will be "everything Donald says is a lie".
You would think they would try to hide their hypocrisy.
Student loan forgiveness and NATO members not paying their dues.
Is there any debt or obligations that the Democrats feel should not be paid by the US taxpayers?
I don't think so.
As a matter of fact Democrats want to reform Social Security instead of expecting taxpayers to cover obligations. Wall Street to the rescue, again.
If the Democrats ever succeed in giving Social Security money to Wall Street, what keeps the money from disappearing permanently when Wall Street has another meltdown like 2008? Wouldn't that be the end of Social Security obligations forever?
Didn't taxpayers bail out Wall Street in 2008? How else will Democrats make the rich richer so they can afford to donate to the Democrat Party?
What do you mean 'taxpayers to cover obligations' - what obligations???????????????
I pay into SS with every paycheck.
What are you talking about????????????????
Perhaps you may have heard of the shortfall SS is experiencing, according to the trustees own reports.
What the 2023 Trustees’ Report Shows About Social Security | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (cbpp.org)
At some point, SS will not have enough funds to fully pay beneficiaries.
They are, tongue in cheek, talking about cutting SS (which isn't really cut just a age increase) to pay for the stupid loan forgiveness. Wouldn't be the first time they pulled than shit. I believe it was during the clinton /gore years...........
That is what happens when the number of contributors drop compared to the number of beneficiaries.
Basically, SS is like a Ponzi scheme. It relies on a steady stream of new "investors" to pay off the old investors (beneficiaries).
When the number if new investors drops much more, more severe cuts will be required.
Yep, it's an ugly outlook without some major revisions to how Social Security works. I found a table that shows the percentage of covered workers (who pay into the SS system) vs beneficiaries and was a bit surprised. The first couple of years the ratio was high but quickly dropped to 3.7 workers per beneficiary in the 70's. The list only goes up to 2013 so it's not complete, but I've not heard of any rapid improvements in that number.
Social Security History (ssa.gov)
Maybe the republicans should stop looting SS so the rest of us have some hopes of retiring before dropping dead.
Thanks for the answer
Can you name a single Republican who looted SS, and how much they took?
Neither party is guilt free in this case so it's useless to blame only one party. Both sides have spent money without thought to how it may impact the future as politicians have one overriding rule which is 'what do they have to do to get re-elected'.
And for the record, you will have the ability to retire before dropping dead. You have that ability now. Only issue is will there be any Social Security money available for you to use when you do retire. If you haven't planned for it, it could be a very rude surprise when you do retire. I remember way back at age 19 sitting around with friends in the barracks drinking beer and talking and every one of us felt the same way in that we could not depend on Social Security to be around for us when we retired. And my friends and I all planned accordingly.
I thought Bill Clinton told Al Gore to put all the SS money into a "lock box". Robert Byrd got it located in West Virginia. Gore promised in the 2000 campaign to keep the money in that lock box. Did Bush II or Obama take it?
That is a misstated political football.
Yes the government uses these bonds for all kinds of programs, but the SS money is accounted for including interest. What you are talking about is the $3T the government owes in bonds and certs of indebtedness. If that were paid back the system would lose multi-billions in interest it gets now.
Thanks for the info.
I appreciate the reasonable response
And nobody has looted money from Social Security. The federal government has borrowed money from Social Security and is required to pay it back with interest.
Without any changes to how Social Security operates today, the trust fund is expected to run out of money within ten years which will trigger a 22% reduction in payments to beneficiaries.
You are very welcome. It always seems to me that politicians think we are all stupid. We aren't, we are most often misinformed by them.
Got that right... And I saw your response (5.2.14) right after I posted mine. LOL
But its such a hot button issue with voters (seniors vote) wholesale cuts won't happen. Instead paying for the benefits will dominate the budget even more than it does. Taxes will be significantly raised and the cap will be removed on high earners with no increase in benefits. Besides the economic pain this will cost, the government is going to struggle to pay for anything else in the future. The idea of nationalized health care etc is a pipe dream. Simply keeping the status quo is going to require alot of economic pain.
That was answered by evil one. I got it. No need to repeat.
whoops
sorry
You think Republicans are the only ones looting SS?
Do some research on the Clinton Administration who started the whole IOU process with SS.
IT doesn't help that SS has been the slush fund for many unwanted / unneeded pet projects of the federal government.