t.... Her Clinton’s warnings about Trump actually describe … her That was a “major national-security address”? Hillary Clinton’s folks billed her San Diego speech Thursday as a big deal. And it certainly was a prime opportunity to lay out her views on foreign policy and America’s role in the world. But what she delivered was a 45-minute rant against Donald Trump — with nary a clue about her plans for leading America on the international stage. Worse, her string of dump-on-Trump quips might’ve worked better if she had substituted her name for his, starting with her attack on Trump’s “series of rants” — a perfect description of her own speech. Clinton tried to portray Trump as “dangerous.” But what do you call it when a secretary of state, to shield herself from accountability, stores classified emails (some beyond “top secret”) on her private, unsecured server, leaving them vulnerable to hackers the world over? Or who goes home for the night with a US consulate besieged by al Qaeda-linked terrorists — then later lies to the victims’ families about how a YouTube video was to blame? Clinton called Trump “temperamentally unfit” to be commander-in-chief. But how would you describe an ex-top official who continually lies to the public and holds herself above the law? Trump “doesn’t understand” the world, she said — but then denied that the world has laughed at President Obama’s weakness. She even claimed we’re “safer” with Obama’s deal with Iran, which gives the mullahs a clear path to nuclear weapons and hundreds of billions to fund terrorism. Who doesn’t understand the world? More: Hillary said Trump would “embolden” our enemies. Yet, like Obama, she can’t even bring herself to call ISIS what it is: “radical Islamic extremists.” How does she think the terrorists are reacting to that? Clinton’s aides say her speech is just the start of a push to paint Trump as “dangerous” and unpredictable. But maybe America would be safer if world leaders — from Russia to North Korea to Iran — actually worried about how our president might respond to aggression. As opposed to a president like, say, Clinton — who can’t be trusted by Americans.