Her "accomplishments": Gave Russia a reset button which reset cold war.
Lack of a coherent plan to address the Arab Spring. Deteriorating relations with Israel. Assessment of Bashar al-Assad (whom she labeled a “reformer”). Cluelessness that withdrawal of U.S. forces in Iraq would give the radicals a foothold. Benghazi scandal. 4 died. She lied. Lack of bringing to justice the jihadists who killed our 4 Americans. Blindsiding the Israeli prime minister with a public declaration of U.S. policy on “1967 borders”. Backing Hugo Chavez’s candidate in Honduras rather that the middle and business classes’ choice (who was also pro-American). Relaxation of Cuban sanctions followed by Alan Gross’s imprisonment. Surprising Poland and the Czech Republic by pulling out anti-missile sites. The lack of a cogent approach to the Middle East. Failing to take decisive action in Syria before jihadists poured into the country. The decision to overthrow President Gaddafi in Libya. Downplaying human rights, especially with China. Failing to robustly support the Green Revolution. Engagement of Iran and foot-dragging on sanctions, allowing Iran to reach the cusp of a nuclear weapons capability. Announced “pivot” to Asia without carrying through. Erased email server. Emails destroyed AFTER subpoenaed by Congress. Clinton cash. Lied to FBI and to Congress. Creator of ISIS by pulling out of Iraq too quickly despite military recommendation not to. Called Trump Supporters “Basket of Deplorables”.
properly on more than a few, would be way too long, who would read it. Plus I would have to charge you for the 3 semester hours of college credit.
First, if the writer of your remarks were truly unbiased and apolitical, his/she would have explained that there are a number of issues facing our country that are so complex, regardless of which way we dealt with them, our actions would always be susceptible to criticism by politicians on the opposite side of our action. While not politically correct for any leader to directly say so, there are also issues we will NEVER be able to "fix. But even knowing this, we can not ignore them so we try to manage, not with the intent of being successful, but at causing as little harm as possible.
So, let's begin. But first, look in the mirror before reading this, and promise yourself you will do so with complete nonpartisan objectivity;
-"Gave Russia a reset button"; anyone who honestly believes we could do anything to influence Russia, one way or the other is either hallucinating or truly incapable of intelligent thought. Putin is intent on rebuilding the USSR to the greatest extent possible.
When our national interests are being threatened, we have various instruments of power we can "progressively" call upon; political, informational, economic, and military. As a result of Russia's actions in Crimea, we are still employing our economic instrument of power. Whether you realize it or not, the sanctions imposed on Russia ARE having an impact on their economy. Your homework assignment is to do a google search and see for yourself. We also have done some "saber rattling" by positioning some military units in geographical places that embarrasses Russia and they are protesting rather strongly about that. At some point we may go further, but any military engagement with Russia can be quite tricky/dangerous and we must measure their actions and be sure the American public would be willing to endure the significant consequences that would face both nations if we engaged them directly. Hence, a cold war is all we have been willing to commit to after WWII.
- Benghazi. It is politically unacceptable for Clinton or any politician to admit what truly happened in Benghazi. First, if you knew the true purpose of why we post embassies in foreign countries and were an American patriot, you would not even bring it up. One important task is to collect intelligence and establish a threat assessment. This threat assessment determines the order and priority, military assets are postured to protect our interests/people. That data and the content of the assessment does NOT come from Clinton. It comes from the ambassador, yep Chris Stevens was entirely responsible for that information. His faulty intel led to our inability to posture military assets in a way that we could protect him and his contingent. Imagine how much you would love Clinton if she came out and expressed that point. He made the ultimate sacrifice and we did our best to protect him, based upon the input (however inaccurate it may have been) HE provided.
- Israel. Yup, our relationship with Israel is somewhat fractured. We can blame Clinton or even Obama, but that would be a completely politically biased claim. While no patriotic American would condone Palestinians terrorism. What would you do, if you woke up everyday with absolutely no prospects of being able to secure even the most basic necessities of life? The Israeli government is in a position to protect itself WITHOUT expanding Israeli settlements in territory that has been promised to Palestinians. Yes, this issue is far more complicated than that, but there is much more Israel can do to at least appear to be leaning toward a peaceful resolution, but they are not. Again, as politicians do, we can twist what is happening for political gain, but this is a mess that nobody has been able to fix and while one of our staunchest allies, Israel deserves a serving of humble pie because of their actions.
- The Middle East. You are really "drinking the Kool Aid" if you think there will ever be a U.S. solution of any kind that will change what is happening in the middle east. Shite and Sunni Islamists have been battling for centuries. Once George Bush deposed Saddam and let the genie out of the bottle, the balance of power shifted in a way we will never be able to change. Here is another lesson if you are being honest and totally objective; do a google search on SOFA (the Status of Forces Agreement). We made the decision when to withdraw our forces from Iraq on George Bush's watch because our SOFA with Iraq was about to expire. If Obama left a significant force in Iraq and there was more loss of life and the Iraqi government elected to press any type of charges against our military men/women, the same politicians who are crying now, would blame him for putting our troops in that predicament.
Extra credit. This week both the Senate and House of Representatives voted to override Obama's veto (will let you do your homework to figure out the details). Now they are trying to backtrack because they realize Obama vetoed something he would rather have signed, because he wanted to protect our military men/women who are serving in foreign countries, from potential prosecution for any act that nation may deem a problem. With the SOFA, we prosecute our own military men/women and subject them to a fair and equitable military judicial system if they do something afoul of the law. That protects them from unjust/corrupt legal systems.
End of lesson. If you made it this far, you will get at least a "C." What you have just read is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth (devoid of any political perspective).
I must assume you are addressing this quote which includes the assertion of Clinton's lies.
Posted By: LasVegan
- Benghazi. It is politically unacceptable for Clinton or any politician to admit what truly happened in Benghazi. First, if you knew the true purpose of why we post embassies in foreign countries and were an American patriot, you would not even bring it up. One important task is to collect intelligence and establish a threat assessment. This threat assessment determines the order and priority, military assets are postured to protect our interests/people. That data and the content of the assessment does NOT come from Clinton. It comes from the ambassador, yep Chris Stevens was entirely responsible for that information. His faulty intel led to our inability to posture military assets in a way that we could protect him and his contingent. Imagine how much you would love Clinton if she came out and expressed that point. He made the ultimate sacrifice and we did our best to protect him, based upon the input (however inaccurate it may have been) HE provided.
Secretary Clinton had to lie for political expediency? I agree that she did just that, but any other politician would have done something similar to avoid the truth? REALLY?
And regarding your blame of Ambassador Steven for faulty intelligence:
This Washington Post article gets focused on knocking down Republican exaggerations revolving around "concerns" vs. "requests" and who actually made them. But as you stipulated, Ambassador Stevens was responsible for the totality of the intelligence coming from the embassy.
1. The guy was known to be a dare devil, he'd go jogging in Tripoli when he was numerously advised that it was too dangerous to do.
2. Nearly all if not all foreign embassies and consulates pulled out of Benghazi because it was unsafe for them to remain there. Stevens took a risk to go there with only couple of security guys - he lost. That's what happens when you take a risk. Risk without danger attached to it is no risk. No blood no glory baby. So yes, I know it's not a good form to blame the ambassador who died on duty for his own death but in this case to me the blame is very clear: the guy took a chance on a mission that he knew could be very dangerous and died. Staff like this happens all the time. The only reason we're talking about it is because he was an ambassador (and you ain't) and because at that time Hillary was in charge of the department to which that ambassador belonged and now she's running for president. If exactly the same circumstances surrounded the death of the likes of you and I it wouldn't have even been noticed by anyone besides our families.
What was your point? I reread you post and I still failed to see "the point".
LasVegan's points are pretty ignorant. Somebody who says that Putin intent on rebuilding USSR understands nothing about Russia, believes too much home based propaganda, and doesn't understand a thing about what's going on in Ukraine and complex relationship between Eastern and Western Ukraine, which is almost identical and have similar history as the relationship between Serbia and Croatia. I suspect he probably also already forgot about Victoria Nuland intercepted phone calls whose authenticity US government practically confirmed by Jay Carney giggling while chiding the Russians for "doing something which was not a good thing to do like listening to other people's phone calls". I remember ALL reporters on CNN appearing kind of lost when they were saying "yea, that's her... shit, I wonder how Russia is gonna react now." Well, we saw how Russia reacted. How many days again do you think it would've taken for the US Marines to enter Ottawa if there would've been a pro-Russian or pro-Chinese coup-d'etat in Canada? Right.
And-eh in any case in my opinion the latest dive in Russo-American relationship has very little to do with Ukraine and Middle East and has more to do with personal dislike between Putin and Obama, and in that there is a blame to around. I already wrote about this in great detail in one of my previous posts and I'm not going to rewrite it.
When LasVegan is talking about Middle East, sure George Bush invaded Iraq but that has little to do with current events in Syria. Obama's reaction to Arab spring and his impulsive decision to quickly disengage from Iraq on the other hand has everything to do with Syria. First it dominoed to the democratic elections in Egypt. Remember who came to power? I'm sure bigguy30 doesn't. It would've never happened if Obama wouldn't have been so quick to welcome "the people expressions" on Tahrir Square. It also dominoed to nearby Libya. Do you think Gadaffi would've been able to suppress the ensued rebellion if Obama decided not to help "democratic forces"? I bet he would've easily and Lybia would've been much better off under him when under ISIS or some other crazy organization that it's under now. Then the "people's power" dominoed into Syria and Sunnies said "yea! let's cut Shia's heads off! they've been in charge here for way too long!". The results of that you see now. All because Obama decided to "welcome" the Arab spring. Btw, the only place where Arab Spring actually worked was the place where it actually happened, in Tunisia. Goes to show. What happens in one place doesn't apply to others so don't be so quick to encourage "export of people's power" until you know the cost of such an export. And it didn't come as a surprise for Obama when Muslim brotherhood came to power too! I remember him being warned about it by every pundit in the world! Now the rest of the Middle East has to pay for Obama's decision to allow Arab spring to be exported elsewhere in Middle East so "people voice can be heard!". The immortal words of Dana Carvey come to mind: "Isn't that special?".
Now onto Bengazi. What Bengazi showed in my opinion is this. It showed what kind of president Hillary Clinton is going to be if she is elected, something that has been re-validated and re-validated with the way she run her campaign. Hillary Clinton is not going to rush to respond to anything. She's going to sit tight collect information and then come up with a cohesive response. Sometimes it would be for the better. She would not be the type to make rushed impulsive decisions. The other side of the coin of course that events often would not wait for Hillary to get a clear picture of what exactly is going on. To be fair however it was not Hillary's decision to order the planes out and Obama always was notoriously reluctant with escalating anything having to do with Muslims. He still often ended up doing it but it was always like "damn, shit, I really thought I wouldn't have to do that." That's why I call last 16 years of American history the Bush-Obama years. The two profess to be different from one another but in reality they are so much alike.
Donald Trump probably would be the exact opposite. First do, then figure out what I have just done. God help us all.
I didn't even read LV's earlier stuff on Russia so I have no comment.
I think we are in some sort of agreement re. Clinton. She definitely would weigh every option, but then choose the one that's best for her. It might turn out OK for the country or it might not. Her choices re. Benghazi were obviously driven by President Obama and his need to suppress any notion of terrorist troubles, especially so close to the election. She chose what was best for the Democrats and her future.
I haven't brought up Trump here but for the record, a Trump Presidency runs the risk of being one of the most disastrous in our history. Our choices this time are between evil and stupid. It might be possible to cure stupid or maybe recover from it although I've yet to see evidence that is true.
And btw, what's my partisanship left or right? Am I pro-American or pro-Russian or maybe pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian? I mean your answer was so neutral and mine was so partizan - please enlighten me what side I'm on.
Or maybe I should enlighten you on the difference between West Ukrainian Republic and Ukrainian Republic? Heard of them? I bet not. Google it. Or on differences in practical terms between Sunni and Shia? Or on differences between the way American-Indian population was treated by the Portuguese vs. that of the Spanish? You tell me, my friend, I'm game, especially since your reply was so non-partizan and my wasn't.
Please someone tell me in what universe is it a greater priority to spend millions of dollars investigating emails that go nowhere than spending millions of dollars to help keep our embassies safe from terrorist attacks?
In 2012, House GOP representative Chaffetz acknowledged that he didn’t feel funding security in Benghazi was a priority prior to the attack. In 2013, Chaffetz joined a chorus of GOP politicians claiming Benghazi happened and was poorly addressed because the Obama Administration “misled” the public. In 2015, Chaffetz, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chairman, was among those hoping to demonstrate that Hillary Clinton’s emails were a matter of serious concern and worked pretty damn hard to connect them to the Benghazi attack.
Chaffetz said:
“Violations of the Federal Records Act within federal agencies is something we take very seriously.
“The House Oversight Committee will work with Mr. [Trey] Gowdy and the Select Committee on Benghazi to further explore Hillary Clinton’s use of personal e-mails while at the State Department.”
Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.), Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.[/quote
Please someone tell me in what universe is it a greater priority to spend millions of dollars investigating emails that go nowhere than spending millions of dollars to help keep our embassies safe from terrorist attacks?
In 2012, House GOP representative Chaffetz acknowledged that he didn’t feel funding security in Benghazi was a priority prior to the attack. In 2013, Chaffetz joined a chorus of GOP politicians claiming Benghazi happened and was poorly addressed because the Obama Administration “misled” the public. In 2015, Chaffetz, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chairman, was among those hoping to demonstrate that Hillary Clinton’s emails were a matter of serious concern and worked pretty damn hard to connect them to the Benghazi attack.
Chaffetz said:
“Violations of the Federal Records Act within federal agencies is something we take very seriously.
“The House Oversight Committee will work with Mr. [Trey] Gowdy and the Select Committee on Benghazi to further explore Hillary Clinton’s use of personal e-mails while at the State Department.”
Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.), Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.
of government spending will not exceed that of the prior fiscal year (October 1st thru September 30). Sometimes congress will approve a continuing resolution for a partial year. In this case, a pro-rated amount will be calculated for the time frame for which the continuation resolution has been approved.
In other words, a continuing resolution provides the legal authority to spend money at a certain level. There is still congressional/presidential leeway, as long as those levels are not exceeded, to divert funding from one account to another. Of course it is not as simple as this, but I have provided a short, non-partisan, unbiased answer.
So your answer is WRONG! No cut in the president's budget (funding a continuing resolution based upon the prior fiscal year's spending level) does not mean, no cut in any particular cost center (program element code) is guaranteed.
The Democratic-led Senate, put in more money than what had passed in the House. The final bill, which passed with bipartisan support, gave a total of $2.37 billion to these accounts for fiscal 2012 -- about $270 million less than what the administration had requested.
Sure, it's their fault that 4 Americans died after SHE denied increasing their security, SHE didn't send in the Cavalry when she could, and SHE lied to their parents standing over their coffins about the already discredited video lie.
Incompetence wrapped in corruption wrapped in stupid and topped off by "who gives a shit about the dead AMERICANS" describes Hillary in Benghazi
So lib morons blame it on a faux funding cut, unfuckingbeleivable!
You know, "he was the lead Republican counsel on the Senate Whitewater Committee..." Who is he going to vote for and why?
"'People can go back decades and perhaps criticize some of the judgments that were made,' Chertoff said. 'That is very, very insignificant compared to the fundamental issue of how to protect the country.'"
Yep! That's pretty much my answer to. National security!
...For me it's a vote to keep Trump away from POTUS, & from what I read here many others feel the same. And by the way your list of reasons is about eighty percent MANURE, but how ells could anyone support a mad man like dangerous Donald for any office higher than DOGCATCHER.
Unfortunately it looks like your attempt to purchase VIP membership has failed due to your card being declined. Good news is that we have several other payment options that you could try.
VIP MEMBER
, you are now a VIP member!
We thank you for your purchase!
VIP MEMBER
, Thank you for becoming VIP member!
Membership should be activated shortly. You'll receive notification!
