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”.

We all know you can't write well enough to post this line of bullshit on your own.
Deplorable.

Oh wait that's what the other "guy" does.

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).

-- Modified on 10/2/2016 8:44:04 AM

I must assume you are addressing this quote which includes the assertion of Clinton's lies. 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.

END OF MESSAGE

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?