Author Topic: What Are the Worst Things Hilary Clinton Did and Said  (Read 663 times)

velcro

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
What Are the Worst Things Hilary Clinton Did and Said
« on: December 01, 2017, 09:07:20 PM »
I've been wondering this since the election.  For those who voted against Clinton, or for Trump:

Can you please list the worst things she did or said, in any capacity?
Please make an effort to verify the truth of the offenses. (e.g. selling uranium to Russians didn't happen.  Someone in her department voted with 8 other agencies to approve the sale of Canadian uranium mines that can't export any uranium outside the country.)
Please don't copy and paste some list.  Pick your top 10 that really mean something and have some sources.

Please don't bring up Trump
Feel free to fact check amongst yourselves.

This is not a troll.  I won't be responding except maybe to nudge things back on topic.
This is for me to see both sides when evaluating Trump and his shortcomings.

Obviously I can't make rules here, and you can do whatever you want, but I hope that with some structure I can learn something.

Thanks

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What Are the Worst Things Hilary Clinton Did and Said
« Reply #1 on: December 01, 2017, 09:41:26 PM »
For one thing, she covered for and enabled a serial rapist to continue sexually assaulting others by destroying his victims:
Quote
Running to be the first woman president, Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton has taken a stern stand on combating sexual harassment and assault — and has insisted that every accuser who comes forward has “the right to be believed.”

But Mrs. Clinton took a very different approach herself 25 years ago as the wife of then-Gov. Bill Clinton, leading the effort to discredit women who came forward with their own stories of harassment or assault by her husband.

Campaign narratives written by reporters detailed how she honchoed the campaign team that handled “bimbo eruptions,” digging up personal papers and official records that could be used to undercut the stories told by a series of women. One top aide later recounted Mrs. Clinton’s intent to “destroy” the story of one accuser, while former adviser Dick Morris said Mrs. Clinton engaged in “blackmail” to try to force women to recant their stories.

Quote
Mrs. Clinton would work side by side with Betsey Wright, then her husband’s top aide, to collect personal papers, correspondence and any official records on the women that could be used against them. The team also hired detectives to dig up whatever they could to snuff out what Mrs. Wright dubbed the “bimbo interruptions” before they could become a threat to his presidential aspirations, Mr. Bernstein reported

What a terrible, terrible person.

jasonr

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What Are the Worst Things Hilary Clinton Did and Said
« Reply #2 on: December 02, 2017, 12:47:24 PM »
Quote
We came, we saw, he died

Bragging about supporting the murder of a foreign head of state. But but but - he was a baaad man.

Good thing Libya is so much better off now.

Wait a sec, did I see this story before? Does it sound familiar? Deja vu?

Quote
I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote. I have had many disputes and disagreements with the administration over how that authority has been used, but I stand by the vote to provide the authority because I think it was a necessary step in order to maximize the outcome that did occur in the Security Council with the unanimous vote to send in inspectors.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What Are the Worst Things Hilary Clinton Did and Said
« Reply #3 on: December 02, 2017, 01:14:08 PM »
I didn't vote against Clinton or for Trump (or for Clinton, for that matter). Is my feedback relevant to the thread?

velcro

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What Are the Worst Things Hilary Clinton Did and Said
« Reply #4 on: December 03, 2017, 12:54:51 PM »
I guess I am looking for reasons why people voted for Trump or against Clinton.  If you had voted, and would have voted for Trump or against Clinton, your response would be appreciated.

Of course, anyone can respond whether I appreciate it or not, but I truly appreciate the respectful and cooperative motive behind the request.  Thanks for your civility.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What Are the Worst Things Hilary Clinton Did and Said
« Reply #5 on: December 03, 2017, 04:03:06 PM »
Quote
In her March 17, 2008, foreign-policy speech on Iraq, then-Sen. Hillary Clinton recalled a trip she made to Tuzla, Bosnia, in 1996.

“I remember landing under sniper fire,” Hillary said of her visit while she was first lady. “There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.”

But news footage of her visit revealed her “sniper fire” claim wasn’t just exaggerated. It was completely false. And Hillary had repeated the claim several times, including during her time on the presidential campaign trail in 2007.

Rather, Hillary landed on a tarmac and greeted a crowd, including an 8-year-old child who gave her a poem, under no duress. According to the Washington Post, a review of more than 100 news articles revealed no security threats to Hillary at the time.

after the 2008 speech, Hillary was asked about her statements, and she stood by them: “There was no greeting ceremony, and we basically were told to run to our cars. Now that is what happened.”

So Hillary is a liar, not in the “she said something that turns out was wrong” sense that’s so popular today but in the “she says things knowing they’re not true” sense. This is a stupid lie, one easily exposed that serves no purpose other than self aggrandizement, it’s equivalent to a stolen valor *censored*. And when the overwhelming evidence exposed her lie, she doubled down and reaffirmed the lie.

Ok, so politicians lie. Whatever.  But here’s the thing, Hillary lies and the media supports it. Her lies are ignored, whitewashed, are just woven and spun. Her lies are packaged and marketed by CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, NYT, et al as truth. If it can’t be spun, they flush it down the memory hole and anyone ever mentions it again gets the ridicule or politics of destruction only someone that covers for serial rapists can do. As Hillary  enables Bill, the media enables Hillary.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What Are the Worst Things Hilary Clinton Did and Said
« Reply #6 on: December 03, 2017, 04:16:37 PM »
Quote
In March 1994, it was revealed Hillary – with no previous experience – had made massive profits from cattle futures trading between 1978 and 1979, when Bill Clinton’s salary as Arkansas attorney general had been modest. She reportedly made $99,537 in profit on a $1,000 investment (a 9,987 percent profit) in just nine months because of a highly placed connection at Tyson Foods, which was the largest employer in Arkansas and a big Clinton donor.

The New York Times reported: “During Mr. Clinton’s tenure as Governor, Tyson benefited from several state decisions, including favorable environmental rulings, $9 million in state loans, and the placement of company executives on important state boards.

Hillary claims she figured out how to do this by just reading the Wall Street Journal. This goes back to my previous post about media enablement, it’s such obvious bull*censored* but got the pass and was proclaimed the smartest woman in the world. This is such an obvious pay for play that only someone personally connected to the AG could get a pass on prosecution. It was, IIRC, her first and only foray into futures trading. 9,987% profit, simply unpossible. That she “successfully” trades this way and then never tries to do it again is just not reasonable - someone truly able to do this would have done it again and made millions... billions actually. It’s a complete miscarriage of justice and a travesty that she was allowed to get away with this and her long history of doing these things.  She would have sold us out (and did).

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What Are the Worst Things Hilary Clinton Did and Said
« Reply #7 on: December 04, 2017, 09:25:41 AM »
I voted for Johnson. Largely, this is because of my perception of Clinton's disingenuous nature.

Bosnian sniper fire.
Fake accents when she is campaigning in the south.
Numerous backtracks and lack of transparency in the email scandal
Clear collusion with DNC against Sanders
Claiming religious ties, that I don't accept as genuine

Just a general sense of not being able to trust her. I know this can apply to other politicians also in many cases, but for me it was just too much, and/or she was just so bad at it compared to her peers.

I would have voted for Sanders v Trump, so its not really a policy thing, just character.

rightleft22

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What Are the Worst Things Hilary Clinton Did and Said
« Reply #8 on: December 04, 2017, 12:07:40 PM »
Worst thing Hillary Did was run for Precedent a second time and thinking she could/should win.
History will likely judge Hillary for her hubris more so then any wrong doing. It is likely that history will not find any criminal wrong doing though there will be debate on how close she came to crossing the line.

yossarian22c

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What Are the Worst Things Hilary Clinton Did and Said
« Reply #9 on: December 04, 2017, 12:32:15 PM »
Worst thing Hillary Did was run for Precedent a second time and thinking she could/should win.

Agree, the Clinton's work behind the scenes to make sure there wasn't another democratic contender for 2016 probably set democratic political leadership back a decade.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What Are the Worst Things Hilary Clinton Did and Said
« Reply #10 on: December 04, 2017, 02:14:45 PM »
. It is likely that history will not find any criminal wrong doing though there will be debate on how close she came to crossing the line.
And this gies back to my point about Hillary being constant liar and not being held accountable by anyone. Flynn just got busted for lying to the FBI. But then there’s also this:
Quote
Then, there was this exchange between Comey and Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., at the congressional hearing:

Gowdy: "Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her emails either sent or received. Was that true?"

Comey: "That’s not true."

Gowdy: "Secretary Clinton said, ‘I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material.’ Was that true?"

Comey: "There was classified material emailed."

Hillary lied to the FBI repeatedly. Flynn will pay for his lies, Hillary will be given a free pass.

yossarian22c

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What Are the Worst Things Hilary Clinton Did and Said
« Reply #11 on: December 04, 2017, 02:32:03 PM »
Hillary lied to the FBI repeatedly. Flynn will pay for his lies, Hillary will be given a free pass.

Hillary probably said something appropriately lawyerly to the FBI that didn't make it an outright lie. Something like this:

FBI: "Were there classified emails sent?"
Hillary: "To the best of my knowledge I never sent a classified email from the private server."

See, she didn't lie she just forgot. The Clinton's are nothing if not experts at walking the line between a provable lie and a misleading statement.

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What Are the Worst Things Hilary Clinton Did and Said
« Reply #12 on: December 04, 2017, 02:54:36 PM »
I know velcro cannot make the rules on this thread, but maybe we could take the debate about the Flynn vs Clinton to another thread (since Flynn v Clinton could not conceivably have affected the presidential vote)

rightleft22

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What Are the Worst Things Hilary Clinton Did and Said
« Reply #13 on: December 04, 2017, 03:33:59 PM »
Hillary also shown a poor aptitude to learn from her past.  Her book is crap
Hillary had no business entering the pollical arena. It was an oddity it was her husbands cheating that was the tipping point for her to be seen as a valid candidate for the senate.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What Are the Worst Things Hilary Clinton Did and Said
« Reply #14 on: December 04, 2017, 04:18:17 PM »
I know velcro cannot make the rules on this thread, but maybe we could take the debate about the Flynn vs Clinton to another thread (since Flynn v Clinton could not conceivably have affected the presidential vote)
I concur and I didn't try to make it that, it was just a perfect example of it and demonstrated the point so well I wanted to take it from the realm of theory and show it in action.

DJQuag

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What Are the Worst Things Hilary Clinton Did and Said
« Reply #15 on: December 04, 2017, 04:41:00 PM »
I'm kind of eagerly awaiting Greg Davidson to notice this thread. He couldn't resist defending Clinton from fellow lefties. His response to this should be epic.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What Are the Worst Things Hilary Clinton Did and Said
« Reply #16 on: December 04, 2017, 05:35:42 PM »
Hillary lied to the FBI repeatedly. Flynn will pay for his lies, Hillary will be given a free pass.

Hillary probably said something appropriately lawyerly to the FBI that didn't make it an outright lie. Something like this:

FBI: "Were there classified emails sent?"
Hillary: "To the best of my knowledge I never sent a classified email from the private server."

See, she didn't lie she just forgot. The Clinton's are nothing if not experts at walking the line between a provable lie and a misleading statement.

Thats like the Steve Martin bit about how to become a millionaire and not pay any taxes. First, get a million dollars. Then, when the IRS comes for you, simply say, “I forgot”. It’s the perfect get put of jail free card. Lie to the FBI and then just say, “I forgot”. I’m guessing Hillary is one of the very few allowed to play that card.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What Are the Worst Things Hilary Clinton Did and Said
« Reply #17 on: December 04, 2017, 05:54:55 PM »
The whole premise of this thread baffles me.  it's like asking for a book report on Hillary, with footnotes, as if voting against her must be specifically documented by "bad acts". 

What about the idea that she expressed virtually no opinions on anything that she could avoid?  I asked multiple people to lay out five positions that she was campaigning on that they found important and blank stares back (legit, most common response was that they trusted her to "do the right thing" and she was the "most qualified candidate we ever had" - by the way that canard was stated so many times in so many ways without even the remotest attempt at verification it was shocking).

What about the idea that her most recent stint in government, in a very senior role, hardly covered her in glory?  She mishandled Libya in multiple ways (still never heard the case for killing Kadafi in a war of aggression - what happened to all those principled people who claimed we had no business in Iraq?).  She created a national security incident with her server problems - which to this day - no one has provided ANY rational explanation for her behavior, probably because we all KNOW why she did it - to control her communications and keep them out of the freedom of information act (which until recently would have been morally repugnant to the left).  Oh well - by the way, none of this paragraph is reliant on having to accept that she committed a felony, which you know my opinion, she literally did.

She's been billed as a pro-woman candidate, without regard to her complete anti-woman role in her husband's administration, where many have credited her with some pretty horrible strategies to destroy the reputations of anyone who accused him.

So why do you want a footnoted book report?  There's no part of her judgment I trust.  Frankly, Trump is a better president than she would have been and far less dangerous.  Why do I say that?  Simple, even with a majority in Congress he doesn't have the support of Congress, he's not continuing - with a few exceptions - with Obama's governance by executive authority regime, Clinton would have expanded it and the Democratic congresspeople are far far more lock step in supporting their party than the Republicans, and unlike the Repubulicans they the Dems are all believers in  real politik and strict party line voting, without any of the pesky principled politicians that hold to the Constitution (I grant you they're a minority even for the Republicans, but it only takes a minority in a government split this closely).


Please don't bring up Trump  ***  This is for me to see both sides when evaluating Trump and his shortcomings.

This troll thread is not a troll, don't talk about Trump yet I plan to use this to understand how bad Trump is?  Like I said, I don't understand this thread.

I'm not sure what Hillary did or said that you thought you could trust.  I mean seriously, it's hard to match of the view of "super competent" Hillary with someone who has been caught so often in shady corruption situations and open deceptions (won't say lies this time, cause she does often answer like a lawyer). 

I mean think about her response to the server wipe question, where she asked if they meant with a cloth.   If you take that on the up and up, it represents a scary level of technical incompetence in someone running for any public office let alone President.  If you take it as a joke it represents a complete dismissal of a legitimate inquiry, her records as Secretary of State are legitimate public records.  If you look it as a diversion, she said it because it's not a lie and it provides no information, is that really any better?  In any event, it showed an unwillingness to be accountable to the people - which is not a good trait in a former government official who wants to be President - and a complete tone deafness about the seriousness of the issue.

Is that remotely a top ten?  Not even top 100, yet it encapsulates a bunch of why she was unfit for office. 

Again, the biggest crime is that we collectively picked two of the worst candidates of all time to put into a winner take all election. 

jasonr

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What Are the Worst Things Hilary Clinton Did and Said
« Reply #18 on: December 04, 2017, 08:55:18 PM »
To me the murdering of Gaddafi is a uniquely black mark on her CV. I mean that has to be the 800 lbs gorilla in the room. I don't see how that gets mentioned in the same list as, say, lying about getting shot at. Let's be honest, lies like that Trump pulls off weekly.

But Trump never murdered a foreign head of state and then took credit for it. Trump never helped destroy a country. Where are all the people who wanted Bush and Cheney brought up for war crimes because of Iraq? Suddenly not so down on regime change, are we? Oh wait, I know this script: but but he was a baaad man. And it all turned out well in the end? I mean Libya is doing okay now, right?

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What Are the Worst Things Hilary Clinton Did and Said
« Reply #19 on: December 05, 2017, 11:10:51 AM »
I never got that worked up over Gaddafi. Presidents have certainly tried to kill him before (Reagan). Obama gloated about killing Usama, while not a head of state not too far from it.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What Are the Worst Things Hilary Clinton Did and Said
« Reply #20 on: December 05, 2017, 01:51:28 PM »
Obama gloated about killing Usama, while not a head of state not too far from it.

Uh...

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What Are the Worst Things Hilary Clinton Did and Said
« Reply #21 on: December 05, 2017, 02:00:35 PM »
Obama gloated about killing Usama, while not a head of state not too far from it.

Uh...

You don't see it? Member of the Saudi royal family for starters, even though he was exiled. Highly popular leader. No electoral validity, but then Gaddafi wasn't exactly taking polls either. Gaddafi is just a more successful terrorist - you may remember Lockerbie. Sure, its a stretch, but still an assassination of a bad guy. Anyway not the central point here. Just that having a President or Presidential hopeful glad to see an enemy leader dead isn't so controversial. It's been a lot worse when it is acted upon behind closed doors to undermine, kill, or oust a democratically elected leader, which Gaddafi certainly never was.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What Are the Worst Things Hilary Clinton Did and Said
« Reply #22 on: December 05, 2017, 03:30:45 PM »
You mean killing someone related to a head of state is basically the same as killing a head of state? And do you also mean that the recognized leader of a sovereign nation is basically the same as the leader of a terrorist cell if you don't like the head of state? I don't think you realize the horrid implications of what you're saying, Drake. Also, your premise that to be a lawfully recognized head of state one must be democratically elected isn't based on how the real world works. It might be nice in 500 years for it to be the case that all heads of state are elected, but for now that's not how it works and not how international law works.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What Are the Worst Things Hilary Clinton Did and Said
« Reply #23 on: December 05, 2017, 04:27:43 PM »
Maybe I wasn't clear. I said is was similar but a stretch, not basically the same. When a head of state is a terrorist, they are both terrorists.

So, lawfully recognized. I guess that means its no big deal if China assassinates the Dalai Lama, because nobody recognized Tibet as having an independent leader?

Totally ignoring Reagan's attempt to kill Gaddafi - not an equivalent but the same freaking guy. Seems if you're going to condemn Clinton here, you'd pretty much have to condemn Reagan with the same stone.

Saddam was an internationally recognized leader, GWB said he deserved "the ultimate justice" - although US forces did in fact take him alive, suggesting there wasn't an American linked assassination in play. Nor was there when Obama executed the plan supported by Clinton against Gaddafi. There was a lot of support for rebels in a general attempt to unseat Gaddafi, but there were no public American orders to kill the guy and it wasn't our people who did it. I doubt Trump would have a hard time with it if the South Koreans decided they were going to take out Kim Jong Un, but that's speculation on my part. We do know that he regularly talks about KJU "not being around much longer"

I think most people reacted more to Clinton's seemingly cavalier attitude to the Gaddafi situation - joking around about it. If she had somberly reflected on it, would there have been as much reaction?

At any rate I'll leave it at that. Weigh the merits as you will, it just wasn't a factor for me in my opinion of Clinton.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What Are the Worst Things Hilary Clinton Did and Said
« Reply #24 on: December 05, 2017, 05:11:53 PM »
Maybe I wasn't clear. I said is was similar but a stretch, not basically the same. When a head of state is a terrorist, they are both terrorists.

Except, Gaddafi was literally a reformed terrorist.  When Reagan attacked him, it was in roughly the same context as with Osama.  Both were still effectively actively connected with terrorism.  On the other hand, when Clinton/Obama attacked him it was after he lead Libya back into the international community, had normalized relations with the US and the UK, had renounced weapons of mass destruction and been involved in a leadership role in multiple multinational organizations.  You don't see a difference?  On what basis?

Quote
Totally ignoring Reagan's attempt to kill Gaddafi - not an equivalent but the same freaking guy. Seems if you're going to condemn Clinton here, you'd pretty much have to condemn Reagan with the same stone.

It's no more the same stone than it would be the same "bullet" if a police officer killed a person in the active commission of felony and then shot the felon's partner 20 years later after he was out of prison.

Quote
Saddam was an internationally recognized leader, GWB said he deserved "the ultimate justice" - although US forces did in fact take him alive, suggesting there wasn't an American linked assassination in play. Nor was there when Obama executed the plan supported by Clinton against Gaddafi.

Not sure where you are going with this, but Iraq is a "better" comparison.  Of course, we were at Congressionally authorized war with Iraq, whereas Libya was run completely on Obama's authority in contravention of the War Powers Act and over active Congressional opposition.  In Iraq there was a long and documented history of Iraqi violations of the requirements of the cease fire and other bad acts, whereas, as noted above, in Libya there had been tremendous strides forward on virtually all international fronts through peaceful processes. 

Like I said, I've never heard any real case for taking Gaddafi out.  There were serious efforts to capture Saddam, and it seemed deliberate efforts to ensure that Gaddafi was not brought in alive (probably, because any trial would have involved a lot of 'splaining what he did wrong).  If I recall correctly, Gaddafi even tried to negotiate for a transfer of power at the end, yet no interest in that.

What exactly do you see as parallel here?

Quote
I think most people reacted more to Clinton's seemingly cavalier attitude to the Gaddafi situation - joking around about it. If she had somberly reflected on it, would there have been as much reaction?

I'm reacting to the utter lack of any rational basis for it, or at least that was disclosed.  Considering the absolute hissy fit thrown over Iraq the lack of any US policy goals, or even moral justification is particularly troubling.

Quote
At any rate I'll leave it at that. Weigh the merits as you will, it just wasn't a factor for me in my opinion of Clinton.

And that's my largest point.  Nothing is a "factor" in down grading support for Clinton.  Every single last thing is "old news" or "not important" or a "Right Wing conspiracy."

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What Are the Worst Things Hilary Clinton Did and Said
« Reply #25 on: December 05, 2017, 05:53:58 PM »
Quote
Saddam was an internationally recognized leader, GWB said he deserved "the ultimate justice" - although US forces did in fact take him alive, suggesting there wasn't an American linked assassination in play. Nor was there when Obama executed the plan supported by Clinton against Gaddafi.

Not sure where you are going with this, but Iraq is a "better" comparison.  Of course, we were at Congressionally authorized war with Iraq, whereas Libya was run completely on Obama's authority in contravention of the War Powers Act and over active Congressional opposition.  In Iraq there was a long and documented history of Iraqi violations of the requirements of the cease fire and other bad acts, whereas, as noted above, in Libya there had been tremendous strides forward on virtually all international fronts through peaceful processes. 

Like I said, I've never heard any real case for taking Gaddafi out.  There were serious efforts to capture Saddam, and it seemed deliberate efforts to ensure that Gaddafi was not brought in alive (probably, because any trial would have involved a lot of 'splaining what he did wrong).  If I recall correctly, Gaddafi even tried to negotiate for a transfer of power at the end, yet no interest in that.

What exactly do you see as parallel here?

Gaddafi and the Libya thing in general was "Arab Spring" + Muslim Brotherhood and a feckless Obama Admin that didn't want to step on the toes of the Muslim Brotherhood(who they were actively courting for a couple of years IIRC). So when given the choice of supporting Gaddafi, or the (Egyptian, and "Democratically Elected" chapter of the) Muslim Brotherhood, he went with the Egyptian backed group.

Of course, the whole fact that the Muslim Brotherhood was able to gain power in Egypt, even if only for a few years, was entirely due to Obama(and Clinton's State Department) in the first place. But we're not supposed to point out mistakes made by either Obama or the Clinton's, forget about both.

So I guess we could add Hillary "going along" (at least publicly) with Obama's efforts to bring the Muslim Brotherhood "into the fold" by pretty much letting them dictate much of US Middle-Eastern Policy for awhile is pretty high on the list of reasons she was unfit for the job of PotUS.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2017, 05:57:37 PM by TheDeamon »

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What Are the Worst Things Hilary Clinton Did and Said
« Reply #26 on: December 05, 2017, 06:08:31 PM »
I think most people reacted more to Clinton's seemingly cavalier attitude to the Gaddafi situation - joking around about it. If she had somberly reflected on it, would there have been as much reaction?

I'm reacting to the utter lack of any rational basis for it, or at least that was disclosed.  Considering the absolute hissy fit thrown over Iraq the lack of any US policy goals, or even moral justification is particularly troubling.

There was "a humanitarian interest" in intervening in Libya. From preventing Gaddafi's forces from being able to essentially commit ethnic cleansing given the nature of the revolt, as well as to prevent a large inflow of Libyan refugees flooding into Italy and the rest of Europe from there. Because it was "A humanitarian mission" that gave Obama all the political cover he needed with his base.

Quote
Quote
At any rate I'll leave it at that. Weigh the merits as you will, it just wasn't a factor for me in my opinion of Clinton.

And that's my largest point.  Nothing is a "factor" in down grading support for Clinton.  Every single last thing is "old news" or "not important" or a "Right Wing conspiracy."

Having known people who were part of the Military detachment serving in the White House during the Clinton Administration, as a Veteran myself. I have no doubts at all that Hillary Clinton holds zero respect for the US Military. Bill is a different story, but really only when Hillary wasn't around from what I recall.

The whole Benghazi thing certainly didn't help her earn any brownie points. I'd still like to know what Obama was doing while all of that was going on. As last I checked, nobody had publicly acknowledged what he was doing. Other than that he was informed shortly after it started(so he knew it was happening), and he basically disappeared after that.

And related to that. Her subsequent participation in the Obama Admin's efforts to pin the blame for the attacks on that YouTube guy also makes it hard for me to take her seriously.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What Are the Worst Things Hilary Clinton Did and Said
« Reply #27 on: December 05, 2017, 06:18:27 PM »
The larger context helps me think about some other things that kept me well away from the Clinton bandwagon. She's an interventionist. I'm far more isolationist in terms of foreign relations, take our marbles and go home. So yeah, the wider part of foreign policy and talking about our international obligations probably land on the spectrum of a "bad thing" HC did or said, but I don't know if I'd slide it to worst in the OP context.


Greg Davidson

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What Are the Worst Things Hilary Clinton Did and Said
« Reply #28 on: December 06, 2017, 02:14:53 AM »
Quote
I'm kind of eagerly awaiting Greg Davidson to notice this thread. He couldn't resist defending Clinton from fellow lefties. His response to this should be epic.

I am sorry to say some harsh things about some of you, but this reflects what I see here. You don't have to respond (I presume that I may get some name-calling, and others may just ignore me), but what I'd find most credible is if you provide some examples that refute my concerns. I find negligible integrity of the conservative voices I see on Ornery. Honesty, justice, and moral behavior depend on having a set of principles that are applied consistently and proportionately. You also need to have a respect for the truth - you need to state what you believe, and sometimes we can disagree, but when you discover new evidence or information that indicates you are wrong, you are morally responsible to acknowledge your error.  When you lack this level of decency or character, then what exactly are you trying to accomplish through the use of debate or discussion?

I started addressing the micro-scale problems with this thread (since when is Trey Gowdy a reliable narrator of what Hillary Clinton said), but the real issues are fundamental - here are some examples: 

1. You conservatives don't care about debt and deficits; your reaction to the the Republicans $T tax cut proves that. You pretend to be concerned when Democrats are in power (maybe you even pretend to yourself), but it is clear going back 40 years (Reagan, Bush II, Trump) that you'll take actions that intentionally increase the deficit without a whimper of protest.

2. You conservatives are faking your concern about Hillary Clinton's email server (maybe even to yourself) because you don't care about protecting national secrets or even about government officials using private email servers; this is demonstrated by your lack of concern about:
a. Trump keeping Flynn as his national security adviser for 18 days after he knew that he lied to the FBI about his connections to foreign powers (think about that - Trump has admitted he knew, and still let Flynn get access to be best daily intelligence in the world - at best, Trump was incredibly negligent about leaking the most critical secrets to a foreign agent and at worst was a party to that leakage).
b. Trump revealing critical HUMINT sources inside ISIS to Russian diplomats (and the Russian media)
c. Other senior officials inside the Administration (notably Jared Kushner) who lied repeatedly on their SF86 still have their security clearances and access to the highest level of intelligence (and I just submitted my 5-year revalidation SF86 today - it's a huge freaking document, and the legal penalties are pretty damn clear)
d. The Bush Administration had a private email server. The Trump Administration has a private email server. Your actions prove you don't care about private email servers unless it is something you can use to rail about Hillary Clinton.

3. You conservatives were lying when you expressed concern about Benghazi as demonstrated by the complete lack of concern for what appear to be horribly mismanaged efforts that led to unnecessary deaths of Americans in Yemen and and Niger (where are the 8 hearings on that? where are the number and intensity of Ornery threads relative to the number on Benghazi?).

As for the rest, go and have your Emmanuel Goldstein in Hillary Clinton. And enjoy your 3 minutes of hate for  Bill Clinton - though try to remember that Donald Trump and Roy Moore have a greater number of accusers of more serious sexual abuse, and more importantly, Donald Trump and Roy Moore are relevant because they are active politicians of today - not folks of the past. But guess what, you don't actually care about sexual abuse, just like you don't care about dishonesty because Donald Trump has told more significant lies in virtually every week of his Presidency than any other political figure of our age.

And when it becomes clear that Trump and Pence have committed acts of obstruction of justice, I can't wait to see how you will deny the evidence and/or make the case that obstruction of justice isn't a real crime.

 




« Last Edit: December 06, 2017, 02:22:07 AM by Greg Davidson »

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What Are the Worst Things Hilary Clinton Did and Said
« Reply #29 on: December 06, 2017, 09:23:44 AM »
Were you looking in a mirror as you typed that?  ::)

And the thread is officially declared, derailed.  :o

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What Are the Worst Things Hilary Clinton Did and Said
« Reply #30 on: December 06, 2017, 10:45:10 AM »
Quote
I'm kind of eagerly awaiting Greg Davidson to notice this thread. He couldn't resist defending Clinton from fellow lefties. His response to this should be epic.

I am sorry to say some harsh things about some of you, but this reflects what I see here.  You don't have to respond (I presume that I may get some name-calling, and others may just ignore me), but what I'd find most credible is if you provide some examples that refute my concerns. I find negligible integrity of the conservative voices I see on Ornery.

Well I can't say that the negative feeling is mutual.  I have always tried to respect that you believe what you say, even when I thought you were misguided or had no real kind words for what I believe are the real effects of your policy goals (as opposed to what you believe the effects will be). 

There's not much in the way of refutation possible for most political opinions as they invariably are heavily weighed by independent conclusions and a large number of conflicting knowledge bases, not to mention there's virtually no such opinion on which any certainty is anything but an illusion based on models that even if correctly applied may be flawed enough to reach an incorrect answer.

Quote
Honesty, justice, and moral behavior depend on having a set of principles that are applied consistently and proportionately.

Most people do so.  Even with extremists I can only think of one person who used to routinely post here who I felt was deliberately misleading.

Quote
You also need to have a respect for the truth - you need to state what you believe, and sometimes we can disagree, but when you discover new evidence or information that indicates you are wrong, you are morally responsible to acknowledge your error.  When you lack this level of decency or character, then what exactly are you trying to accomplish through the use of debate or discussion?

Well, you also need to acknowledge that you are not a neutral arbiter of what someone else finds convincing.  I've almost never seen anything that rises to a the level of a refutation of a philosophy, which is what you seem to be implying.

Quote
1. You conservatives don't care about debt and deficits; your reaction to the the Republicans $T tax cut proves that. You pretend to be concerned when Democrats are in power (maybe you even pretend to yourself), but it is clear going back 40 years (Reagan, Bush II, Trump) that you'll take actions that intentionally increase the deficit without a whimper of protest.

Maybe you should go back and refresh yourself on the Bush years on the old board.  I know I wasn't the only one that criticized Bush for his lack of fiscal restraint.   I was even more critical of Obama because of the permanent increase in spending.  And I spent countless hours arguing against certain philosophers on this site that claimed that effectively no amount of debt was too much.

That said, I don't view tax cuts as likely to generate deficits.  Spending too much is what burdens us with excessive debt.  I view the linkage between intelligent tax cuts (not all are equal) designed to generate investment as pretty much fact at this point, and I barely even understand how someone can not acknowledge that.

Quote
2. You conservatives are faking your concern about Hillary Clinton's email server (maybe even to yourself) because you don't care about protecting national secrets or even about government officials using private email servers; this is demonstrated by your lack of concern about:

This is an unfounded attribution of motive.  I have plenty that I dislike Hillary about, I also have national security concerns.  No amount of apparent hypocrisy on my part could ever justify  Hillary's deliberate and intentional removal of state department records to her basement.

Quote
a. Trump keeping Flynn as his national security adviser for 18 days after he knew that he lied to the FBI about his connections to foreign powers (think about that - Trump has admitted he knew, and still let Flynn get access to be best daily intelligence in the world - at best, Trump was incredibly negligent about leaking the most critical secrets to a foreign agent and at worst was a party to that leakage).

Lol.  Must have missed where Flynn has been accused of leaking state secrets, did you find that in Mueller's court papers?  What does this non-sequitor have to do with your point?

In any event, firing a government official with a long history of service in administrations of both parties in less than 3 weeks is something you find as slow?  On what basis? 

Quote
b. Trump revealing critical HUMINT sources inside ISIS to Russian diplomats (and the Russian media)

Or if you actually paid attention, the NYT's actually did the reveal because by all accounts the conversation between Trump and the Russians was completely within the bounds of information shared in security cooperation, and those actually at the meeting said he didn't share confidential information.  I admit I haven't read anything about this in months, maybe, this is one where you can point out some kind of official accounting that disputes this.

Quote
c. Other senior officials inside the Administration (notably Jared Kushner) who lied repeatedly on their SF86 still have their security clearances and access to the highest level of intelligence (and I just submitted my 5-year revalidation SF86 today - it's a huge freaking document, and the legal penalties are pretty damn clear)

Well, I see at least you've dropped the ridiculous demand for perjury charges here.  Are you asserting that something in Jared's form warrants that he not receive a security clearance?  If so what is it?  And wouldn't you  be proving you don't merit a security clearance if you actually had such access and disclosed this in such a manner?

It's kind of crazy to demand people change their views based on your own speculations in a thread where you're claiming they refuse to acknowledge and change their positions in response to facts (how about a little reciprocity?).

Quote
d. The Bush Administration had a private email server. The Trump Administration has a private email server. Your actions prove you don't care about private email servers unless it is something you can use to rail about Hillary Clinton.

And your claims prove you actually don't care about the facts.  The administrations in question, as well as the Obama admin, maintained independent communications equipment for political activities.  It is illegal for them to use government systems for political activities.  What did they did not do was deliberately use those systems for government business (as previously noted to you, the Bush admin inadvertently did and promptly acted to recover those government records).  And what NOONE ELSE has ever done was deliberately undermine the government systems and protocols and divert the enterity of their official communication into their personal systems.

Seriously, talk about a refusal to acknowledge facts that should cause you to rethink your position.  There is literally no parallel to what Clinton did, and making up excuses for it is lame.  You would do better to stick with the argument that it wasn't a big deal.

Quote
3. You conservatives were lying when you expressed concern about Benghazi as demonstrated by the complete lack of concern for what appear to be horribly mismanaged efforts that led to unnecessary deaths of Americans in Yemen and and Niger (where are the 8 hearings on that? where are the number and intensity of Ornery threads relative to the number on Benghazi?).

You can go back on look on those threads.  I repeatedly said that the administration's response to Benghazi was  a proper exercise of executive authority.  I may or may not have agreed with how it was handled, but that was the President's call to make.  He was entitled to make a decision about whether he could have gotten help there and whether it would have been effective.

My concern then, and now, is that the Administration engaged in a deliberate and intentional policy of lying about what happened there purely for political gain.  Again, if you want to hold me to changing my views based on facts, it's crystal clear that the administration sold a lie related to the video and that they did it specifically to turn the course of an election for Barack Obama that was looking as if it was getting out of control.

Quote
As for the rest, go and have your Emmanuel Goldstein in Hillary Clinton. And enjoy your 3 minutes of hate for  Bill Clinton - though try to remember that Donald Trump and Roy Moore have a greater number of accusers of more serious sexual abuse,

More serious sexual abuse?  Seriously?  Clinton has been accused of rape, what exactly do you think is more serious than that? 

Quote
...and more importantly, Donald Trump and Roy Moore are relevant because they are active politicians of today - not folks of the past.

I agree with that, though I'd tend to point out that if you truly cared about the issue (rather than the politics) you might have mentioned the rather disproportionate amount of people from the left that are being caught up in it.  In any event, it's a broad based issue.

Quote
But guess what, you don't actually care about sexual abuse, just like you don't care about dishonesty because Donald Trump has told more significant lies in virtually every week of his Presidency than any other political figure of our age.

Ahh.. the soft assertion of "more lies".  What's the metric there?  How did you add it up.  It's a leftist meme and assertion but I don't agree that its proven (and no, I don't need to see one of your quoted from a leftist site list of every single disputable statement that depends on your point of view), I'll acknowledge that Trump also leads the metric of the most direct communications to the public of any President, which gives him a lot more opportunities to be challenged.

Quote
And when it becomes clear that Trump and Pence have committed acts of obstruction of justice, I can't wait to see how you will deny the evidence and/or make the case that obstruction of justice isn't a real crime.

It's not going to "become clear" cause it didn't happen.  If the government wants you they can always find a technicality somewhere, but honestly, there's next to a zero percent chance that anything substantive really exists here.  Meanwhile, if you really cared about obstruction of justice, there's a certain meeting on a tarmac I'd like you to weigh in on, you know where a politically connected spouse of a politician met with an attorney general that was actively investigating their spouse and the FBI apparently tried to cover it up shortly before such attorney general recused herself (and did not appoint a special prosecutor - hmm), allowing the head of the FBI to lay out a case for a direct violation of the law and then oddly claim a reasonable prosecutor wouldn't bring the case.  Is obstruction really what you're interested in?  Cause that's a hell of a lot more compelling case than the fact pattern you seem to believe in.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What Are the Worst Things Hilary Clinton Did and Said
« Reply #31 on: December 06, 2017, 11:38:43 AM »
The whataboutism in the last couple of posts is deafening.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What Are the Worst Things Hilary Clinton Did and Said
« Reply #32 on: December 06, 2017, 11:42:37 PM »
b. Trump revealing critical HUMINT sources inside ISIS to Russian diplomats (and the Russian media)

Greg, I'm not going to take a side in this particular back and forth as I think there's some truth to what each of you is saying, however I'll say one thing. I respect you, and out of respect I'd like to point out that you're undermining yourself and not doing your side of the argument justice by bringing up a point like this one. The way you're framing this one point (which I'm picking on because I'm more familiar with this item than some of the others) is really bad. We've gone round in circles about this incident and I think it's been sufficiently demonstrated that Trump's only mistake there was in pissing off the Israelis when if he'd felt like it he could have handled that part of it better. But he was totally within his rights as President to disclose matters of anti-terrorist security to another power, and from a moral standpoint I cannot see a case where telling a sometime adversary but potential friend about a possible danger to them is anything other than laudable. It should be a stand-up applause moment, and the only reason it wasn't is because Israel made a stink about it and their lobby is dominatingly powerful.

It would be one thing for you to bring this up as an example of Trump being a bull in a china shop, but bringing this up as a counterexample of malfeasance to stand next to thumbing one's nose at FOIA and then trying to flush the evidence down the toilet...I mean what is that?

You've been trying to make a case for a while that some people here refuse to reassess their viewpoints when presented with contrary evidence; you made that clear enough in the Obamacare threads after you did all that legwork examining the thread histories. But in the case of the ISIS bomb disclosure to Russia it seems like you're doing exactly the same thing - ignoring the discussions we've had on it and reverting back to the same old headlines that CNN ran when this happened, that he betrayed Israel and 'leaked classified info.' I think it's frustrating for everyone involved here - including you - when people simply ignore arguments and data and 'stick to their convictions' (aka refuse to budge). I think it's a problem every person has to grapple with, and we here are no different. I don't begrudge you your frustration, however consider that you aren't immune to some of those same behaviors. The quality of discussion here has been really good overall, I think, and it could probably be even better if we accepted each other's foibles without condemning them.

Greg Davidson

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What Are the Worst Things Hilary Clinton Did and Said
« Reply #33 on: December 07, 2017, 01:07:53 AM »
Fenring, you are right, I tossed out the ISIS Israeli source example with less thought than to the rest of the post.  I haven't followed every Ornery thread on this, but my understanding is that the reveal wasn't just to the Russian government, President Trump also had Russian media in the room which is why we know the story. I have trouble understanding the national interest that included the media in an reveal of exceptionally sensitive classified information, but I'd be willing to hear an explanation.  And the rationale that "those actually at the meeting said he didn't share confidential information" - is your argument that because Trump's people and those he potentially revealed classified information to all asserted that he didn't do anything wrong, then their assertion is credible? If he really was acting in a way dangerous to the interests of the US, is your assumption that someone in that room would have called him out on it?

Seriati,
(1)  if you maintain your consistency about deficit spending I applaud you. But have you applied concern about the latest plan to intentionally increase the debt by $1T+ with a level of concern that us proportionate to the degree to which you have criticized existing spending programs based on the degree they contribute to the debt?
(2) "Must have missed where Flynn has been accused of leaking state secrets" - is it that you disbelieve that Flynn was taking millions of dollars from foreign powers and lying about it, or do you believe he would agree to take that money and lie about it to the FBI, but be careful not to reveal the most sensitive secret intelligence that the US possessed even if it would benefit his foreign customers?
(3) If I filed an SF86 and did not report multiple foreign persons I had met with in a professional capacity (who knew of my role in the organization and had a plausible interest in access), I would not only expect to lose my security clearance, I would expect to be fired. There's no ambiguity when you sign and certify a document that says you can be imprisoned for 5 years for any material errors.
(4) "What did they did not do was deliberately use those systems for government business (as previously noted to you, the Bush admin inadvertently did and promptly acted to recover those government records)."  I cite one of many articles documenting that the Trump White House is using a private email server to conduct government businesshttp://thehill.com/homenews/administration/352384-six-trump-officials-used-personal-email-accounts-for-white-house

jasonr

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What Are the Worst Things Hilary Clinton Did and Said
« Reply #34 on: December 07, 2017, 08:24:58 PM »
Quote
Totally ignoring Reagan's attempt to kill Gaddafi - not an equivalent but the same freaking guy. Seems if you're going to condemn Clinton here, you'd pretty much have to condemn Reagan with the same stone.

Except Reagan didn't succeed and Libya didn't burn on his watch. What more is there to say? If my Aunt had an Adam''s Apple she would be my Uncle.

This kind of argument pisses me off, because you seem to think that proving some conservative icon from 30 years ago is equally bad somehow wins the argument. This is Trumpian reasoning if I ever saw it. The topic was Clinton not Reagan.

Quote
So I guess we could add Hillary "going along" (at least publicly) with Obama's efforts to bring the Muslim Brotherhood "into the fold" by pretty much letting them dictate much of US Middle-Eastern Policy for awhile is pretty high on the list of reasons she was unfit for the job of PotUS.

She did more than "go along" with Obama's policy.

The Caesar quote is quite explicit. The strong implication is that she was instrumental in his death, and she bragged about it. Given her position as Secretary of State at the Time, I would speculate that she was in a position to be more than just a cheerleader for Obama's policy.

Now given Clinton's propensity for exaggeration, one could be charitably inclined to view the comment as just that. But even then, the bragging tells us something key about her, namely that she utterly failed to learn the lesson of Iraq 2.0, despite claiming otherwise profusely during the 2008 primary campaign.  She must really have thought that Ghadaffi's death was a win for her. She wanted to be associated with it . She wanted to be credited, personally. That tells you it was not cynicism, but incompetence on her part. She stepped right into the same trap she claimed she never would again.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What Are the Worst Things Hilary Clinton Did and Said
« Reply #35 on: December 07, 2017, 11:37:20 PM »
The Caesar quote is quite explicit. The strong implication is that she was instrumental in his death, and she bragged about it. Given her position as Secretary of State at the Time, I would speculate that she was in a position to be more than just a cheerleader for Obama's policy.

This may be straying a bit off topic and into the weeds, but I have strong reason to believe that in fact the operation was hers on the U.S. side and that it was conducted over Obama's objections, rather than following suit with his wishes. I think the two of them were most likely on opposing sides of a lot of issues and that sometimes her team was a heck of a lot stronger than his was. I say this because I believe that not only was her Caesar quote an attempt to associate herself with the result of the operation, but that it was a thinly veiled statement that it was all hers, all the way. It wasn't just "I was in on it" but more like "That was all me, baby!"

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What Are the Worst Things Hilary Clinton Did and Said
« Reply #36 on: December 07, 2017, 11:38:40 PM »
PS - Greg, I'm extremely busy with the opening of a play right now, so I'll try to do a little research when I can to make sure of my answer to your question. It may take a bit, though...

Greg Davidson

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What Are the Worst Things Hilary Clinton Did and Said
« Reply #37 on: December 08, 2017, 12:17:58 AM »
That is an ugly and stupid quote by Clinton... No defense, and the only thing that puts it into any kind of context is to look at the number of ugly and stupid things said by senior American leaders, and to say that those who make a larger number of stupid and ugly quotes are even worse. .

More importantly, we agree that Libya worked out poorly - but what would you have done?  I am not sure either at the time or afterwards I heard any voices on the Democratic or Republican side stand up and offer a better policy choice to deal with all that was happening at the time. Without 20/20 hindsight, what would any of the rest of you have advocated that the US should have done?

As background, Libya was in civil war which raised concerns from Italy and France about refugees and which raised US concern about instability from Libya crossing into Egypt (which is much more important to US foreign policy, and was in a precarious position at that time).  Ghadaffi made a threat of "No Mercy" which was widely interpreted as a threat of genocide for the 300,000 people in Benghazi, and his troops were going to arrive there in a few days (and the White House was perhaps overly mindful of the inaction as Yugoslavia collapsed which led to the genocide of 600,000 people, Samantha Powers had written a book on that inaction).

French and Italian political leaders had taken a public stance that they were going to intervene in Libya, and they were calling on the US to support their intervention just as they had loyally supported the US in Iraq.  The allied forces even got Arab League support and some nominal Arab air force support. The US worked a deal where they would play the smaller role, leaving the brunt of the military engagement to France and Italy.

We know how it all ended up. What should the US have done? Not provided the support that they did (mostly taking out the air defenses and communications, command, and control support)? Send in more forces, including ground troops? If you want to criticize the foreign policy actions of the Obama Administration, the Libya intervention is an excellent opportunity, but you can't criticize what they did too deeply if you literally cannot think of a strategy that would have worked better.


Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What Are the Worst Things Hilary Clinton Did and Said
« Reply #38 on: December 08, 2017, 12:35:26 AM »
More importantly, we agree that Libya worked out poorly - but what would you have done?

How about nothing?

Quote
As background, Libya was in civil war which raised concerns from Italy and France about refugees and which raised US concern about instability from Libya crossing into Egypt (which is much more important to US foreign policy, and was in a precarious position at that time).  Ghadaffi made a threat of "No Mercy" which was widely interpreted as a threat of genocide for the 300,000 people in Benghazi, and his troops were going to arrive there in a few days (and the White House was perhaps overly mindful of the inaction as Yugoslavia collapsed which led to the genocide of 600,000 people, Samantha Powers had written a book on that inaction).

French and Italian political leaders had taken a public stance that they were going to intervene in Libya, and they were calling on the US to support their intervention just as they had loyally supported the US in Iraq.  The allied forces even got Arab League support and some nominal Arab air force support. The US worked a deal where they would play the smaller role, leaving the brunt of the military engagement to France and Italy.

That's just the thing - this wasn't actually the background of what was going on, it was the official narrative put forward to justify the attack. You may as well argue that Iraq 2.0 may have had a bad result but it was the best decision that could be made since Saddam had WMD's and was supporting Al Qaeda. It's exactly the same scenario, same fake arguments, and it amazes me that a scant decade after lying their way into a war another administration is able to do the same thing and have a decent amount of public support behind it. It really does prove that the Big Lie works.

Quote
We know how it all ended up. What should the US have done? Not provided the support that they did (mostly taking out the air defenses and communications, command, and control support)? Send in more forces, including ground troops? If you want to criticize the foreign policy actions of the Obama Administration, the Libya intervention is an excellent opportunity, but you can't criticize what they did too deeply if you literally cannot think of a strategy that would have worked better.

The best strategy would have been to work with Gaddafi with his plans for African unification. "Best", of course, means best for Africa, but not best for special interests that wanted him gone. I won't pretend he was some kind of nice guy, but just like Saddam he was better where he was than gone with chaos in his place. And, unlike Saddam, Gaddafi had done wondrous things for his country.

If you really want to see into the background of the attack on Libya read the Clinton emails with her personal intelligence people reporting to her on what was going on. You could choose to be skeptical of the information there, of course, but then you're in the position of questioning the quality of the intelligence she was basing her decisions on. It's ironic, in a way: either you credit her with getting good info, in which case she's incriminated based on what the purveyors of that info told her (i.e. the real reasons for the attack), or they're not credible in which case you have to claim that her intelligence was bad, and that her decisions were based on garbage! Either way it's nasty stuff.

Greg Davidson

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What Are the Worst Things Hilary Clinton Did and Said
« Reply #39 on: December 08, 2017, 10:45:18 AM »
From what I have read, the decision-making at the time the crisis emerged was influenced by Samantha Powers and a concern not to repeat the mistakes of Yugoslavia. Even if there was a less than 50/50 chance  that Gaddafi's military would have killed 300,000 people, Powers was pushing those at the White House to grappled with the moral responsibility to intervene. Furthermore, I know that Obama was motivated by the concern not to be on "the wrong side of history" in terms of opposing popular rebellions (and conflict in Libya emerged from government resistance to public protests, which came from wikileaks revealing US diplomatic information that identified corruption across the the Arab world, and thus "the Arab Spring").

I have not read the Clinton emails about Libya, so I make these comments with that gap in my knowledge, but by doing nothing are you advocating that the US should have rejected the calls from French and Italian leaders to participate in the attack? And accept the risk of the conflict slipping over into Egypt (which is the largest population Arab country, critical to US security interests in the region, and at that time with a very fragile government teetering between Muslim Brotherhood and unpopular legacy regime)?

A stable Libya the way it was in 2008 would have been preferable to either of those choices, but that was not one of the options immediately facing the White House. And in this, even though Clinton had a strong voice, the ultimate decision of what the US did was on Obama. 

As Obama said, even though he was accepting a higher level of responsibility for mistakes in Libya than I believe is appropriate, the decisions that go to the President are usually not no-brainers, they are the ones that are 51/49 (meaning that there are many arguments on both sides, and the ultimate decision is a close call). 

I agree that this remains true - for example, on North Korea there are (and have been for a long time) no really good and clear cut options. That's what makes noteworthy the acts of diplomacy that create an option that didn't exist before. For example, how much would we value an arrangement whereby North Korea got rid of all of their weapons-grad fissionable material, they destroyed their plutonium reactor, they allowed invasive international inspections all across their supply chain for any of the units needed to produce nuclear weapons for 10-15 years and they agreed to international inspections of their main nuclear facilities for 25-40 years? That would be a great option, but all too oftn there ar no options that are as beneficial as that.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2017, 10:52:59 AM by Greg Davidson »

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What Are the Worst Things Hilary Clinton Did and Said
« Reply #40 on: December 08, 2017, 11:29:04 AM »
I have not read the Clinton emails about Libya, so I make these comments with that gap in my knowledge, but by doing nothing are you advocating that the US should have rejected the calls from French and Italian leaders to participate in the attack? And accept the risk of the conflict slipping over into Egypt (which is the largest population Arab country, critical to US security interests in the region, and at that time with a very fragile government teetering between Muslim Brotherhood and unpopular legacy regime)?

I'm not convinced on Egypt "being at risk" given that the Muslim Brotherhood was the Civilian Government at that time, and the Muslim Brotherhood was a significant contributing factor in the armed rebellion that was happening in Libya. It is highly doubtful that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt would have allowed things to progress to the point that it significantly impacted them in a negative way.

Of course, the wild-card in that mix is the Egyptian Military, which eventually did step in and take control back. So having Libya cause "blowback" into Egypt could have complicated things for the Egyptian Military. Not that the Obama Admin was particularly happy when they(the Military) deposed the Muslim Brotherhood.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What Are the Worst Things Hilary Clinton Did and Said
« Reply #41 on: December 08, 2017, 11:30:44 AM »
Quote
This kind of argument pisses me off, because you seem to think that proving some conservative icon from 30 years ago is equally bad somehow wins the argument. This is Trumpian reasoning if I ever saw it. The topic was Clinton not Reagan.

That's a reasonable criticism, I wasn't saying she was correct, I felt like I was clarifying why I personally didn't care about it and didn't put it so far in the "worst things" category.




Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What Are the Worst Things Hilary Clinton Did and Said
« Reply #42 on: December 08, 2017, 01:00:29 PM »
I have not read the Clinton emails about Libya, so I make these comments with that gap in my knowledge, but by doing nothing are you advocating that the US should have rejected the calls from French and Italian leaders to participate in the attack?

Reading the emails would give you insight into why the Europeans were asking for an invasion of Libya. It was no mercy mission (to quote Vader). Did the French assist the U.S. in their invasion of Iraq? They did not, and for that they were shunned for years, marked by the infamous Freedom Fries protest at the U.N. And yet in hindsight we'd have to congratulate the French for their ethical choice, correct? So why, then, should the U.S. participate in a French desire to attack another supposed Saddam in similar circumstances? Surely the U.S. owed France nothing at this point, and unless they personally had skin in the game then why go in? It wasn't to be nice or to help the Libyans, I can assure you of that.

Quote
And accept the risk of the conflict slipping over into Egypt (which is the largest population Arab country, critical to US security interests in the region, and at that time with a very fragile government teetering between Muslim Brotherhood and unpopular legacy regime)?

I don't believe that was a legitimate concern at the time, but it sounded good enough to serve as an excuse.

Quote
A stable Libya the way it was in 2008 would have been preferable to either of those choices, but that was not one of the options immediately facing the White House.

It's always an option to work with a possibly bad man to improve things and bring reform over time. The main reason why peace treaties and reforms aren't easier to enact is because they aren't really desired. If the U.S. had actually had the will to peacefully secure the area around Libya through working with Gaddafi it wouldn't have been so hard. It just wasn't on the docket.

Quote
And in this, even though Clinton had a strong voice, the ultimate decision of what the US did was on Obama.

In principle you should be right when you say this. In practice I don't think the Presidency is nearly as strong as you think it is. Yes, the President can sometimes be a de facto king these days with personal autonomy over the military and drone war warfare, however that being said the President is still subject to powers far greater than him and his reach only goes so far. That's as it should be, in a sense, except that the powers reigning over that office at present are other than the ones meant to be.

Quote
As Obama said, even though he was accepting a higher level of responsibility for mistakes in Libya than I believe is appropriate, the decisions that go to the President are usually not no-brainers, they are the ones that are 51/49 (meaning that there are many arguments on both sides, and the ultimate decision is a close call).

My instinct at the moment is to give Obama a bit of a pass on Libya. I don't think he was happy about it, but didn't have the currency to stop it unilaterally.

velcro

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What Are the Worst Things Hilary Clinton Did and Said
« Reply #43 on: December 10, 2017, 08:37:37 AM »
I said I would not respond, but this is about Trump, not Hilary.

Fenring wrote
Quote
But he was totally within his rights as President to disclose matters of anti-terrorist security to another power, and from a moral standpoint I cannot see a case where telling a sometime adversary but potential friend about a possible danger to them is anything other than laudable.

I have not read the other threads, but my understanding is that Trump mentioned the location of the intelligence source. That information was considered sufficient to identify/compromise that source.  There is no reason to tell a sometime adversary but potential friend that specific information, which has nothing to do with the possible danger you mention. It is negligence.  If it prevents an ally from providing information in the future, it is even more negligent.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What Are the Worst Things Hilary Clinton Did and Said
« Reply #44 on: December 11, 2017, 01:25:52 PM »
From what I have read, the decision-making at the time the crisis emerged was influenced by Samantha Powers and a concern not to repeat the mistakes of Yugoslavia. Even if there was a less than 50/50 chance  that Gaddafi's military would have killed 300,000 people, Powers was pushing those at the White House to grappled with the moral responsibility to intervene.

The thing that is interesting about this rationale is the real time context.  The uprising in Libya and much of the middle east, began in response to the protests and uprisings in Iran.  Everything you say about the moral necessities was also true in Iran, plus Iran was a current state sponsor of terrorism (if not literally the primary state sponsor), and the Obama failed to intervene there (in fact, it was accused real time of encouraging the protests and then abandoning them to their fates).  There were how many other countries that were involved in the general unrest?  A bunch, why was Libya specially significant on the humanitarian scale?

Neocons and other interventionalists can always come up with a cause for an invasion or a war, explaining why this "fire" is so much more necessary to put out than a dozen others, many of which were larger is the tough part.

Greg Davidson

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: What Are the Worst Things Hilary Clinton Did and Said
« Reply #45 on: December 11, 2017, 11:29:54 PM »
Reasons why Libya was different than Iran
- Italy and France were far more worried about refugees from Libya than Iran
- Egypt was on the border with Libya; there was no similar concern with instability from Iran
- There was no potential threat of hundreds of thousands of people being killed in Iran as there was in Libya
- Iran poses a much greater military threat than Libya did