Ed Clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham Part 3

[NoahFence]

The initial results were promising. And Hillary and her supporters wanted to formalize their success as a new "Clinton Doctrine" in foreign policy approach. And that's fine.
~snip

Excellent post. Too bad it gets wasted on those who need to understand it, the bumper-sticker crowd.

 

[Garrette]

The initial results were promising. And Hillary and her supporters wanted to formalize their success as a new "Clinton Doctrine" in foreign policy approach. And that's fine. That's just called publishing. In technical, scientific disciplines, that's just called "science." And it's a good thing. If a new approach works, we want leaders who formalize the approach to apply for increasing the odds of formal success. I guess maybe this didn't seem such an explosive idea to me because I read about it far before wikileaks emails. So it didn't come with that negative "leak" connotation.

Of course, things are complex. Especially in that region. And the promising results didn't last. Given the frustratingly complex network of desperate allies and enemies and geopolitical aims, Obama's radically skeptical approach is probably more realistic, unfortunately. We tried a very involved approach in Iraq. It didn't work that well. We tried a much less involved approach in Libya. It didn't work that well. We tried almost nothing in Syria. It didn't work that well. The truth is that it's easy to criticize results when situations effectively provide no room for positive results. It's easy to rail against decision makers when the reality is that strategy is selected based on the least ****** outcome possible. And acknowledging such sheds light on Obama's infamous foreign policy summary: "Don't do stupid ****."

Viewing Iraq, Libya, and Syria, as well as the rest of the region, from that perspective and from the unfortunate truth that, in reality, foreign policy in that region is really just about guessing at the least ****** outcome, it's honestly difficult to criticize much. I prefer Obama's minimalist approach because I think it best acknowledges reality. But I also deeply empathize with Hillary's more hands on approach-- especially with respect to Syria, though given no local, regional, or global consensus, action there wasn't really feasible. And I even empathize with Bush's far more hands on approach. Indeed, I supported the Iraq invasion, and if I were to vote again, I might support it if I could simply ensure that we'd listen to experts and provide immediate security and political infrastructure, rather than simply secure the oil fields and let the civilians fall into chaos. I think there's a fair argument to be made regarding humanity's responsibility to itself. Of course, the Obama approach is probably the only reason we're not neck-deep in post-Arab Spring **** right now.

The point is that I strongly believe that anyone honestly trying to understand the region and trying to work to improve the region and the rest of the world must acknowledge that uncertainties probably dwarf what little we know. And even inaction is action. It's still a decision. Innocent people are still murdered or saved due to inaction. So it's just unfair to blame all the region's woes on a single actor or even administration.

And it's even more unfair to blame the region's woes on post-Bush Iraq under Obama and Hillary, given that Bush negotiated the troop withdrawal date. Obama simply followed it. Maybe Obama could have fought harder to prolong the withdrawal date? Maybe. Sure. But then, so could have Bush, right? Even the delay in re-deploying forces to help push back ISIS isn't so cut and dry. Obama delayed action to force new leadership in Iraq, as the then Prime Minister generally supported the very secretarial conditions that help drive groups like ISIS. By forcing political change, Obama at least created an opportunity to better avoid these situations in the future. Maybe it was a good idea. Maybe not. I don't know. I wish we could say, "only time will tell," but I don't think we could even make a fair judgement over time, unless results radically and profoundly depart from the chaotic and uncertain projection we'd otherwise assume. The noise is just louder than the signal.

Thank you for this.

 

[The Big Dog]

The initial results were promising.

False

In his final year in office, U.S. President Barack Obama said that failing to prepare for the aftermath of the ousting of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi in 2011 was the “worst mistake” of his presidency.

“Probably failing to plan for, the day after, what I think was the right thing to do, in intervening in Libya,” Mr. Obama told Fox News while answering a series of questions on the highs and lows of his nearly eight years in the White House.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/intern...ake-of-my-presidency-obama/article8462178.ece

I cannot fathom what you claim to have read...

 

[wareyin]

I cannot fathom what you claim to have read...

It's becoming clear that's not all you can't fathom.

 

[OMGturt1es]

False

http://www.thehindu.com/news/intern...ake-of-my-presidency-obama/article8462178.ece

I cannot fathom what you claim to have read...

Just because in hindsight we can identify things we could have done better does not mean that the initial results weren't positive. And you know this. In fact, the initial results would have to be positive to support your previous narrative that Hillary was trying to selfishly capitalize on those initial results. That narrative can only paint Hillary in a bad light if she's trying to steal the thunder. Your views are not consistent-- aside from your adamant insistence that everything is Hillary's or Obama's fault.

The sad thing is that I've really read very little compared with the available literature. Yet it's exceedingly clear that I've read far, far more than the average person commenting on various articles or message boards. And that's just depressing. Regarding Hillary, aside from the never-ending smattering of articles from various daily/weekly/monthly publications, including everything from the New York Times to The Economist to Foreign Policy, I've read a small handful of books:

1. Alter Egos: This analyzes and contrasts Obama's and Hillary's views on foreign policy. It also describes the contents of some of Hillary's emails to better understand how the State Department worked during her time. One of the interesting take aways is that Hillary and Obama actually were able to work together quite effectively early on, while members of their teams were far more bitter toward one another. This isn't surprising regarding Hillary's team, given the intense loyalty that defines so-called "Hillary Land." But it was interesting that Obama's team felt equally hurt by Hillary. Another interesting take away is that Obama tended to listen to and appreciate Hilary's advice more and more over the course of her time as Secretary of State. I think this speaks well of Hillary's good qualities-- she's a voracious reader who works extremely hard to always be well prepared, knowledgeable, and thoughtful-- just as it speaks well of Obama, given his ability to consider and appreciate oppositional argument even where he was deeply idealistically skeptical. Obama deserves the same praise for this open mindedness that Bush deserves when he cast aside his economic ideals, listened to his economic advisers, and then worked diligently to build support for market intervention.

2. The Secretary: This book is written by a member of the traveling press corps who flew around the world with Secretary Clinton. It isn't quite as technical a study as Alter Egos is, but it is a more humanized read that better describes the intense pressure and overwhelmingly difficult challenges the State Department faced in foreign policy. It's also fascinating because the author was not born in the west and was brought up to believe a very much conspiratorial view of the world in which the west-- namely, the US-- controlled the puppet strings of the world and was ultimately responsible for many of the world's problems. This books is just as much about the author's intellectual journey as it is about Secretary Clinton. No matter, it strongly bolsters some of the themes noted in Alter Egos, especially Hillary's work ethic, desire to succeed, and voracious reading apatite.

3. A Woman in Charge: This is a biography of Hillary written by a well respected investigative journalist who hasn't exactly been kind to the Clintons over the years. I was sold after reading multiple comments from reviewers cautioning that neither Clinton lovers nor haters would like the book. Again, it paints a picture of Hillary that generally re-enforces what you can gather from Alter Egos and The Secretary. But it digs far deeper into Hillary's past, and, for me, offers much needed to context to understand Hillary's deep resentment of the GOP, beltway media, and electorate.

All of these are authored by non-partisan, investigative journalists. That's very important to me. I don't have time for hack jobs or hand jobs. And there's an awful lot of each concerning Hillary-- though there's clearly far more hack jobs.

I'd like to read more, but for now, I've moved on from Hillary as a general topic. I've been focusing on Trump instead.

ETA: I should add that when I started trying to learn more about Hillary, I held relatively strong anti-Hillary views. They aren't nearly as strong now. While I think she has serious flaws, it's clear she has some very strong qualities as well. And if I want to be honest, I have to admit that her strengths easily outweigh her flaws. And so that's my new opinion. I was wrong before. Oh well.

 

[The Big Dog]

your previous narrative that Hillary was trying to selfishly capitalize on those initial results.

My previous narrative? It wasn't my narrative, it was complete cretin Sid Blumenthal's idiotic narrative.

For someone who smugly talks about reading as much as you have in this thread, you are not doing a very close job of it here.

 

[Kestrel]

This should really be the thrust of the story. The weaponization of FOIA is deeply troubling and sadly widespread, impacting everyone from the Secretary of State to everyday scientists.

Such as the demands for the complete email records from any scientist that dares say global warming is real.

One of the nasty side effects is that it discourages working as a civil servant. At any moment some political hack might dig into every email message in your inbox and quote them out of context to make you look bad. Or drag you in front of a Congressional committee investigating a stupid *********** conspiracy theory one more time to keep the rabid base happy.

 

[OMGturt1es]

My previous narrative? It wasn't my narrative, it was complete cretin Sid Blumenthal's idiotic narrative.

Well no ****, dude. Obviously you didn't magically divine from thin air Hillary's desire to publish the Libyan approach as a new "Clinton Doctrine." Obviously you read it from somewhere else. Obviously, you didn't make it up. And obviously, I wasn't claiming that you did. You know that. I know that. Any poor lurkers punishing themselves by reading through your attempts at dishonest, cute, little "gotchas" know that. So just stop. It's not fooling anyone.

You posted it here. Smugly. Because you were convinced it revealed some horrible character flaw. You were convinced it showed Hillary scheming away to steal the thunder. That's why you posted it. And that's why it makes no sense for you to then claim that initial results were no good. You haven't taken the time to think two steps ahead of your reactionary Hillary-is-awful worldview to process its implications for internal consistency.

For someone who smugly talks about reading as much as you have in this thread, you are not doing a very close job of it here.

I read an entire three books, which I listed. That's not being smug. That's being the opposite. That's playing my cards honestly for the benefit of honest discussion, exposing the fact that I'm certainly no expert. If I wanted to feel smug, I'd certainly not openly discuss that I've only read three books on the subject.

So no, I don't feel smug. But I do feel terrified. I'm terrified that so many people hold such strong opinions on extremely complex topics that they've obviously spent even less time honestly assessing than I have. This entire election has been a painful reminder of just how ignorant and sensationalist we all are.

I certainly would not be justified in feeling smug over reading an entire three books. But you know what, at least I *********** try. And more importantly, continually trying to read honest assessments of complex issues, even as inadequate as my reading time may be, instills a far greater appreciation for complexity, honesty, and non-partisan assessment that is sorely lacking, even here in a skeptics forum.

 

[Bogative]

Governmental transparency is a good thing.

Not when it makes Democrats look bad.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Some guys at MIT built a network analysis tool out of the wikileaks Clinton/Podesta/DNC mail data. From ten minutes of playing with it I'm not really sure if it's practically useful, but there it is:

https://clinton.media.mit.edu/

 

[The Big Dog]

Well no ****, dude. Obviously you didn't magically divine from thin air Hillary's desire to publish the Libyan approach as a new "Clinton Doctrine." Obviously you read it from somewhere else. Obviously, you didn't make it up. And obviously, I wasn't claiming that you did. You know that. I know that. Any poor lurkers punishing themselves by reading through your attempts at dishonest, cute, little "gotchas" know that. So just stop. It's not fooling anyone.

You posted it here. Smugly. Because you were convinced it revealed some horrible character flaw. You were convinced it showed Hillary scheming away to steal the thunder. That's why you posted it. And that's why it makes no sense for you to then claim that initial results were no good. You haven't taken the time to think two steps ahead of your reactionary Hillary-is-awful worldview to process its implications for internal consistency.



I read an entire three books, which I listed. That's not being smug. That's being the opposite. That's playing my cards honestly for the benefit of honest discussion, exposing the fact that I'm certainly no expert. If I wanted to feel smug, I'd certainly not openly discuss that I've only read three books on the subject.

So no, I don't feel smug. But I do feel terrified. I'm terrified that so many people hold such strong opinions on extremely complex topics that they've obviously spent even less time honestly assessing than I have. This entire election has been a painful reminder of just how ignorant and sensationalist we all are.

I certainly would not be justified in feeling smug over reading an entire three books. But you know what, at least I *********** try. And more importantly, continually trying to read honest assessments of complex issues, even as inadequate as my reading time may be, instills a far greater appreciation for complexity, honesty, and non-partisan assessment that is sorely lacking, even here in a skeptics forum.

Curious, you called it "your narrative" and accused me of not being "consistent". And are now walking that back. Curious. Very curious....

If I were being smug, I would point out that those pop history biographies are utter garbage and that ones time would be better served reading source documents.

Like I have done.

Type more.

 

[OMGturt1es]

Curious, you called it "your narrative" and accused me of not being "consistent". And are now walking that back. Curious. Very curious....

You wrote: "But now they know the Hillary's friends were telling her to take credit for the 'victory' as it slid into anarchic abyss due to Iraq level post war bungling by Obama and Hillary."

It makes no sense to slag on Hilary for wanting to take credit for a disaster. If it's really a disaster and she wants credit, that's something that we generally would call "integrity." And if you don't believe she has integrity but you do believe she wanted credit, then there must have been some initially promising results. And there were. Which is why the Clinton team wanted to publish.

Of course, you claimed initial results were not positive. But by doing so, the text you already posted no longer makes sense. It's just that simple. Moreover, the source you cited did not indicate that there were no initial positive results. And finally, there were absolutely initial positive results as was widely reported at the time and well documented in the 2 of the 3 books I have read on the general topic.

If I were being smug, I would point out that those pop history biographies are utter garbage and that ones time would be better served reading source documents.

Like I have done.

Ok yeah whatever.

Type more.

You're a real peach, you know that?

 

[OMGturt1es]

Some guys at MIT built a network analysis tool out of the wikileaks Clinton/Podesta/DNC mail data. From ten minutes of playing with it I'm not really sure if it's practically useful, but there it is:

https://clinton.media.mit.edu/

That's actually pretty rad. I love data interfaces/visualizations like this. I agree it doesn't appear to be that useful-- at least for me. But it's awesome anyway. Thanks for the link.

 

[The Big Dog]

You wrote: "But now they know the Hillary's friends were telling her to take credit for the 'victory' as it slid into anarchic abyss due to Iraq level post war bungling by Obama and Hillary."

It makes no sense to slag on Hilary for wanting to take credit for a disaster. If it's really a disaster and she wants credit, that's something that we generally would call "integrity." And if you don't believe she has integrity but you do believe she wanted credit, then there must have been some initially promising results. And there were. Which is why the Clinton team wanted to publish.

Of course, you claimed initial results were not positive. But by doing so, the text you already posted no longer makes sense. It's just that simple. Moreover, the source you cited did not indicate that there were no initial positive results. And finally, there were absolutely initial positive results as was widely reported at the time and well documented in the 2 of the 3 books I have read on the general topic.



Ok yeah whatever.



You're a real peach, you know that?

You keep typing and you keep contradicting yourself.

2 of 3 books! Oh boy! Pop history is popular!

Thread is about her emails, start a new thread about your pop history books! I will read them all in about 45 minutes and tell you what they got wrong.

 

[shuize]

I'm hearing that Abedin may have forwarded sensitive information from her work computer to private Yahoo account even after being warned the Yahoo account may have been hacked.

But I'm sure all the all the people who have put their lives on the line to acquire and maintain our secrets will understand that trouble with her work printer really left her with no other option.

 

[plague311]

I'm hearing that Abedin may have forwarded sensitive information from her work computer to private Yahoo account even after being warned the Yahoo account may have been hacked.

But I'm sure all the all the people who have put their lives on the line to acquire and maintain our secrets will understand that trouble with her work printer really left her with no other option.

I like that, very Donald Trumpish. Using something you "heard" and the moving straight into sarcastic passive aggressiveness. Not a terribly effective argument, but you nailed it for sure.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I'm hearing that Abedin may have forwarded sensitive information from her work computer to private Yahoo account even after being warned the Yahoo account may have been hacked.

But I'm sure all the all the people who have put their lives on the line to acquire and maintain our secrets will understand that trouble with her work printer really left her with no other option.

Someone's been reading wing nut daily.

 

[wareyin]

Well, wikileaks has finally convinced me what a monster Clinton is!

"Secretary of the Demonic Underworld Hillary Clinton tries to help a 10-year-old Yemeni girl:

Do you recall Noon i Ali(?), the ten year. old Yemeni girl who got herself divorced? I met her at the Glamour awards last year. There was a CNN story last few days about how unhappy she is, still living at home, not attending school and quite angry that her life is not better. Is there any way we can help her? Could we get her to the US for counselling and education?"

"2016 “Mark of the Beast” recipient Hillary Clinton tries to get medical supplies to desperate doctors in earthquake-ravaged Haiti:

Mark, emergency room doc, is w Paul Farmer; Pier is his orthopedic surgeon wife. Is there any way to help asap? This should be the highest priority. Coulc one of the medical teams alreay there move over to help? Could Gen Keen or UN get the supplies and generators they need to them at first light?”

I mean, the spelling alone is just terrible!

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Pretty sure Catherine Herridge has been wrong on just about everything she has reported on this topic so far. See no reason to start believing her now.

Sure enough to provide a couple of examples?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...probe-expands-to-public-corruption-track.html
One intelligence source told Fox News that FBI agents would be “screaming” if a prosecution is not pursued because “many previous public corruption cases have been made and successfully prosecuted with much less evidence than what is emerging in this investigation.”
...
Fox News is told that about 100 special agents assigned to the investigations also were asked to sign non-disclosure agreements, with as many as 50 additional agents on “temporary duty assignment,” or TDY. The request to sign a new NDA could reflect that agents are handling the highly classified material in the emails, or serve as a reminder not to leak about the case, or both.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ifer-breached-clinton-server-it-was-easy.html
The infamous Romanian hacker known as “Guccifer,” speaking exclusively with Fox News, claimed he easily – and repeatedly – breached former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s personal email server in early 2013. ...
Cyber experts who spoke with Fox News said the process Lazar described is plausible. The federal indictment Lazar faces in the U.S. for cyber-crimes specifically alleges he used "a proxy server located in Russia" for the Blumenthal compromise.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...probe-expands-to-public-corruption-track.html
The FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of private email as secretary of state has expanded to look at whether the possible “intersection” of Clinton Foundation work and State Department business may have violated public corruption laws, three intelligence sources not authorized to speak on the record told Fox News.

ad nauseum...

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Fox news is at it again...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...ctment_likely_in_clinton_foundation_case.html

Bret Baier: FBI Sources Believe Clinton Foundation Case Moving Towards "Likely an Indictment"

Fox News Channel's Bret Baier reports the latest news about the Clinton Foundation investigation from two sources inside the FBI. He reveals five important new pieces of information in these two short clips:

1. The Clinton Foundation investigation is far more expansive than anybody has reported so far and has been going on for more than a year.

2. The laptops of Clinton aides Cherryl Mills and Heather Samuelson have not been destroyed, and agents are currently combing through them. The investigation has interviewed several people twice, and plans to interview some for a third time.

3. Agents have found emails believed to have originated on Hillary Clinton's secret server on Anthony Weiner's laptop. They say the emails are not duplicates and could potentially be classified in nature.

4. Sources within the FBI have told him that an indictment is "likely" in the case of pay-for-play at the Clinton Foundation, "barring some obstruction in some way" from the Justice Department.

5. FBI sources say with 99% accuracy that Hillary Clinton's server has been hacked by at least five foreign intelligence agencies, and that information had been taken from it.

ETA: even better, #5 appears to come from Lou Dobbs:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...st-5-foreign-services-hacked-hillarys-server/
Lou Dobbs: Investigators are now, as I said to you at the outset, 99% sure that as many as five foreign intelligence agencies were able to hack into the Clinton email server.