Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
"The Problem With Hillary Clinton’s Attack on Trump’s Foreign Policy Is… Hillary Clinton"
http://www.thenation.com/article/th...k-on-trumps-foreign-policy-ishillary-clinton/
...York Times reporter Mark Landler recounts in his recently released book Alter Egos: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and the Twilight Struggle Over American Power that on nearly every major foreign-policy decision that Clinton weighed in on during her time as the nation’s chief diplomat, she found herself to the right of the Pentagon.

A former aide recounts that Clinton “contributed to the overmilitarizing of the analysis” with regard to the president’s options in Afghanistan. Clinton initially backed Gen. Stanley McCrystal’s request to send 40,000 troops there and was among on coterie of advisers who forced President Obama’s hand in sending 30,000. Doing so resulted in, among other things, a wave of “green-on-blue” attacks on American service personnel by our alleged Afghan “allies.” Not surprisingly, twice as many US servicemen were killed in Afghanistan under Obama than under George W. Bush.

Seemingly heedless of the consequences, Clinton has repeatedly advocated for a “no-fly zone” over Syria and has said the United States should send lethal weapons to Ukraine. She exulted when she was informed of the gruesome rape-murder of Col. Muammar Qaddafi, uttering her now infamous, “We came, we saw, he died!”

Still worse, in the summer of 2010 she seemed positively eager to provoke a crisis with China, joining with then–Secretary of Defense Bob Gates in urging the president to divert an aircraft carrier to the Yellow Sea in response to a North Korean torpedo attack by a South Korean naval vessel. According to Landler, Clinton was undeterred by a warning from the Chinese not to divert the American carrier, and, quoting Vince Lombardi, exclaimed to her aides, “We’ve got to run it up the gut!” The president wisely demurred.

And then there is her continuing hawkishness with regard to Iran. Rather than use the Iran nuclear accord to demonstrate the power of diplomacy (even if it was her successor’s doing), Clinton instead uses the deal as a prop to show how resolute she is vis à vis Iran. She repeatedly vows to audiences that under her watch Iran will never obtain a nuclear weapon. Yet who exactly says they want one? Not the Iranians. As President Obama has been at pains to point out, Iran’s supreme leader has gone so far as to issue a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons. In San Diego she told the crowd that her preferred strategy in dealing with the Iranians is to “distrust but verify.” This is an inversion of Ronald Reagan’s famous pledge to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that he would “trust but verify” during arms-control negotiations. Is Clinton signaling she is ready to out-Reagan Reagan...?
Click to expand...

With a "progressive," like that who needs conservatives? Still looking for that third way route.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/07/u...lary-clinton-and-shred-donald-trump.html?_r=0

Obama Is Eager to Hit the Stump for Hillary Clinton and Shred Donald Trump

WASHINGTON — President Obama, after months of sitting on the sidelines of the rancorous contest to succeed him, is now ready to aggressively campaign for Hillary Clinton, starting with a formal endorsement of her candidacy as early as this week.

The White House is in active conversations with Mrs. Clinton’s campaign about how and where the president would be useful to her, according to senior aides to Mr. Obama.

Maybe ... Thursday ?
Click to expand...
Obama is way more likable than Trump and much smarter. And has won two presidential elections. Obama will without any doubt completely eviscerate Trump on Hillary's (and America's) behlaf.

I wouldn't be surprised if Obama manages to get Trump so angry that he calls him the n word.
 
Tony Stark said:
Obama is way more likable than Trump and much smarter. And has won two presidential elections. Obama will without any doubt completely eviscerate Trump on Hillary's (and America's) behlaf.

I wouldn't be surprised if Obama manages to get Trump so angry that he calls him the n word.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised if this enrages and motivates the conservative right base, in the same way that it likely won't motivate the progressive left base?
 
Trakar said:
If she can hold onto all of her Super-delegates and pledged delegates till they vote in late July, she will, unfortunately for the people of this nation (and much of the rest of the planet), be the Democratic candidate for President. Whether or not she manages to win in November.
Click to expand...

You can't be serious.
 
Trakar said:
I wouldn't be surprised if this enrages and motivates the conservative right base, in the same way that it likely won't motivate the progressive left base?
Click to expand...


Obama is very well liked by Democrats, genius, including Bernie supporters. And the idiot GOP base was highly enragered and motivated to vote in 2012 to get rid of the Muslim, atheist, Marxist, usurper who was destroying America. How did that work out for the GOP?
 
Last edited:
Loss Leader said:
And here I was thinking that they wouldn't call New Jersey until California closed at midnight. That's what I get for expecting class from whatever the news media is composed of today.
Click to expand...

Every man for himself. Gotta be first with the scoop.

There's a lot of mea culpa over the Trump fiasco, but it's hard to believe anyone running the news shows gives a rip. They are just turning it into a new story, 'why didn't we ask more questions?'
 
Last edited:
Trakar said:
I wouldn't be surprised if this enrages and motivates the conservative right base, in the same way that it likely won't motivate the progressive left base?
Click to expand...

The "There's a Reason They Call it the White House" crowd are already sufficiently motivated. Who else do you think they're going to fire up against a president who's better liked than the Orange Fungus.

Their boy is the anti-Mexican, anti-Muslim, still insinuates the POTUS is a Kenyan Mooslim guy. You think any of those people are on the fence?

Do you also think that other than you, a turned Republican, there are a large number of voters on the left who are going to not back the country's first black president in a pissing contest with that reprehensible cretin? Obama is a politician and a somewhat stoical one, but if you look at the '15 and '16 White House Correspondents' Dinner tapes, he shreds Trump. He pretty clearly doesn't like him. And he has the Trump Advantage. Every network is going to pick up an Obama speech and talk shows will be lining up to invite him on. REAL talk shows. Not the ones watched by the devoted 1/25th of the followers of the All Trump 24/7 Fox Channel.

And as to the delegate count... please, you're embarrassing yourself. Hillary doesn't have to hold onto five hundred superdelegates. She leads in "elected" delegates by almost three hundred and will likely pick up more than half of the delegates available in the next eight days.
Bernie will NOT be equal or ahead in non-super delegates.
Bernie will trail in the popular vote.
Do you really think he can sell four hundred supers on changing sides on popularity polls? The current national average says that Democrats prefer Clinton by double digits. "Oh, ignore those. Those are just party members. Let's take these other polls."

Any of your desperation scenarios could come true, but you've left out the all important, What If Elizabeth Warren Accidentally Does a Rain Dance and Shorts out the Electricity and Hillary is Electrocuted? There's as much chance of that happening as there is of the Attorney General, working for that Obama feller, indicting her, of five hundred superdelegates committing political suicide, or of the DNC collectively saying, "Ya know, that Bernie's a swell guy and hardly said anything bad about us; we should just give him the nomination."
 
So hypocritical, bitching about the superdelegates while at the same time pleading with them with a straight face to go against the majority vote.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
So hypocritical, bitching about the superdelegates while at the same time pleading with them with a straight face to go against the majority vote.
Click to expand...
It is nuts. Especially if he thinks there is even the tiniest possibility of it happening.

Can you imagine if Bernie won with voters and Hillary won the nomination anyway because of superdelegates? Bernie and his supporters would justifiably go ballistic.
 
Why Hillary Clinton Could Face Indictments

Under the Espionage Act, “gross negligence” is enough to prosecute, so intent isn’t needed when evaluating the harm done to national security from an unencrypted private server containing Top Secret emails. Simply claiming ignorance, or disinterest, or naiveté in using a private server isn’t enough to circumvent criminal indictments under the Espionage Act.

The fact that Hillary Clinton owned an unencrypted private server at her home, combined with the fact foreign nations (and Romanian hacker Guccifer) attempted to hack into her server, are other reasons indictments should be a genuine concern for all Hillary supporters.

Regarding the intelligence found on Clinton’s server, the SAP information was “born classified.” Thus, none of the born classified emails needed markings, or any clarification on the documents; Clinton should have known this intelligence needed to be stored within State Department servers.

The basis for imminent indictments rests upon the fact that neither the State Department, nor the president gave Clinton the authority to use a private server. Since this server contained Top Secret intelligence, and since these emails are born classified and immune to any retroactively classified defense of owning the server, Clinton faces legal consequences.

Read more:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/why-hillary-clinton-likel_b_10317324.html (June 6, 2016)
Click to expand...



Top Secret SAP information:

"The SAP—special access program—reference in particular is ringing Washington alarms. A SAP usually refers to a highly covert technology program, often weaponry. Knowledge of these programs is usually restricted to small groups of people on a need-to-know basis."

-- Hillary’s ‘Special Access’ Server (Wall Street Journal)

"Emails from Hillary Clinton’s home server contained information classified at a level meant to protect some of the most sensitive U.S. intelligence. Some of Clinton’s emails contained information classified Top Secret/SAP, a secrecy designation that includes some of the most closely held U.S. intelligence matters."

-- Hillary Clinton Emails Held Info Beyond Top Secret (NBC News)
​


Reference:
State Department Inspector General's report on the Clinton security breach
U.S. Code 18 Section 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
 
Slings and Arrows said:
Reference:
State Department Inspector General's report
Click to expand...
Secretary Powell has publicly stated that, during his tenure as Secretary, he “installed a laptop computer on a private line” and that he used the laptop to send emails via his personal email account to his “principal assistants, individual ambassadors, and foreign minister colleagues.” 11
Secretary Powell's representative advised the Department in 2015 that he did not retain those emails or make printed copies. 12 Secretary Powell has also publicly stated that he generally sent emails to his staff via their State Department email addresses but that he personally does not know whether the Department captured those emails on its servers
Click to expand...
Why aren't we hearing more about this???

One word - Hillary.
 
Fudbucker said:
It's ignored because it's not accurate. Clinton did not just go along with the crowd. She actively advocated toppling Ghaddifi. Obama was on the fence, and Clinton convinced him, unless the notoriously right-wing New York Times is just trying to smear Clinton:

"Mrs. Clinton was won over. Opposition leaders “said all the right things about supporting democracy and inclusivity and building Libyan institutions, providing some hope that we might be able to pull this off,” said Philip H. Gordon, one of her assistant secretaries. “They gave us what we wanted to hear. And you do want to believe.”

Her conviction would be critical in persuading Mr. Obama to join allies in bombing Colonel Qaddafi’s forces. In fact, Mr. Obama’s defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, would later say that in a “51-49” decision, it was Mrs. Clinton’s support that put the ambivalent president over the line."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-libya.html

Don't try and re-write history by implying Hillary had no hand in what happened. She was a vocal proponent of Libyan regime change.
Click to expand...

And yet you are the one that is rewriting it by blaming Hillary. Yes Hillary convinced Obama, but that was irrelevant to whether the West was going to intervene in Libya. The French were already on the ground, they had already started pushing to have a coalition and an resolution in the UN to allow them to start Airstrikes. Nicolas Sarkozy and David Cameron had things in motion in February, mostly via the French President but Cameron was publicly pushing from the end of February onward.

On the 1st of March the US senate voted to support a UN sanctioned no-fly zone, but the US still wasn't committed to providing aircraft for it.

On the 2nd the Canadian Government committed to joining any UK/French coalition to enforce the No-Fly zone.

On the 11th the UK publicly and come out that they would be involved and operating in Libya to enforce the no-fly zone as soon as the UN agreed to it.

On the 14th Obama sent Clinton to Paris to meet with the leader of the Libyan Rebels and Sarkozy. Both Sarkozy and then later Cameron pushed her to agree to support intervention pointing out that they had Arab leaders in agreement as well. In fact your only link states this in that she relayed to Obama and the cabinet what she had been told and that she was "surprise[d] that Arab leaders not only supported military action but, in some cases, were willing to participate. Mostly, though, she warned that the French and British would go ahead with airstrikes on their own, potentially requiring the United States to step in later if things went badly."

Sarkozy and Cameron also warned her that if the US failed to help, then it would potentially be damaging to NATO.

It was not until Clinton returned after this meeting on the 15th that the US Cabinet met and voted to be involved in the intervention.

Also from your own link....

Dennis B. Ross, then a senior Middle East expert at the National Security Council, said he remembered listening to her and thinking, “If she’s advocating, she’s advocating in what I would describe as a fairly clever way.”

He recalled her saying: “‘You don’t see what the mood is here, and how this has a kind of momentum of its own. And we will be left behind, and we’ll be less capable of shaping this.’”

Yes, so very "vocal" that even those in the room questioned if she was actually advocating for intervention.

On the 17th the UN passed the resolution to act.

Clinton was only instrumental in convincing the US Cabinet that they needed to support their allies in actions that were going to happen anyway, because if they didn't:

a) They'd likely have to get involved if things went wrong
b) It would give them a chance to actually determine what was done
and c) Because not doing so could harm their NATO alliances

Had the US not been involved, Libya still would have been attacked by the European, Canadian, and Arab Coalition forces. The US might have been drawn into it later than they were, but the end result would have been the same.

Your focusing entirely on the US's part and Clinton's minor actions in the entire things totally misses what really happened and who were really responsible for it all.
 
Slings and Arrows said:
Top Secret SAP information:

"The SAP—special access program—reference in particular is ringing Washington alarms. A SAP usually refers to a highly covert technology program, often weaponry. Knowledge of these programs is usually restricted to small groups of people on a need-to-know basis."

-- Hillary’s ‘Special Access’ Server (Wall Street Journal)

"Emails from Hillary Clinton’s home server contained information classified at a level meant to protect some of the most sensitive U.S. intelligence. Some of Clinton’s emails contained information classified Top Secret/SAP, a secrecy designation that includes some of the most closely held U.S. intelligence matters."

-- Hillary Clinton Emails Held Info Beyond Top Secret (NBC News)
​


Reference:
State Department Inspector General's report on the Clinton security breach
U.S. Code 18 Section 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
Click to expand...
HA Goodman is a fanatical Bernie supporter who has written many crazy articles this primary season.
 
Trakar said:
Roger Clinton arrested for DUI in California just TWO DAYS before sister-in-law Hillary hopes to clinch Democratic nomination with win in the state primary <snip>
Click to expand...
So what? How is Ms. Clinton in any way responsible for her brother-in-law's actions?
 
PhantomWolf said:
Your focusing entirely on the US's part and Clinton's minor actions in the entire things totally misses what really happened and who were really responsible for it all.
Click to expand...


Clinton's actions weren't minor all and last time I've checked, crooked Sarkotzy and crooked Camoron aren't running for POTUS, the race for which is the topic of this charming little subforum.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom