You may have guessed by now that I’m no fan of Hillary Clinton. But I really don’t think milking her FBI email scandal is the best argument against her. Bernie Sanders got his first major bump in the mainstream media by claiming that “Americans are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails” to Clinton at the first debate and I think he’s right—there are much bigger fish to fry. The FBI let Clinton off, saying she skirted rules. Look, very few of us know much if anything about legalese involving high level state department positions and what breach of protocol amounts to a broken law or laziness. So we certainly don’t know which offense deserves a reprimand, a slap on the wrist, a fine or prison time. Now I know that Sanders supporters were drooling over the thought of Hillary being carted off to jail and that spring boarding Bernie into the position of nominee, but this simply isn’t her biggest offense. Or the most clear cut. In my opinion, it’s like a republican to howl over something that isn’t that big of a deal when there are bigger ticket items she should be taken to task for. Clinton’s critics from the left are horrified about the direction she is taking the party into over decades. Like her and her husband’s move toward the federal government allying with big business to do their bidding and not ours. With a democrat now representing war and Wall Street, many lifelong can’t even recognize our own party with Hillary at it’s helm.
Hillary fans will determine that this FBI recommendation vindicates their candidate of choice. But even in victory, Clinton is shrouded in doubt by her the continued misconduct of her and her camp–the FBI’s recommendation will now go to Loretta Lynch, who just rendezvoused at a “chance” meeting with Clinton’s husband on a tarmac in Phoenix. I don’t private plane-hop much, but the likelihood of this seems very bizarre—especially when Lynch is later forced to joke about how inappropriate the encounter was and say she wished she’d known where the lock was on her plane to keep Bill out. And then after meeting with the former president, Loretta now claims that she’s going to abide by the FBI’s recommendation. Why? Because she wasn’t going to before? Did Lynch attend the Dr. Seuss School Of Law, because this makes no sense to me at all.
And of course, this whole thing proves that Hillary lies all the time. We didn’t need an FBI ruling to know that. But she lied about sending emails which were classified from her home-brew server. Whether you like her or not, it’s another lie. She sent at least 113 classified emails inappropriately. She also claimed that she used the home-brew server for convenience so she could mainly use one device. Not true. Again, I don’t know the proper protocol, but when you are under suspicion and asked to deliver all of your emails, you don’t delete a bunch of them unless they are damning. So even in “victory”, Clinton remains scandal-ridden, seems to feel she can lie under oath, ignore the rules and still suffer no consequences.
Besides her dishonesty, having the FBI director calling you “extremely careless” is a poor recommendation for a candidate for the country’s highest office who’s campaigning on her alleged capability and steady hand. We know she wants to contrast herself with loudmouthed fool Donald Trump, but the fact is that “extremely reckless” is exactly what Hillary is accusing Trump of. She doesn’t want Trump having access to power because this careless madman might control the nuclear switch. So how reassured can I be that Hillary, a known hawk, is going to be any better if she ignores rules which keep state secrets safe? “Extremely reckless” does not synch with her campaign’s image of her being steady-handed or capable. She’s capable, all right. But capable of what? I’m not paying her so she’s not working for my interests.
I think it is worth mentioning that this current email scandal is in no way the result of a decades-long GOP smear campaign agains Hillary. Her carelessness brought this on herself. I never bring up Bill and Hillary’s old scandals-why bother with hard-to-prove stuff when she has a rotten track record which is on the record.
There’s another episode over which Hillary supporters feel relieved, and that’s the recent completion of the Benghazi scandal investigation. Republicans made fools out of themselves in that 11 hour hearing in which they grilled Clinton ad nauseum over who was sent what and when. Hillary came out looking forceful, collected and yes, presidential. But everyone is missing the real scandal here. Why were we in Libya to begin with? Because as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton saw it as her role to topple Libya’s leader for “humanitarian” reasons. He was a “bad man” like Saddam Hussein who Hillary voted as senator to overthrow in Iraq. She’s apologized for her bad judgement on that vote. So 10 years after it, she makes the same mistake and guns for regime change? She’s learned nothing from Iraq! So much for experience. She repeats her same mistakes.
The White House has claimed that Obama was 49% against overthrowing Qaddafi and 51% against it. Defense Secretary Bob Gates advised against the attack, but Hillary pressed it as necessary. Can you tell me when you ever have someone who craves war even more than the military chiefs? They always want war, but not as desperately as Hillary. Fast forward to now. Libya has become a hotbed for Isis just as Iraq has. We’ve now sent troops in to clean up Hillary’s mess. Obama has claimed that toppling Libya, Hillary’s foreign policy baby, was the biggest regret of his presidency. So the president whose legacy Hillary is trying to coast on is embarrassed by what Hillary did as his Secretary Of State? Hmmm.
Libya received next to no mainstream media attention. But before you claim that I’m wearing my tinfoil hat, let’s take a peak at an article in which the NY Times broke down the blow-by-blow machinations of the attack on Libya and interviewed key players. The NY Times has endorsed Clinton, yet even they find fault with what she did when she had access to power. It’s long, but I urge everyone to familiarize themselves with this little-covered event before you think of restoring Hillary to a place in our government.They do not paint a picture of someone capable or qualified for anything except using our tax dollars for more mass murder—I mean regime change. That sounds nicer, doesn’t it? Would the FBI’s James Comey view Hillary’s role in Libya as “extremely reckless”? I would, as even a paper which endorses her seems to.
But you please check these excerpts out and see what you think. Does Libya prove, like her “extremely reckless” personal email server, that Hillary is not capable, careful or even in possession of good judgement? Please note that Clinton ally Sidney Blumenthal urged Clinton to capitalize on the Libya “success.” Do a little more digging and you’ll find that Blumenthal stood to profit from the fall of Qaddafi. Doesn’t that remind you of that chilling video of Clinton claiming in 2011 that we must now “start thinking of Iraq as a business opportunity”? In other words, there is strong evidence that Hillary does not even believe that she’s engaging in humanitarian rescues for the people of Iraq or Libya. This soulless monster is motivated by profit—not some antiquated notion that the USA can help the world with it’s “humanitarian” bombs. Sending American troops to die in a desert so that her friends, allies and Clinton Foundation cronies can profit. This is what passes for foreign policy in a Clinton-run state department. Lovers of peace and justice do not need to cry over the the protocol of how some emails were sent or the republican’s Benghazi scandal when Hillary’s own record in office is the most damning thing about her.
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.
The consequences would be more far-reaching than anyone imagined, leaving Libya a failed state and a terrorist haven, a place where the direst answers to Mrs. Clinton’s questions have come to pass.
This is the story of how a woman whose Senate vote for the Iraq war may have doomed her first presidential campaign nonetheless doubled down and pushed for military action in another Muslim country. As she once again seeks the White House, campaigning in part on her experience as the nation’s chief diplomat, an examination of the intervention she championed shows her at what was arguably her moment of greatest influence as secretary of state. It is a working portrait rich with evidence of what kind of president she might be, and especially of her expansive approach to the signal foreign-policy conundrum of today: whether, when and how the United States should wield its military power in Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East.
Was the mistake the decision to intervene in the first place, or the mission creep from protecting civilians to ousting a dictator, or the failure to send a peacekeeping force in the aftermath?
Mrs. Clinton declined to be interviewed. But in public, she has said it is “too soon to tell” how things will turn out in Libya and has called for a more interventionist approach in Syria.
Libya’s descent into chaos began with a rushed decision to go to war, made in what one top official called a “shadow of uncertainty” as to Colonel Qaddafi’s intentions. The mission inexorably evolved even as Mrs. Clinton foresaw some of the hazards of toppling another Middle Eastern strongman.
“I think at one point I said, ‘Can I finish the two wars I’m already in before you guys go looking for a third one?’” Mr. Gates recalled. Colonel Qaddafi, he said, “was not a threat to us anywhere. He was a threat to his own people, and that was about it.”
About the time the air campaign began, Charles R. Kubic, a retired rear admiral, received a message from a senior Libyan military officer proposing military-to-military negotiations for a 72-hour cease-fire, potentially leading to an arranged exit for Colonel Qaddafi and his family.
But after he approached the American military command for Africa, Admiral Kubic said, he was directed to end the talks. The orders, he was told, had come from “outside the Pentagon,” though aides to both Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton said the offer had never made it to their level. He was baffled by the lack of interest in exploring an option he thought might lead to a less bloody transition.
“The question that stays with me is, why didn’t you spend 72 hours giving peace a chance?” he said.