Last Thursday night, as I listened to Hillary Clinton's well-crafted and beautifully delivered acceptance speech, I couldn't help but consider the number of inspiring speeches that are born every four years during national convention week. Honestly, this year I didn't listen with much conviction to either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump's speech. Unlike so many these days, I don't look to political speeches to influence or entertain. From the number of Hollywood celebrities that were paraded across the stage, one can assume that the Democrats believe that voters can be influenced by entertainers. You can add that to the list of differences I have with Democrats; I don't give a rats ass how my favorite performers are going to vote.
During the evening, Clinton focused on the usual crowd-pleasing issues of her base. We heard about discrimination, inequality and the poor. You would think that as long as the Democrats had been around (and in power), they would have resolved some of these issues. No doubt the trouble has to do with the evil Republicans, whose interests are to discriminate against anyone who isn't white and male, and to make the poor even poorer. Not much new ground here. But Hillary Clinton did discuss the serious issue of terrorism, and the importance of strong national security. She acknowledged that the world has become a very dangerous place, which is ironic, given that the Obama Administration and Secretary of State Clinton are responsible in part for the mess we find ourselves in.
In 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton helped put together the New Start Missile Reduction Treaty with Vladimir Putin an Russia. If you google "New Start Treaty", you will find the usual dry but useful Wikipedia entry, and you will also find a decent number of commentaries on the Treaty. Not suprisingly, the folks on the right think its a disaster and the ones on the left couldn't be happier. In order to truly measure the positive versus the negative, its necessary to view the Treaty and its ramifications from a 2016 perspective. Most people seem to have come to the realization that Vladimir Putin is a snake and can't be trusted. The Obama Administration can argue that in 2010, he didn't seem to be such a bad guy. Don't fall for this line. The State Department and the Obama Administration was well aware with what and whom they were negotiating. Since Putin has become the Big Man on Campus in Russia, he has yet to direct his government to abide by any existing treaty. Sure, there are treaties in which the disagreements have been anticipated and par for the course, but there is no way that the Obama Administration can argue that Russia deserved to be trusted with our national security. Basically, the New Start Treaty did away with our last remaining Ballistic deterent, and what did we receive in return? The same NOTHING that we negotiated for with last year's Iranian Nuclear agreement. The treaty has been couched to look like an agreement between Europe and Iran, but with Secretary of State John Kerry practically sitting in the laps of the negotiators, there can be no denying the fact that our fingerprints are all over this monumentally dangerous pact.
During the 2008 election, then-candidate Barack Obama announced that once he took office, he would bring U.S. troops home from Iraq. At first, it appeared that possibly common sense had caused Obama to change his mind, but once the 2010 midterm elections looked in jeopardy, and it was time to shore up the leftist base, ordered the evacuation of U.S. troops to begin, and to continue without delay. There was a problem; we had an agreement with the Iraqi government that called for the U.S. military to train all branches of the Iraqi Security Forces. The Pentagon was very concerned with the growing level of violence in bordering Syria, which was complicated by the presence of a former Iraqi insurgency/terrorist group which had started calling itself "ISIS" (formerly "Al-Qaida of the Two Rivers" and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi). Once U.S. personnel started to leave Iraq in droves, ISIS decided to return. The reasoned correctly that the recently reconstituted Iraqi Security Forces would be in no condition to defeat even a much smaller, battle-hardened ISIS conventional force. During the first major encounter outside Tikrit, the Iraqi troops abandoned their equipment and deserted the battlefield without firing a shot; ISIS was able to add the latest U.S. weaponry and ammunition to its arsenal. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave full support to President Obama's decision to abandon Iraq, which left it open to invasion from the same scum that were responsible for the death of thousands of young American men and women in uniform.
What has been discussed above is just a sample of the events that took place when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. She also presided over the State Department when the Arab Spring took us by complete surprise. The year before the Arab Spring (up to two years after) are an example of complete and utter failure on behalf the diplomatic arm of the greatest nation on Earth. You will find the Benghazi incident included in this time period. We repeatedly saw Secretary Clinton accepting full responsiblity for the terrible performance of her State Department, and then going into great detail to explain how it really was SOMEONE ELSE'S responsibility. I can assure you, I would have no problem defending my belief that Hillary was the worst Secretary of State of my lifetime. She likes to brag about her foreign policy experience; I'm waiting for someone from the left to explain to me what it is that she has accomplished which merits "bragging" (my quotations).
During her speech, Clinton also heaped praise on President Obama for all the positive initiatives that he introduced, which saved our nation from economic collapse. We will examine this brave statement, amongst others, later in the week.
No comments:
Post a Comment