I can't help but be amazed every time I hear a Clinton supporter brag about HRC having been Secretary of State for the Obama Administration from 2009 to 2013. No doubt, Hillary was awarded the position because of her efforts to campaign and raise money for Obama following his trouncing of her in the 2008 Democratic Primary. The Democrats formulated this plan for Hillary to "muscle-up" her foreign policy gravitas as Secretary of State, in order to be a much more attractive candidate for the Presidency in 2016. It hasn't turned out exactly as planned. Hillary Clinton was the worst Secretary of State our nation has witnessed. I welcome the opportunity to debate this point with anyone, mostly because the evidence for my claim is knee-deep. But the Democrats continue to talk about Hillary's great tenure at the State Department, as if by repeating the lie, it will somehow become the truth. Lets start from the beginning.
Hillary Clinton announced her intention to rebuild our relationship with Russia. During her initial meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, she brought along a prop: a board with a red button attached. This pantomime was intended to illustrate " a re-setting" in the relationship. Not long afterwards, Hillary spearheaded negotiations on the New Start Treaty (NST). The NST had as its goal a reduction in nuclear arms for both the United States and Russia. Under the terms of the treaty, the number of nuclear missile launchers was to be reduced by half, and a new inspection and verification regime was to be established. In reality, the treaty resulted in a significant reduction in America's nuclear weapon capacity, but didn't impact Russia's. Russia continues to maintain a 10-to-1 advantage in tactical nuclear weapons, which for some reason, are not counted in the treaty! Its the type of agreement that the Obama Administration just can't stay away from- the United States gives up the store in exchange for NOTHING. This treaty has HRC's fingerprints all over it. For some time she spoke of the signing of the treaty as "a moment of personal pride". Interestingly, we never hear about the treaty anymore. I don't think it was mentioned at all in the Democratic National Convention. I'm very disappointed that the Trump campaign hasn't brought it up, but with so much already to pick at, I guess I understand.
Let's get the Foundation out of the way. Hillary Clinton assured the Obama Administration that there would be no crossover between her husband former President Bill Clinton's billion-dollar Foundation, and the United States State Department. Obama could have taken that assurance and flushed it down the toilet. Members of HRC's personal staff continued to do work for the Foundation while collecting a State Department paycheck (Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills), and fifty-five percent of persons who obtained a personal interview with Secretary Clinton, turned around and donated to the Foundation. Evidence already exists that Hillary went to bat for some of these donors. Its called "Influence Peddling" and its supposed to be against the law. By the way, is anyone actually aware of something tangible that has been accomplished by this Foundation, aside from providing lucrative jobs to members of the extended Clinton network?
At about the same time that President Obama was speaking in Cairo and apologizing for U.S. behavior in the Middle East, a serious storm was brewing. Our intelligence agencies were reporting on alarming developments in some of the normally stable Arab countries like Tunisia and Egypt. Young people were joining political groups and protesting in the streets, demanding change. As this movement grew, it became known as the Arab Spring. This event took form and exploded while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. The government of Tunisia, a key ally in the war on Terror, was removed from office as we watched on CNN and Fox News. Egypt was next, as huge crowds of people from all segments of the population, demanded a more equitable system under which to live. It was an ideal opportunity for the United States to position itself as a supporter of change, which would have accomplished a lot more than Obama's apology tour. Instead, our diplomats were constantly caught wrong-footed. Instead of being proactionary, our State Department was forced to be reactionary. The Administration pointed out that it was caught off-guard; why, when the intelligence was pouring in that these events were destined to occur?
In 2010, with the full support of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Obama Administration precipitously evacuated American troops from Iraq. The Department of Defense had an agreement in place with the Iraqi government to train the Iraqi Armed Forces. This agreement meant nothing to the Oval Office. These events were observed by ISIS, which had positioned itself in Syria and reconstituted its ability to conduct conventional warfare. As soon as our troops started departing, ISIS invaded. The untrained Iraqi Army was no match on the battlefield to the ISIS fighters, who cut their teeth in the Syrian Civil War. Soon, all of the gains that had been earned with the lives of so many young U.S. men and women, disappeared. Our influence in this strategic part of the world also waned, as the Iranians moved into the void, providing advisors and volunteers to fight alongside the Iraqi Army. Why was it necessary to pull out of Iraq so quickly in 2010, when it wasn't in 2009? Because of politics, folks. The Obama Administration needed to shore up its base before mid-term elections, and the base was pissed off because Obama had yet to fulfill his campaign promise to pull troops out of Iraq. Secretary of State Clinton should have had the foresight to advice Obama to act a bit more patiently, but she didn't. ISIS now controls almost one-third of Iraq.
What occured in Benghazi was a tragedy. The State Department, trying to make up for lost time, was putting its diplomats in dangerous locations in order to stay on top of an evolving environment. Ambassador Christopher Stephens, who was our diplomatic representative to whatever Libyan government was in power from week-to-week, did not have adequate security, and once everything went to hell, the greatest military in the world was unable to rescue its people or provide reinforcements. There appears to have been some concern on behalf of the State Department regarding the necessity to not offend the Libyans. Is it true that the Obama Administration waited for "permission" to rescue its people? We will probably never know the truth regarding the events of that night, but one fact is certain: four brave Americans died. Hillary Clinton repeatedly publicly accepted responsibility for what occured, then spent the next few months explaining how everything was someone else's fault. We would have been satisfied with something like this: "Four brave Americans died last night in a terrorist attack on a State Department facility in Benghazi, Libya. I accept full responsibility for the tragic loss of these young men, and I ask you, as we mourn with and support the families of those who were lost, to work with us to make sure something like this never happens again". Sadly, instead it was all about finger-pointing about anti-Muslim video tapes and politics, politics, politics.
Aside from the whoppers that I've just detailed, I have yet to hear the Clinton camp explain to us just what she did accomplish as Secretary of State? Get back to me of you come up with something.
No comments:
Post a Comment