Hillary Clinton was the worst Secretary of State in the history of our Republic.

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.

What this election needs is an honest assessment of candidate Hillary Clinton's Foreign Policy record.

Since Donald Trump trounced his GOP primary opposition and became the apparent Republican nominee for President, the media has not missed an opportunity to point out that Trump has no foreign policy record or experience to gauge.  No doubt Trump's grasp on foreign policy will be challenged often on the campaign trail by both his opponent and the press, and this is as it should be; the voter deserves to see both candidates undergo a thorough vetting process not just in foreign policy, but in a handful of tremendously important subjects.  With very little journalistic effort and probably no homework, the media has already decided that the issue of foreign policy and international diplomatic experience is a huge winner for Hillary Clinton, who served for twelve years as a United States Senator and four years as Secretary of State.  Let's take a look at candidate Clinton's foreign policy record during her years as a Civil Servant and see if we agree.

Hillary Clinton served in the United States Senate from January 2, 2001 until January 21, 2009.  During this time period, Senator Clinton took a number of international trips as part of her job, but no legislation was introduced or supported by Senator Clinton that has left a profound "foreign policy" impact.  Being a well-known personality and a leader in her party, Senator Clinton did not hesitate to comment on foreign policy issues, saving her most critical comments for the George W. Bush Administration.  You may recall that when the Bush Administration requested Congressional Approval for military action against Iraq, Democrat Senators and Representatives were put on the spot.  September 11 was still fresh on the mind of Americans, and politicians did everything possible to avoid the reputation of being "soft on terrorism".  This political reality explains why so many Democrats, Hillary Clinton being one of the most prominent, voted in support of the Bush Administration's efforts vis-à-vis Iraq.  Bernie Sanders and Barack Obama in 2008 were wrong to criticize Senator Clinton regarding her vote.  Hillary made it very clear that although she wanted to support the right of the president to take certain actions when necessary, she did not support the Bush Administration's intention to go to war with Iraq.  Clinton did not "flip-flop" on this issue.  Like many Democrats, she did what she thought was best in order to support the office of the presidency and at the same time prosecute the war on terror.

An examination of Hillary Clinton's record during her time as Secretary of State in the Obama Administration will serve as a much more useful tool in measuring Clinton's effectiveness as Secretary of State, and understanding how her political philosophy influenced her actions.  In campaign commercials that Clinton is already running, she takes credit for her efforts to help write and promote 2010's New Start Missile Reduction Treaty with Russia.  Mark my words- The Clinton Campaign will misrepresent the facts involving this Treaty, because the reality has the potential to damage the image being portrayed by Democrats and the Media of a shrewd, tough negotiator who faced down Russian President Vladimir Putin.  This false scenario is so off the mark that it is disturbing, although existing treaties with Russia were due to expire and there was an expectation for the Obama Administration to address the issue.  The New Start Treaty was signed by President Barack Obama and Russian Federation President Dmitry Medvedev on 8 April 2010, with the intention of further reduction and limitation of strategic offensive weapons.

The first real problem with the New Start Treaty is that it was signed by Russian Federation President and Vladimir Putin figurehead Dmitry Medvedev.  This particular Russian government has no intention of following through with its obligations, regardless of all the hand-shaking and smiles.  This sad fact was known to the Obama Administration, but it didn't matter; what was important was the treaty's political benefits, not the feasibility of its verification protocols.  Now I have the unenviable task of explaining the flaws of the New Start Treaty without putting you to sleep.  The reality is, this treaty will result in broad reductions of U.S. Ballistic Missiles because we follow through on our negotiated obligations.  The Russians will not.  It makes no sense to go through each and every flaw (the Heritage Foundation identifies twelve major flaws) because we can assume from the beginning that Russia will cheat at every opportunity.  If you need a dose of clear and brutal evidence, just review the diplomatic history of the current Ukrainian conflict.

The Clinton Campaign has identified the New Start Treaty as a diplomatic achievement important enough to make the voter brush aside all the failures of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's  Department of State.  We will be discussing some of these failures in the next blog posting, including the Clinton State Department's crippling habit of being reactive as opposed to proactive.  Diplomacy is a multi-faceted tool which has the fruits of espionage as one of its resources.  In addition, our cadre of well-trained diplomats are expected to create new relationships and build upon existing partnerships.  These are but a few of the resources that the State Department has at its disposal, to allow for a consistent pattern of proactivity on the international stage.  When the Arab Spring arrived with the force of a mid-summer Saharan sandstorm, our embassies in Tunis, Cairo, and other Arab capitals appeared to be taken by surprise, as was our Secretary of State.  From the genesis of this fascinating political and cultural event, the United States was always one or two steps behind.  I credit our career diplomatic corps at Foggy Bottom (State Department) for keeping many of our assets out of harm's way, but the entire mess leaves one to ponder, where was Secretary of State Clinton when the Arab Spring broke?