cawacko
Well-known member
Saw the speech referred to as Rubio minus Iran. I read liberal responses to Rubio's debate policies which were not favorable. I guess it's not the policy but the person saying it that matters.
Bizarre rants, personal feuds, and outright lies!
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
Saw the speech referred to as Rubio minus Iran. I read liberal responses to Rubio's debate policies which were not favorable. I guess it's not the policy but the person saying it that matters.
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
It's a good point, and Trump is already hitting her back on her foreign policy record. It's really not good. Add to that her vote for the Iraq War.
Still, I think she's probably doing the right thing if she wants to get elected. She saw what happened in the GOP primaries. Every candidate in that race let Trump take the offensive, and one by one, they all took it seriously only after Trump had defined them and ruined their chances.
That's like blaming GWB because the Twin Towers were destroyed under his watch.
Both Rubio and Clinton are smart. Both understand realpolitik and the players involved.
But they cannot separate out interventionism from power projection (Fiorina was almost as bad).
Clinton has a resume' but extremely shitty judgement.
Obama is the opposite..he can't understand the US has a role to LEAD ,but not to INTERFERE ( although he finally got it on ISIS).
And then he looks for a breakthrough wit Iran, when Iran want nothing to do wit the US - and winds up alienating the Sunni states.
"this stuff isn't hard..think middle way.
Think soft power and hard power = American exceptionalism (before the neocons screwed that up)
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
the attack itself isn't what was being questioned with Clinton though, it was the response and the reasoning. I don't remember much of september 11th and Bush's presidency so I can't really talk about that to be honest.
Legion Troll
A fine upstanding poster
Which bar are you infesting, Counselor? I may join you.
So, what you read is simply Right Wing lies, she never blamed a video. A grieving family did say that she lied to them, but a single source that is particularly angary is not in my opinion worthy of judging HRC's entire foreign affairs policy.
Who referred to it as Rubio minus Iran?
Do you agree with that analysis? How was it like Rubio minus Iran?
she did lean on "the video did it" -but the question is where did that come from. Susan rice did the same.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Please keep repeating that; because every time it's uttered, his popularity seems to climb.
Now you have changed your claim to "she leaned on it". However even that is FALSE. You should really read up on your right wing claims, an honest person can see they are mostly false.
The same thing is happening on the campaign trail, too, as Donald Trump’s over-the-top aggression paves the way for uber-hawk Hillary Clinton to pretend she’s the reasonable foreign policy choice.
Of course, Trump sometimes hits the right notes on foreign policy. As Rare’s Jack Hunter points out, Trump has challenged foreign policy orthodoxy in several valuable ways.
Unfortunately, he doesn’t stop there. In fact, the bulk of Trump’s foreign policy is beyond the pale, straying into territory where even the most unrepentant neocons (well, perhaps excepting Tom Cotton) fear to tread.
As Jack summarizes, “Every shrewd criticism out of Trump mouths is accompanied by an avalanche of horrible, undesirable and morally indefensible positions.”
The upshot of this is a yuuuuge boon to one Hillary Clinton.
You see, Clinton—as Trump himself has rightly observed—has an appalling foreign policy record, hawkish and reckless at every turn. She has actually done a lot of the terrible things Donald Trump wants to do.
But with the cover of Trump’s endlessly aggressive rhetoric, Clinton, like Obama, is able to pass herself off as a foreign policy moderate.
And don’t imagine she’s unaware of this incredible advantage. Here’s a piece from the Washington Post this morning which offers a preview of what the general election debates in a Trump vs. Clinton race will be like:
In an election where Clinton should (and, perhaps were she running against another candidate, would) be getting skewered day and night for her support for the invasion of Iraq and orchestration of the intervention in Libya, she will be applauded for offering voters an option of supposed restraint.
That’s a serious tragedy for the American foreign policy conversation.
As Trump has said, Clinton “talks about me being dangerous [but] she’s killed hundreds of thousands of people with her stupidity.” True enough—but in the face of rhetoric like Trump’s, Clinton will be able to easily—though falsely—play the voice of reason.
http://rare.us/story/how-donald-trumps-foreign-policy-lets-hillary-clinton-pretend-to-be-reasonable/
Of course, Trump sometimes hits the right notes on foreign policy. As Rare’s Jack Hunter points out, Trump has challenged foreign policy orthodoxy in several valuable ways.
Unfortunately, he doesn’t stop there. In fact, the bulk of Trump’s foreign policy is beyond the pale, straying into territory where even the most unrepentant neocons (well, perhaps excepting Tom Cotton) fear to tread.
As Jack summarizes, “Every shrewd criticism out of Trump mouths is accompanied by an avalanche of horrible, undesirable and morally indefensible positions.”
The upshot of this is a yuuuuge boon to one Hillary Clinton.
You see, Clinton—as Trump himself has rightly observed—has an appalling foreign policy record, hawkish and reckless at every turn. She has actually done a lot of the terrible things Donald Trump wants to do.
But with the cover of Trump’s endlessly aggressive rhetoric, Clinton, like Obama, is able to pass herself off as a foreign policy moderate.
And don’t imagine she’s unaware of this incredible advantage. Here’s a piece from the Washington Post this morning which offers a preview of what the general election debates in a Trump vs. Clinton race will be like:
“Clinton will rebuke the fear, bigotry and misplaced defeatism that Trump has been selling to the American people,” an aide said. “She will make the affirmative case for the exceptional role America has played and must continue to play in order to keep our country safe and our economy growing.” […]
In an election where Clinton should (and, perhaps were she running against another candidate, would) be getting skewered day and night for her support for the invasion of Iraq and orchestration of the intervention in Libya, she will be applauded for offering voters an option of supposed restraint.
That’s a serious tragedy for the American foreign policy conversation.
As Trump has said, Clinton “talks about me being dangerous [but] she’s killed hundreds of thousands of people with her stupidity.” True enough—but in the face of rhetoric like Trump’s, Clinton will be able to easily—though falsely—play the voice of reason.
http://rare.us/story/how-donald-trumps-foreign-policy-lets-hillary-clinton-pretend-to-be-reasonable/
she leaned on the "video did it" for Bengazi-she was active advocate and architect for Libyan war 2011 - do you see the difference?
She talks of two separate things, the attacks on Benghazi and separately the video.
You have absolutely NOTHING to support the lean on the video claim. You first said she blamed the video, when I am not around are you going back to that one?
Last edited:
I don't even engage people on Benghazi anymore, it is ridiculous, no one ever comments on how sleazy Gowdy and his committee were, how they redacted documents and lied. It was more investigated than 9/11 or the lies of the Iraq war. Republican's are so corrupt, they make the Democrats look like Boy/Girl Scouts!
It looks very much to me -reads that she is talking about "embassys around the world" and conflating that to Bengazi.
She surely is not saying terrorist attack -when we knew it was..
Regardless; I agree that issue is so muddled up with Republican partisanship, and so dense with testimony it can go different ways.
The thing is if we had not overthrown Qaddafi - there would have been no Bengazi. Qadaffi warned us not to do it:
He said:
Gaddafi’s warning went unheeded, and NATO, led by the U.S. and France, launched an air war that toppled Libya’s government.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who had done more than any single person to advance the Libya War , was informed of Gaddafi’s death while on camera. Fancying herself a modern Caesar, she chortled, “We came, we saw, he died!”
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-16/after-me-jihad-gaddafi-tried-warn-west-nobody-listened
++
Do you ( and assorted Democrats) get this? There are numerous sources out there that confirm that Clinton
was the lead player for the Libyan war. By deposing Qaddafi we allowed ISIS, and Ansar-al Sharia (etc.) to flourish
-where beforehand Qaddafi and the CIA with the SAS went after them.
.
East Africa (Bengazi) was an especially notorious hotbed -it's where the NTC came from!!
Bengazi is a bit part either way.
Libya is now part of a global nexus from Syria thru the Sinai, to AQIM in the west Africa, including Boko Harem.
Clinton's hands are bloody with the Libya people
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
got anything to back that up, Counselor?.....
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
did she promise to do a better job than she did when she was Secretary of State?......did she explain why she fucked things up so badly then?......