Hillary Clinton’s War Record and Why It Matters

About SouthernGirl2

A Native Texan who adores baby kittens, loves horses, rodeos, pomegranates, & collect Eagles. Enjoys politics, games shows, & dancing to all types of music. Loves discussing and learning about different cultures. A Phi Theta Kappa lifetime member with a passion for Social & Civil Justice.
This entry was posted in 2016 Elections, Current Events, Foreign policy, News, Open Thread, Politics and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to Hillary Clinton’s War Record and Why It Matters

  1. Why are they talking about this? Do they know something or it’s just click bait?


  2. Ametia says:

    NO Hillary Clinton nor her MINIONS have the MORAL GROUND to ask Bernie Sanders to get out fo the race.


    Lt the people VOTE!

    • Ametia says:

      UH UH UH

    • Liza says:

      Good Lord. If this woman were to become president, how long do you figure it would be before she committed an impeachable offense?

      • eliihass says:

        But it will all be down to ‘sexism and misogyny’ don’t you know…

        It will never be her fault…her poor judgement, her vulgar sense of entitlement, arrogant circumventing of the rules, brazen obfuscation of the truth..and her outright lies…

        It will once again be declared a ‘witch-hunt’, with loud protestations of ‘sexism and misogyny’ ….

        Which curiously only become a thing again, and words du jour – not when the black unelected wife of the President is endlessly and viciously maligned and dehumanized for no cause other than the color of her skin…but even before and any time Hillary Clinton an entrenched establishment politician and presidential candidate seeking the highest office of the land, is asked even the slightest question about anything…

    • eliihass says:

      We’ll see SG…She’s got too many folks – some cowardly – dancing the jig around and with her…

      She’s the neo-con’s only and preferred candidate since Jeb! the other prize horse fizzled out – and prematurely trotted out understudy Marco couldn’t cut it – and the other long-shot back-up: so fake and ramblingly ridiculous Kasich, simply fails to (and not unsurprisingly), catch fire…

      Never underestimate the desires of power at any cost and by any means…and the power of deals cut behind the scenes – and not so much in smoke-filled rooms anymore as it’s now over gourmet feasts and $700 bottles of wine…

      Deals that benefit the neo-cons and war-mongers, commit to protecting legacies and other secrets…and guarantee the ultimate gift of the presidency but with the added caveat that the plug can and will be pulled at any time – thanks to the treasure throve of evidence – which is now employed not to prosecute wrong-doing, but as control and to keep her in check…

      It’s all messy, corrupt stuff…and they all eat and drink at the same table…

  3. Hillary Has an NSA Problem


    For a year now, Hillary Clinton’s misuse of email during her tenure as secretary of state has hung like a dark cloud over her presidential campaign. As I told you months ago, email-gate isn’t going away, despite the best efforts of Team Clinton to make it disappear. Instead, the scandal has gotten worse, with never-ending revelations of apparent misconduct by Ms. Clinton and her staff. At this point, email-gate may be the only thing standing between Ms. Clinton and the White House this November.

    Specifically, the Federal Bureau of Investigation examination of email-gate, pursuant to provisions of the Espionage Act, poses a major threat to Ms. Clinton’s presidential aspirations. However, even if the FBI recommends prosecution of her or members of her inner circle for mishandling of classified information—which is something the politically unconnected routinely do face prosecution for—it’s by no means certain that the Department of Justice will follow the FBI’s lead.

    What the DoJ decides to do with email-gate is ultimately a question of politics as much as justice. Ms. Clinton’s recent statement on her potential prosecution, “it’s not going to happen,” then refusing to address the question at all in a recent debate, led to speculation about a backroom deal with the White House to shield Ms. Clinton from prosecution as long as Mr. Obama is in the Oval Office. After mid-January, however, all bets would be off. In that case, winning the White House herself could be an urgent matter of avoiding prosecution for Ms. Clinton.

    That said, if the DoJ declines to prosecute after the Bureau recommends doing so, a leak-fest of a kind not seen in Washington, D.C., since Watergate should be anticipated. The FBI would be angry that its exhaustive investigation was thwarted by dirty deals between Democrats. In that case, a great deal of Clintonian dirty laundry could wind up in the hands of the press, habitual mainstream media covering for the Clintons notwithstanding, perhaps having a major impact on the presidential race this year.

    The FBI isn’t the only powerful federal agency that Hillary Clinton needs to worry about as she plots her path to the White House between scandals and leaks. For years, she has been on the bad side of the National Security Agency, America’s most important intelligence agency, as revealed by just-released State Department documents obtained by Judicial Watch under the Freedom of Information Act.

    ‘What did she not want put on a government system, where security people might see it? I sure wish I’d asked about it back in 2009.’

    The documents, though redacted, detail a bureaucratic showdown between Ms. Clinton and NSA at the outset of her tenure at Foggy Bottom. The new secretary of state, who had gotten “hooked” on her Blackberry during her failed 2008 presidential bid, according to a top State Department security official, wanted to use that Blackberry anywhere she went.

    That, however, was impossible, since Secretary Clinton’s main office space at Foggy Bottom was actually a Secure Compartment Information Facility, called a SCIF (pronounced “skiff”) by insiders. A SCIF is required for handling any Top Secret-plus information. In most Washington, D.C., offices with a SCIF, which has to be certified as fully secure from human or technical penetration, that’s where you check Top-Secret email, read intelligence reports and conduct classified meetings that must be held inside such protected spaces.


  4. eliihass says:

    The woman lacks judgement and foresight…

    She’s always wrong, lacks vision, integrity, principles…

    She has no original thought and is constantly rebooting to keep up – and only with the aid of the most expansive and most expensive brain trust and talent – and even then she still comes up short, so ho hum and at best, unremarkable…

    She is dangerously craven – and consistently, dangerously over-compensates to convince of her non-existent good judgement, wisdom…or good courage – of which she has none..

    Everything with her is a calculation…and even with a community of expensive flunkies surrounding, guiding and guarding her, weighing, researching, polling, focus grouping and reaching conclusions which they feed her, she and they still never get it right…

    Even with every advantage and aid at her disposal…she still falls short…

    She lies with ease – and often…

    All she knows is that she wants to be president – and she can’t even articulate why besides just wanting desperately to be the first woman…

    And the DNC and all of of the Democratic party hierarchy, immediately acquiesce – some in the hopes that they’ll be rewarded by the Clintons – masters of pay-to-play…others cowardly getting behind out of fear of being retaliated against by the viciously unforgiving, and massively petty and notoriously vindictive Clintons…

    Even under the best conditions, she resorts to bluster – and under the worst, she loses it and turns desperately small…

    Beyond the desperate and thin choreography of attempting to look, gesture and sound boomingly ‘presidential’…there’s hardly much else going on besides a hollow and unfulfilled woman all about herself mostly…and who so desperately craves validation and is consumed with snatching and occupying something important and historic (undeservedly!) which she imagines the yet to be met first woman president spot in America, fits the bill…

    Hillary Clinton is and will always be, a poor imitation of ‘greatness’…

  5. Liza says:

    Just saw this. Robert Reich posted this comment on Facebook a couple of days ago. Looks like the NYT is making a systematic effort to smear Bernie. They must think they hit pay dirt with that phony “Obama is ready to endorse Hillary” nonsense.

    “The New York Times no longer reports all the news that’s fit to print but only the news fit for Hillary Clinton.

    Appearing in yesterday’s morning edition of the New York Times was an article entitled “Bernie Sanders Scored Victories for Years Via Legislative Side Doors.” It was the first article I’ve read in the Times that praised Bernie. This one focused on legislative victories he’s achieved for working people and the poor by quietly and persistently amending and changing bills.

    I was going to share the article with you, but by yesterday afternoon it had been significantly and mysteriously altered to become less praiseworthy and more snide. The headline was changed to: “Via Legislative Side Doors, Bernie Sanders Won Modest Victories.” Several complimentary quotes that had appeared in the morning edition were deleted (such as one from Senator John McCain, and another from Warren Gunnels, Bernie’s long-time policy adviser, calling his strategy “very successful.”) New paragraphs were added that criticized Bernie. (For example: “But in his presidential campaign Mr. Sanders is trying to scale up those kinds of proposals as a national agenda, and there is little to draw from his small-ball legislative approach to suggest he could succeed. Mr. Sanders is suddenly promising not just a few stars here and there, but the moon and a good part of the sun, from free college tuition paid for with giant tax hikes and a huge increase in government health care, which has made even liberal Democrats skeptical.”)

    The original article had called Bernie an “effective, albeit modest, legislator.” In the altered version, an additional clause was added: “ — enacting his agenda piece by piece, in politically digestible chunks with few sweeping legislative achievements in a quarter-century in Congress.”

    Many of us have long suspected the Times of anti-Bernie partisanship. This particular instance proves the point. I publicly call on the Times’s Public Editor, Margaret Sullivan, to explain how an article praising Bernie Sanders the morning before several critical primaries could, just hours later, turn into an article criticizing him. Ms. Sullivan: Who at the Times made these changes, and why?”

    Source: Robert Reich on Facebook

  6. Ametia says:

    I’m sure Hillary can’t wait to get in the sandbox with Bibi.

  7. FLASHBACK 2008: McCain, Clinton Slam Obama For Saying He’d Go Get Bin Laden In Pakistan



    Remember back during the 2008 election when John McCain — and Hillary Clinton — pummeled Barack Obama for saying he would go into Pakistan to get Osama bin Laden if the Pakistani government wouldn’t?

    We do…
    It began with comments Obama made in August, 2007 that if elected, he would make U.S. aid to Pakistan conditional: “Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.”

    He continued:
    I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear: There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will.

    For Obama’s campaign opponents, the comments became an illustration of the idea that Obama was too inexperienced to be president — both for having the idea of acting without Pakistan’s permission, and for being green enough to tell people about it.

    On February 19, 2008, McCain spoke at a victory party for his win in the Wisconsin primary, and wondered: “Will we risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan?”

  8. Y’all remember when Hillary said PBO was naïve on Cuba? Think on that when he, Flotus & the girls visits Cuba next week. ;)

    • eliihass says:

      But in typical form, she’s now taking credit for Cuba too..

      Don’t you know it was all Hillary’s idea to normalize relations with Cuba…?

      She said so in one of the debates the other day…

      It always is all Hillary’s idea…until of course it becomes unpopular – or runs into a hitch…then she suddenly wants nothing to do with it…or quickly points accusatory fingers at others as she squeals that they did too…

      As someone wrote somewhere, Hillary Clinton is that godawful person in school who keeps looking over other students shoulders, stealing test answers –

      But don’t you dare say she’s anything other than ‘wicked smart’ and a ‘serious policy wonk’ – and all kinds of ‘warm, peoples person’…LOL..

      • Please don’t make my blood pressure skyrocket. I might not make it.

        • eliihass says:

          They’re not even worth it SG…Look at it this way, in the end, God in His infinite humor has this…This will play out and end up exactly as it’s meant to…And however it ends, trust that we win…even if and when it doesn’t look like it at first…

      • Ametia says:

        I seriously want to know exactly what she has accomplished, as Frist Lady, Senator, SoS?

        Is there a link to all that she’s supposedly accomplished on her own merrits?

        Somebody please show me the RECIEPTS, because there is nothing MEMORABLE in my book that illustrates any thing she has DONE to better the lives of Americans.



        This is all this woman has accomplished in my eyes

  9. Clinton: Obama is naïve on foreign policy

    Clinton vs Obama


    WASHINGTON — Barack Obama’s offer to meet without precondition with leaders of renegade nations such as Cuba, North Korea and Iran touched off a war of words, with rival Hillary Rodham Clinton calling him naive and Obama linking her to President Bush’s diplomacy.

    Older politicians in both parties questioned the wisdom of such a course, while Obama’s supporters characterized it as a repudiation of Bush policies of refusing to engage with certain adversaries.

    It triggered a round of competing memos and statements Tuesday between the chief Democratic presidential rivals. Obama’s team portrayed it as a bold stroke; Clinton supporters saw it as a gaffe that underscored the freshman senator’s lack of foreign policy experience.

    “I thought that was irresponsible and frankly naive,” Clinton was quoted in an interview with the Quad-City Times that was posted on the Iowa newspaper’s Web site on Tuesday.

    In response, Obama told the newspaper that her stand puts her in line with the Bush administration.

    Both parties were weighing the potential political fallout, especially in Florida, an early primary state, a pivotal general election state — and where Cuban President Fidel Castro remains particularly unpopular.

    “Anything that looks like pandering to dictators is bad politics in South Florida,” said Republican state Rep. David Rivera of Miami. He predicted Obama’s comments would come back to haunt him, particularly if he becomes the Democratic nominee.

  10. The Warmongering Record of Hillary Clinton


    If reason and justice prevailed in this country, you’d think that the recent series of articles in the Washington Times concerning the U.S.-NATO attack on Libya in 2011 would torpedo Hillary Clinton’s presidential prospects.

    Clinton as U.S. Secretary of State at that time knew that Libya was no threat to the U.S. She knew that Muammar Gadhafi had been closely cooperating with the U.S. in combating Islamist extremism. She probably realized that Gadhafi had a certain social base due in part to what by Middle Eastern standards was the relatively equitable distribution of oil income in Libya.

    But she wanted to topple Gadhafi. Over the objections of Secretary of “Defense” Robert Gates but responding to the urgings of British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicholas Sarkozy, she advocated war. Why? Not for the reason advertised at the time. (Does this sound familiar?) Not because Gadhafy was preparing a massacre of the innocents in Benghazi, as had occurred in Rwanda in 1994. (That episode, and the charge that the “international community” had failed to intervene, was repeatedly referenced by Clinton and other top officials, as a shameful precedent that must not be repeated. It had also been deployed by Bill Clinton in 1999, when he waged war on Serbia, grossly exaggerating the extent of carnage in Kosovo and positing the immanent prospect of “genocide” to whip up public support. Such uses of the Rwandan case reflect gross cynicism.)

    No, genocide was not the issue, in Libya any more than in Kosovo. According to the Washington Times, high-ranking U.S. officials indeed questioned whether there was evidence for such a scenario in Libya. The Defense Intelligence Agency estimated that a mere 2,000 Libyan troops armed with 12 tanks were heading to Benghazi, and had killed about 400 rebels by the time the U.S. and NATO attacked. It found evidence for troops firing on unarmed protestors but no evidence of mass killing. It did not have a good estimate on the number of civilians in Benghazi but had strong evidence that most had fled. It had intelligence that Gadhafy had ordered that troops not fire on civilians but only on armed rebels.

    The Pentagon doubted that Gadhafi would risk world outrage by ordering a massacre. One intelligence officer told the Washington Times that the decision to bomb was made on the basis of “light intelligence.” Which is to say, lies, cherry-picked information such as a single statement by Gadhafi (relentlessly repeated in the corporate press echoing State Department proclamations) that he would “sanitize Libya one inch at a time” to “clear [the country] of these rats.” (Similar language, it was said, had been used by Hutu leaders in Rwanda.) Now that the rats in their innumerable rival militias control practically every square inch of Libya, preventing the emergence of an effective pro-western government, many at the Pentagon must be thinking how stupid Hillary was.

Leave a Reply