Hillary's Top 5 failures as the Secretary of State

I know the question has been asked of what has she accomplished and you never hear one response. On failures though, this is just five of her sterling mishaps as Sec of State.

http://boltonsuperpac.com/hillary-top-five/fb/


Very precise and factual.

Ya... but the clinton slushfund foundation did very well.

PkrBum wrote:Ya... but the clinton slushfund foundation did very well.

So did her and Bill's bank account. She is the unequivocal darling of Wall Street.

In John Bolton's world war is the answer. The Neocon saying anything about the SOS is amusing at best.

2seaoat wrote:In John Bolton's world war is the answer.  The Neocon saying anything about the SOS is amusing at best.

Hillary is a Wall Street beholden Neocon who has voted in favor of (or promoted) war her entire "career". She is well aware if she supports the MIC she gets money and money is her only motivation.

She occasionally pretends to be a pacifist to satisfy her weak minded ultraliberal supporters but it's a charade.

I cannot argue that the MIC owns both sides of the aisle, and that Hillary is certainly shown a propensity to go to the dark side, but I really believe her analysis of the middle east is the best of any candidate, including Bernie.

2seaoat wrote:I cannot argue that the MIC owns both sides of the aisle, and that Hillary is certainly shown a propensity to go to the dark side, but I really believe her analysis of the middle east is the best of any candidate, including Bernie.

Yes, of course, how could the current status of the Middle East be any better?

Yes, of course, how could the current status of the Middle East be any better?


As a shill for MIC of course you want the corrupt puppet regimes put in place after WWI to remain the status quo, and that the messy Arab Spring and the battle of modernity only threaten that established corrupt power structure which has exploited the citizens of the middle east......ISIS is more than religious fanatacism, it is but one element in a complex process of modernity and overthrowing the status quo where hundreds of thousands of innocents die, but more importantly millions remain shackled to corrupt regimes who are shills for MIC......right now the unrest which is spreading never would have happened had we responded to 911 in a focused and non invasive manner, but once we let the genie out of the bottle......from these horrors the battle of modernity will be defined.

2seaoat wrote:I cannot argue that the MIC owns both sides of the aisle, and that Hillary is certainly shown a propensity to go to the dark side, but I really believe her analysis of the middle east is the best of any candidate, including Bernie.

If so get ready for a war with Iran under an HRC presidency when they really violate the treaty. Of course she may have just been lying again when she said it.

2seaoat wrote:Yes, of course, how could the current status of the Middle East be any better?


As a shill for MIC of course you want the corrupt puppet regimes put in place after WWI to remain the status quo, and that the messy Arab Spring and the battle of modernity only threaten that established corrupt power structure which has exploited the citizens of the middle east......ISIS is more than religious fanatacism, it is but one element in a complex process of modernity and overthrowing the status quo where hundreds of thousands of innocents die, but more importantly millions remain shackled to corrupt regimes who are shills for MIC......right now the unrest which is spreading never would have happened had we responded to 911 in a focused and non invasive manner, but once we let the genie out of the bottle......from these horrors the battle of modernity will be defined.

Yes, of course, how could the current status of the Middle East be any better?


Clinton also said Bush should not be faulted if banned weapons of mass destruction aren't found.

"I don't think you can criticize the President for trying to act on the belief that they have a substantial amount of chemical and biological stock. . . . That is what I was always told," Clinton said.
- Former President Clinton Wednesday, April 16, 2003

"Could Be One of the Great Achievements of This Administration" The vice president said he’d been to Iraq 17 times and visits the country every three months or so. "I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society" he said. "It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences."
- Vice President Joe Biden (D) Feb. 10, 2010

How has the war President Barack Hussein Obama said we SHOULD have been fighting going? How is the Middle East going now that President Obama is President? Oh, Afghanistan just crossed 2,330 American fatalities. Seventy percent of whom died since President Obama took office.



And now the Obama administration wants to TAKE CREDIT for the Iraq war…whew….

2seaoat wrote:I cannot argue that the MIC owns both sides of the aisle, and that Hillary is certainly shown a propensity to go to the dark side, but I really believe her analysis of the middle east is the best of any candidate, including Bernie.

She's so good that she helped to create ISIS.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/giuliani-clinton-helped-found-isis-221179

http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/12/06/john-bolton-as-ignorant-as-he-is-dangerous/

Behind the ‘walrus mustache’ might be one of the most dangerous men in the world, and here’s why…

Neoconservative war advocate, John Bolton, appeared on FOX News with host Greta Van Susteren last night, where he made a grand declaration that the US ‘does not do propaganda’. He was in mid conversation, and while trying to admonish Russia and Vladimir Putin for covering the Ferguson and NTC protests, Bolton saw an opportunity to pander to his neocon core base, blaming the Russians for propagating negative US media coverage. Incredibly, Bolton then said:
“We don’t have an effective propaganda capacity in the United States, we don’t try to sell our own story…”.
Did Bolton just say that? Yes, he did. That’s probably one of the most delusional statements ever made. Of course, Bolton probably feels he doesn’t need to keep pace with the news, because if he did, he’d have noticed that his own government has recently made it ‘legal’ to aim its official version of reality at US citizens, thanks to the repeal of the Smith-Munt Act “anti-propaganda” law.
For decades, a so-called anti-propaganda law prevented the U.S. government’s mammoth broadcasting arm from delivering programming to American audiences. But on July 2 (2013), that came silently to an end with the implementation of a new reform passed in January. The result: an unleashing of thousands of hours per week of government-funded radio and TV programs for domestic U.S. consumption in a reform initially criticized as a green light for U.S. domestic propaganda efforts.
Everyone does propaganda, but now the U.S. is the only nation on earth that’s so bold and openly authoritarian as to put a law on its books to protect its own propaganda efforts.
As for propaganda waged by Washington, the history books are full of good examples of how US network broadcasters and media perform propaganda functions for the Pentagon and its corporate partners, however, Bolton would have also missed that fact that only this week, the US Congress passed a new resolution calling for, among other things, funding for US propaganda overseas designed to weaken Russia’s public relations image in Ukraine and eastern Europe.

There’s also the issue of direct propaganda, which has become a daily exercise for the US State Department, as evidenced when their spokesperson Jen Psaki (photo, above) was caught on a hot mic, frustrated as she complained about her pre-prepared government issued propaganda statements about Egypt. Psaki was told by her information ministers to read this meaningless platitude:
“Generally, we continue to believe that upholding impartial standards of accountability will advance the political consensus on which Egypt’s long-term stability and economic growth depends”.
Off camera, she could be heard complaining, “This is ridiculous”.

We’re told that John Bolton is still thinking about a presidential run in 2016, but before we go there, it’s worth pointing out that Bolton was one of the key cheerleaders for the US-led war in Iraq in 2003, and regularly appeared on majors like CNN and Fox News – as a war propagandist.

That’s not all, Bolton has also had more than his share of scandals, and one should really ask if, with that much dirt under his paws, is he actually fit for public office? Bolton spent years doing dirty jobs behind the scenes for the establishment and from 2000 he moved into the spotlight as a kind of advocate. Before he was appointed by GW Bush as the US Ambassador to the UN, he famously said, “If I were redoing the Security Council today, I’d have one permanent member (the US) because that’s the real reflection of the distribution of power in the world.”

He’s been spending a great deal of time in recent years trying to spruce up his tainted image, to reclaim his status as America’s top war hawk, it just goes to prove, you can’t put lipstick on a walrus. While we’re at it, let’s just review some of his shady scandals:

Spousal Abuse: According to reports, his first wife fled the couple’s marital home while he was traveling abroad in mid-August 1982, and said that she was forced to engage in group sex. To date, these allegations have not been refuted in a court of law.

Iran-Contra: This is how Bolton made his bones. According to reports on the event, “At the Justice Department, Bolton acted as the Department’s ‘no man’ refusing to provide congressional committees documents on Supreme Court nominees William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy. He also refused to provide information, including his personal notes regarding the Iran-Contra scandal, and aided congressional Republicans who attempted to stop investigations of Contra drug smuggling.”

Taiwangate: “The Taiwangate affair–which involves a $100 million secret Taiwan government slush fund that financed intelligence, propaganda, and influence activities within the United States and elsewhere–seems to be in the latter category [‘fizzle’] at the moment. The beneficiaries of the lack of attention include three prominent Bush appointees at the State Department who, before joining the Bush administration, received money from this account. And one of these officials, John Bolton, the undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, submitted pro-Taiwan testimony to Congress in the 1990s without revealing he was a paid consultant to Taiwan. His work for Taiwan, it turns out, was financed by this slush fund.”

Absent at the UN: In June 2006 the United Nations Security Council reported that Bolton had not attended any of the four missions undertaken by the Council to foreign countries.

Bolton’s PAC’s: John has gotten into big money political fundraising recently, and has both a standard political action committee and a Super PAC – both are focused on rewarding ‘hawkish’ candidates who are “determined to reverse the Obama policies of decline, retreat, and the mistrust of American exceptionalism”, according to Bolton’s website.

When they mean ‘hawkish’, they really mean candidates who are pro-Israel, and war-hawkish (in the foreign policy sense).

It’s incredible to think that Americans would throw their hard earned cash at someone like Bolton, and trusting him to redistribute those funds to his ‘favorite candidates’, but the majority of his financial support will no doubt be coming from the defense industry. Bolton was also one of the original signatories to the pro-war lobbist ‘think tank’ founded in 1997, known as Project for a New American Century (PNAC). Other core members included Paul Wolfowitz, R. James Woolsey, Elliot Abrams, and of course, Richard Perle. PNAC stated in its mission statement that it would seek out wars in order to prove that US could fight and win on multiple fronts simultaneously, “To fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars”, and ‘Perform the constabulary duties’ associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions”.

PNAC was merely the American version of an Israeli ‘wish list’ of tasks that Washington needed to complete on behalf of Israel. The original framework for Bolton’s PNAC came in 1996, in a research paper entitled, ‘A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm‘, which included early plans for armed incursions into Lebanon, and possible strikes against Syria and Iran.

Top of the neoconservative agenda, besides bombing Iran and killing civilians in the process, is the encirclement of Russia by NATO. Looking forward to the 2016 Presidential election, and seeing the Jeb Bush is being touted as the GOP favorite right now, it’s almost certain that John Bolton will be jockeying for either of the following the positions: Secretary of State, Defense Secretary, and NSA Director.

In all but name, this week’s US Congressional resolution against Russia is preliminary declaration of war, the last formal step before war. But Washington will likely opt for waging Wiemar-style undeclared wars, as well as bypassing its domestic Constitutional checks-and-balances by waging most of its future wars through NATO.
Bolton is one of the key hatchet men whose job it is to make those wars happen.

**************

Your link article was written when Jeb Bush was favorite to win GOP. Obama is as much a neocon as anyone, much like Hillary is as well. In fact, Obama has bombed more nations than even the Republicans in his tenure of office. It doesn't matter that he's not running full scale invasions into countries, he has his own level of using the military which results in the same things that Democrats have said are Republican failures.

Neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama were members of PNAC, which supported hawkish US foreign policy but acknowledged that there would be little public support for war...(paraphrasing) absent a catalyst, like a new Pearl Harbor. Both Bolton and Jeb Bush were members of PNAC...Bolton was one of the founders. This was pre-9/11 and also before George W Bush stole the presidency.

Floridatexan wrote:
Neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama were members of PNAC, which supported hawkish US foreign policy but acknowledged that there would be little public support for war...(paraphrasing) absent a catalyst, like a new Pearl Harbor.  Both Bolton and Jeb Bush were members of PNAC...Bolton was one of the founders.  This was pre-9/11 and also before George W Bush stole the presidency.

Membership or not, President Obama has expanded operations of the military, bombed more nations, and been just as much a neocon as Bush II. Hillary was his Secretary of State which makes her complicit as she was the foreign policy advisor. They are tied together like Siamese twins. You cannot separate the two.

Can't wait to vote for HILLARY!

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

What? wrote:Membership or not, President Obama has expanded operations of the military, bombed more nations, and been just as much a neocon as Bush II.

Horsefeathers...... Bush authorized a full scale land invasion of a sovereign country, without a declaration of war, where over 4K U.S. servicemen and women were KIA. This is after he slept through 9/11 where another 3K Americans died in one single day.

More Americans died on Bush's watch than on Obama's, the military interventions were much greater, and more opposing combatants and innocents were also slain under Bush.

Hmmm, can we talk about President Obama's unrestricted drone and general combatant aircraft that have invaded multiple sovereign nation's airspace-Libya, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria to name a few, the killing of an American citizen with a drone-Al Awaki's teenage son-no due process there, the release of enemy combatants from GITMO which the White House has admitted killed Americans since release, the release of Al Baghdadi who leads ISIS and kills Americans and everyone they can. What about that hospital in Afghanistan that was struck in 2015 by a AC-130 gunship killing nothing but civilians. A major LOAC violation no matter from what side of the political aisle you sand on. By the way, more folks have died in Afghanistan on Obama's watch than Bush II. Look it up. It's a fact. It might be prudent to know facts before throwing out stuff and hoping it might stick.

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

What? wrote:Membership or not, President Obama has expanded operations of the military, bombed more nations, and been just as much a neocon as Bush II.

Horsefeathers...... Bush authorized a full scale land invasion of a sovereign country, without a declaration of war, where over 4K U.S. servicemen and women were KIA. This is after he slept through 9/11 where another 3K Americans died in one single day.

More Americans died on Bush's watch than on Obama's, the military interventions were much greater, and more opposing combatants and innocents were also slain under Bush.

Clinton also said Bush should not be faulted if banned weapons of mass destruction aren't found.

"I don't think you can criticize the President for trying to act on the belief that they have a substantial amount of chemical and biological stock. . . . That is what I was always told," Clinton said.
- Former President Clinton Wednesday, April 16, 2003

"Could Be One of the Great Achievements of This Administration" The vice president said he’d been to Iraq 17 times and visits the country every three months or so. "I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society" he said. "It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences."
- Vice President Joe Biden (D) Feb. 10, 2010

How has the war President Barack Hussein Obama said we SHOULD have been fighting going? How is the Middle East going now that President Obama is President? Oh, Afghanistan just crossed 2,330 American fatalities. Seventy percent of whom died since President Obama took office.



And now the Obama administration wants to TAKE CREDIT for the Iraq war…whew….

What? wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:
Neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama were members of PNAC, which supported hawkish US foreign policy but acknowledged that there would be little public support for war...(paraphrasing) absent a catalyst, like a new Pearl Harbor.  Both Bolton and Jeb Bush were members of PNAC...Bolton was one of the founders.  This was pre-9/11 and also before George W Bush stole the presidency.

Membership or not, President Obama has expanded operations of the military, bombed more nations, and been just as much a neocon as Bush II. Hillary was his Secretary of State which makes her complicit as she was the foreign policy advisor. They are tied together like Siamese twins. You cannot separate the two.

Neither Obama nor Clinton has declared war on any country. Obama inherited 2 ongoing wars from the Bush administration, during which our reputation in the international community was at an all-time low. And Obama has used diplomatic solutions in the face of tremendous pressure from the MIC and their puppet party, the GOP.

Obama vacated iraq... surged astan... called for regime change in egypt and syria... overthrew sovereign libya w hillary.

He just put special forces boots in syria btw.

Just facts... nothing to debate.

PkrBum wrote:Obama vacated iraq... surged astan... called for regime change in egypt and syria... overthrew sovereign libya w hillary.

He just put special forces boots in syria btw.

Just facts... nothing to debate.

Oh, please be careful when presenting FACTS to our PROGRESSIVE friends. You know how cranky they get when they have nothing to say and childishly resort to profanity and name calling.