Has Hillary Ever Been Right ?

Has Hillary Ever Been Right? :thinking

>" Sen. Rand Paul raises an interesting question:

When has Hillary Clinton ever been right on foreign policy?

The valkyrie of the Democratic Party says she urged President Obama to do more to aid Syrian rebels years ago. And last summer, she supported air strikes on Bashar Assad’s regime.

Had we followed her advice and crippled Assad’s army, ISIS might be in Damascus today, butchering Christians and Alawites and aiding the Islamic State in Iraq in overrunning Baghdad.

But if the folly of attacking Assad’s army and weakening its resistance to ISIS terrorists is apparent to everyone this summer, why were Clinton, Obama and Secretary of State Kerry oblivious to this reality just a year ago?

Consider the rest of Hillary’s record. Her most crucial decision as Senator came in 2002 when she voted to invade Iraq. She now concedes it was the greatest mistake of her Senate career.

She voted against the surge in 2006, but confided to Defense Secretary Bob Gates that she did so to maintain her political viability for 2008.

This is statesmanship? Not voting your convictions about what is best for your country at war, so as not to antagonize the liberals in the Iowa caucuses?..."<
continue -> Has Hillary Ever Been Right? - Patrick J. Buchanan - Official Website

Has she ever been right? Oh, there must have been a time or two, but you seem to have had no trouble finding examples of when she wasn't.

Should she be president?

No, but then again, whoever runs against her in the primary and general elections probably shouldn't be either.

Well, HRC is to the "right" of Rand Paul on foreign policy.
Could be the reason why Paul wasn't invited to the S. Adelson GOP Presidential summit in Vegas. :lamo

Since Adelson knows the views on the USA supporting Israel, compared to HRC's .

Dittohead not! said:

Has she ever been right? Oh, there must have been a time or two, but you seem to have had no trouble finding examples of when she wasn't.

Should she be president?

No, but then again, whoever runs against her in the primary and general elections probably shouldn't be either.

Click to expand...

Wait a sec, I'm not Pat Buchanan, believe me. I'm a little to the left than my friend Pat Buchanan.

The title of the thread is the same as Pat's column title, which ask a question. Has Hillary ever been right when it comes to foreign policies ?

APACHERAT said:

Has Hillary Ever Been Right? :thinking

>" Sen. Rand Paul raises an interesting question:

When has Hillary Clinton ever been right on foreign policy?

The valkyrie of the Democratic Party says she urged President Obama to do more to aid Syrian rebels years ago. And last summer, she supported air strikes on Bashar Assad’s regime.

Had we followed her advice and crippled Assad’s army, ISIS might be in Damascus today, butchering Christians and Alawites and aiding the Islamic State in Iraq in overrunning Baghdad.

But if the folly of attacking Assad’s army and weakening its resistance to ISIS terrorists is apparent to everyone this summer, why were Clinton, Obama and Secretary of State Kerry oblivious to this reality just a year ago?

Consider the rest of Hillary’s record. Her most crucial decision as Senator came in 2002 when she voted to invade Iraq. She now concedes it was the greatest mistake of her Senate career.

She voted against the surge in 2006, but confided to Defense Secretary Bob Gates that she did so to maintain her political viability for 2008.

This is statesmanship? Not voting your convictions about what is best for your country at war, so as not to antagonize the liberals in the Iowa caucuses?..."<
continue -> Has Hillary Ever Been Right? - Patrick J. Buchanan - Official Website

Click to expand...

Yes, she was right on precisely the thing the article castigates her for. We should have buttressed moderate rebels in Syria and extended stronger support to diminish the strength of the Islamists and give them a plausible path to victory. Instead we are forced to suffer the consequences of an indecisive and disengaged President who has managed to shred our foreign policy in his second term. Not that I'm going to take anything from the mouth of Pat Buchanan seriously.

You also used Rand Paul in your OP, the 21st century version of George McGovern.
He's certainly staking out ground where he is different from EVERY Republican contender, not just HRC .

APACHERAT said:

Wait a sec, I'm not Pat Buchanan, believe me. I'm a little to the left than my friend Pat Buchanan.

The title of the thread is the same as Pat's column title, which ask a question. Has Hillary ever been right when it comes to foreign policies ?

Click to expand...

NIMBY said:

You also used Rand Paul in your OP, the 21st century version of George McGovern.
He's certainly staking out ground where he is different from EVERY Republican contender, not just HRC .

Click to expand...

I didn't use Rand Paul, Pat Buchanan used Rand Paul.

If you noticed in the opening thread I made no comment at all about Buchanan's column.

Rand Paul is in your OP.
Do you support him running to the left of HRC on foreign policy?

APACHERAT said:

I didn't use Rand Paul, Pat Buchanan used Rand Paul.

If you noticed in the opening thread I made no comment at all about Buchanan's column.

Click to expand...

And yes, HRC did admit she got it wrong on Iraq-2 .

NIMBY said:

Rand Paul is in your OP.
Do you support him running to the left of HRC on foreign policy?


And yes, HRC did admit she got it wrong on Iraq-2 .

Click to expand...

Well Nimby, do you think the MSM aka LNO (liberal news outlets) will give Hillary a complete pass in 2016 like they did with Obama in 2008 and 2012 or will they throw Hillary under the bus like they did back in 2008 ?

Now that yer naming names and going after liberals,
we can all see your OP was just a Bash-HRC piece, just like your new pal R. Paul is doing every day.

APACHERAT said:

Well Nimby, do you think the MSM aka LNO (liberal news outlets) will give Hillary a complete pass in 2016 like they did with Obama in 2008 and 2012 or will they throw Hillary under the bus like they did back in 2008 ?

Click to expand...

Was HRC correct to illuminate the Health Care problem in 1993 ?

NIMBY said:

Now that yer naming names and going after liberals,
we can all see your OP was just a Bash-HRC piece, just like your new pal R. Paul is doing every day.


Was HRC correct to illuminate the Health Care problem in 1993 ?

Click to expand...

The "health care problem" has nothing to do with foreign policy.

APACHERAT said:

The "health care problem" has nothing to do with foreign policy.

Click to expand...

Are you sure?
How are your fellow Brothers and Sisters doing in the Military as well as those retired with the "health care problem"?

The ones we sent to war last decade but didn't plan on this decade with advanced health problems,
such as 22 suicides a day due to PTSD-related issues .

NIMBY said:

Are you sure?
How are your fellow Brothers and Sisters doing in the Military as well as those retired with the "health care problem"?

The ones we sent to war last decade but didn't plan on this decade with advanced health problems,
such as 22 suicides a day due to PTSD-related issues .

Click to expand...

I'm sure.

APACHERAT said:

Wait a sec, I'm not Pat Buchanan, believe me. I'm a little to the left than my friend Pat Buchanan.

The title of the thread is the same as Pat's column title, which ask a question. Has Hillary ever been right when it comes to foreign policies ?

Click to expand...

So, the mistakes that were pointed out came from Pat Buchanan?

Oh.

Well, that makes sense. Pat is the kingpin of mistakes.

Did you know that the earthquake that hit Haiti a few years ago was due to the Haitians having made a pact with the devil?

Dittohead not! said:

So, the mistakes that were pointed out came from Pat Buchanan?

Oh.

Well, that makes sense. Pat is the kingpin of mistakes.

Did you know that the earthquake that hit Haiti a few years ago was due to the Haitians having made a pact with the devil?

Click to expand...

Are you saying that no Hatiians have made a pact with the Devil ?

Yes, Ms. Clinton was right to use force to stop Gaddafi from slaughtering 250,000 civilians in order to stay in power. Her action was at a minimal cost to the U.S. and cost no American soldiers their lives. Critics say that toppling Gaddafi caused a civil war, but the civil war was already occurring.

Ms. Clinton was also right about supporting a moderate faction in Syria, that would have been a balance between Assad and ISIS.

No small challenge, was Clinton undoing the damage that the habitual unilateralism of the George W. Bush administration had done to the global image of the United States and the reduction in U.S. leverage and prestige following the strategic mistakes and economic collapse of the Bush years. As Foreign Affairs magazine said, Clinton's "most lasting legacy will likely be the way that she thrust soft diplomacy to the forefront of U.S. foreign policy. By speaking out about Internet freedom, women’s rights, public health, and economic issues everywhere she went, Clinton sought to transcend traditional government-to-government contacts. She set out to create -- or at least dramatically expand in scope -- a new kind of people-to-people diplomacy, one designed to extend Washington’s influence in an Internet-driven world in which popular uprisings, such as the Arab Spring, could quickly uproot the traditional relationships between governments."

Beyond that, Clinton often played the realist hawk in an administration that started with overconfidence about its president’s transformational powers. In 2009, she allied with Defense Secretary Robert Gates to press for a 30,000-troop surge to address the chaos in Afghanistan, even though the president’s instincts were for a far smaller escalation. Later that year, when Obama had nothing to show for offering an outstretched hand to Tehran (a policy that Clinton had encouraged), she prodded the president into imposing unprecedentedly severe sanctions on Iran. In 2011, she corralled a troupe of advisers, including Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, to convince Obama to support a NATO-led intervention in Libya. And it was Clinton’s State Department that was mainly responsible for the administration’s attempt at a strategic “pivot” to Asia, designed largely to counter China’s growing influence. Clinton personally led the way with a historic trip that brought long-isolated Myanmar (also called Burma) into the fold of American partners, with a deft mix of realpolitik and democracy promotion. Clinton also became the caretaker of major relationships with other heads of state with whom the somewhat aloof U.S. president engaged only sporadically.

Click to expand...

APACHERAT said:

Are you saying that no Hatiians have made a pact with the Devil ?

Click to expand...

Well, it's difficult to prove a negative, but I'm pretty sure that was an assertion with nothing to back it up.

Dittohead not! said:

Well, it's difficult to prove a negative, but I'm pretty sure that was an assertion with nothing to back it up.

Click to expand...

Many Haitians believe signing a pact with the devil is a positive.

APACHERAT said:

Many Haitians believe signing a pact with the devil is a positive.

Click to expand...

But it can bring on earthquakes, at least according to Pat Robertson.