Hillary just ate Trump's lunch on foreign policy

Hillary has a foreign policy record. Everything she touched turned to (*)(*)(*)(*). Next subject.

 

That doesn't even make any sense, but we are getting used to that.

 

...and what pray tell did Shillary say that defined HER foreign policy in that maniacal verbal barrage??

 

We'll, let's see; it sure was a big help to know that she wasn't interested in arming Japan and Saudi Arabia with Nuclear weapons. But Trump was. It was a big help to know that Hillary Clinton was not trying to start feuds with the president of Mexico, or mayors of London, like Trump is doing. If that is your idea of a maniacal verbal barrage, please, I want to hear more of it.

 

What war mongering is she promising? And by the way, Libya was a humanitarian mission because Gadaffi was killing his own people. There was a UN resolution to go in and rescue the people. That's what it was about.

The billions you refer to, was their money to begin with. And you have zero evidence that Iran uses that money to finance a missle program.

Lol! You folks are a trip. " She sure likes war". Man, give it a break. Everyone knows that isn't true. That was during a time when we suspected they had nukes, and they did not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Civil_War_(2011) This is what the war was about.

Links please, proving they are friends, and who are they?

 

You cannot elevate Hillary out of her proven public performance record of inadequacy and incompetence by pointing to things Trump has done as a private citizen. There's no escaping her failure to answer the 3 a.m. call.

 

http://time.com/4355797/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-foreign-policy-speech-transcript/

 

Link please, proving the 3 am call was not answered?

 

Really? The accuracy of Hillary Clinton's statements are undeniable, unless you think you can dissect any of her claims to construct a counter argument to hers, that proves she is wrong about Trump?

 

Ya gotta love Clinton's foreign policy..................ignore the danger and let 4 Americans get killed in Benghazi. She's real good!

 

Except you forgot one thing, that was never proven. Only in the fanatical world of haters, who cling to fantasies.

 

I see, so she has provided a clear idea of what she will NOT do. Where are the details of what she WILL do??

 

Nah....I think he nailed it.

And you own your obsession.

 

Why weren't our people pulled out or at least have a defense/exit strategy after the attempted assassination of the Brit Ambassador in June of 2012?

Hillary Clinton's State Dept actually REDUCED security in Benghazi, despite pleas from Ambassador Steven's and others to INCREASE it. Liberals and Democrats want to frame the Benghazi attack as beginning when the attack did, so there was nothing that could be done. Nothing could be further from the truth. A Benghazi terror plot had been thwarted as far back as 12/2011, a Full 9 months before the attack. Plenty of time to put in place an evacuation/exit strategy.

The U.S.S New York was in the Gulf of Aden at the far end of the Red Sea. With all the security warning the Clinton State Dept had, the USS New York could have been stationed offshore in Benghazi LONG before the attack. Benghazi being a seaport the Consulate would have been just a few minutes flight time from international waters.

USS New York (LPD-21) - Aircraft carried: Launch or land, two CH-53E Super Stallion, two MV-22B Osprey tiltrotor aircraft, four CH-46 Sea Knight, four AH-1 SeaCobra or four UH-1 Iroquois helicopters.





Fly the Cobra's in and out of the Benghazi compound a few time. That would have sent a clear message that we were ready to defend the compound. 2 Sea Cobra's could have made short work of the attackers in that open area.

If Hillary Clinton didn't have the foresight to see the attack coming after all the warning they had, she had no business being SOS let alone President. I applaud the Republicans for trying to make sure that never happens.

 

You've posted twice now, and managed to demonstrate your bigotry both times, while ignoring the topic at hand completely.

 

Not giving these countries nuclear weapons sends a clear message of what she will do. She also sends the message that she isn't interested in making enemies with other countries. This, she will also do. Thank you Hillary!

 

These examples you give are beyond laughable. " A rocket propelled grenade hits the office at the American Red Cross"? And? What about it? You are desperately trying to make the case that since the Red Cross got hit with a rocket propelled grenade, that that has never happened before in the ME. And since Hillary was SOS, it shouldn't be happening at all. Lol! We had thirteen known Benghazi type incidents with Bush, and no one ever held the SOS accountable. And that is the whole point. With this shallow hate driven agenda from the Right, they actually believe their false outrage of what happened during Clinton, is somehow different than the security mishaps under Bush's SOS. It's not! You could make the same outrageous claims against Rice. Except that would be ridiculous too. What you are suggesting is impossible for the u.S. military or any one else to accomplish. We can't be everywher in the ME and everyone over there knows it. Which begs the question, why did we go there to begin with? That was the biggest foreign policy blunder of our times. We have set ourselves up, over in a place we can't come close to controlling.

So no, you can blame Hillary until the cows come home, and it does not address the source of the problem. The Right just uses her for a political football for a problem that is much larger than her. And that larger problem is the source. Benghazi was nothing more than a symptom to the problem, much like the 13 symptoms that happened with Bush, that the Right conveniently ignores.

And so, once again for the umpteenth time, you've directed this argument and your case against Hillary because of your own partisan hate. Ha, that's on you. But, unfortunately for you, that partisan hate can't be used to formulate an intelligent argument against her, when Clinton was never the source of the problem to start with. And this is the part you will never get, because you have no interest in understanding that part. Your arguments simply do not deal with reality.

 

Was an Ambassador killed? Hillary Clinton's State Dept actually REDUCED security in Benghazi, despite pleas from Ambassador Steven's and others to INCREASE it. A Benghazi terror plot had been thwarted as far back as 12/2011, a Full 9 months before the attack. Plenty of time to put in place an evacuation/exit strategy.

The problem is Hillary had absolutely no foresight in creating an exit strategy for our people in an extremely hostile environment. The UK and other Western nations pulled their people out of Benghazi after the Brit Ambassador's assassination attempt. Hillary left our people there to twist in the wind and eventually die. Nice addition to her resume. Obama and Clinton simply couldn't admit their plan in Libya failed and it would hurt Obama in the 2012 election, that's why they left them there to die.

They should have either evacuated the mission in June 2012 after the attempted assassination of the Brit Ambassador like the Brits did OR move military assets into place off shore so the Consulate could be defended and evacuated quickly. If Hillary couldn't lead the State Department without 4 Americans getting killed because of bad judgement by herself or her staff it would take a "Willful Suspension Of Disbelief" to think she could lead the country any better.

 

the whole fake benghazi scandal was about republican 'fear & ignorance' politics


'Top GOP Benghazi lawyer: 'Nothing' could have prevented American deaths'

"Army Lt. Gen. Dana Chipman told former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta in a transcribed interview by the panel in January that “nothing could have affected what occurred in Benghazi” to prevent the deaths of four Americans in the immediate response to the attacks, the letter released by Democrats states.

“I think you ordered exactly the right forces to move out and to head toward a position where they could reinforce what was occurring in Benghazi or in Tripoli or elsewhere in the region,” Chipman said, according to the letter. “And, sir, I don’t disagree with the actions you took, the recommendations you made, and the decisions you directed.”

He made similar comments in an interview with the Defense Department’s former chief of staff, Jeremy Bash, according to the transcript of that interview: “I would posit that from my perspective, having looked at all the materials over the last 18 months, we could not have affected the response to what occurred by 5:15 in the morning on the 12th of September in Benghazi, Libya,” Chipman said. “So let me start with that positing or that stipulation.”


http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/house-benghazi-committee-lawyer-american-lives-223207

 

Interesting play of words, yet the question remains unanswered.

 

what she'll do is bring a vast amount of experience, ability and competence to the issue

as opposed to trump, who's little more than a jokester on the world's stage

 

See what I mean? The question, "was an ambassador killed' is totally irrelevant to the argument, and proves right there that you are driven by partisan hate.

And when you are as stretched as thin as we are everywhere else in the world, neither would anyone else. You still don't get it do you? There isn't enough money in our entire yearly budget beyond military spending to do the things you believe in this imagination of yours, to keep us totally safe all over the world. It just isn't possible. And that is why we have no business being everywhere, spreading ourselves thin. That's the real scandal. Not Hillary or Condoleezza Rice.

Yea right! They left them there to die. Wow, your hate is off the chain. Do you realize how ridiculous that statement is? Please read your own sentence again and tell me you aren't driven with hate? Think about what you just typed. "They couldn't admit their plan in Libya failed". 'It would Hurt Obama in the 2012 election". "That's why they left them there to die". Dang dude, not even if I tried. So, if Obama and Hillary new their own plan failed, and it could hurt them in the election, then why in the world would they have left them there to die, knowing there own plan had failed previously? I mean, how stupid do you have to be to leave those people there at that outpost, if your biggest concern is the election? Wow, talk about not making any sense at all. Thanks for the heads up. See what I mean about letting hate do all the thinking for you? This was priceless.

 

Irrelevant, you sound butt hurt? Now to your argument, you were the one doing the comparison. Before Chris Stevens the last U.S. Ambassador killed on duty was in 1979 when Carter was President and Cyrus Vance was SOS.

Not Partisan hate, just intelligent enough not to put proven losers in positions of power.

 

I agree with your assessment of Trump, yet I do not find very much evidence of competence coming from what Clinton has done over the years. "Vast" is a cute play on words, but I don't see it.

 

No, quite the contrary! I sound like someone who just buried you with this argument, because asking me if another ambassador was killed has nothing to do with the price of Tea in China, and everyone knows that. And don't expect someone to come to your rescue with that argument either, unless they want to commit political suicide.

Lol! Once again, you cannot see forest for tree with this argument, and that is why in four years the Right has been the recipient of the big loser award with Benghazi. And with those latest comments you just made about letting them die because of the election; that was priceless. No wonder you folks ended up looking like stool pigeons from this made up conspiracy.