From the Hillary Email Files: She Totally F*cked Up Libya

boedicca

Uppity Water Nymph from the Land of Funk
Gold Supporting Member
Feb 12, 2007
59,384
24,019
2,290
Hillary's emails have been so heavily filtered, that the dump on Friday (right before a 3 day weekend - So Clintonian!) is rather slim picken's. But! There are some interesting crumbs which show how incredibly incompetent Hillary is. Libya is a disaster. Yet, at one time, her flacks were getting ready to spin it as her major success.


n my opinion, Hillary’s biggest problem isn’t Benghazi per se, it is the broader issue of Libya. Why were Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans murdered? Because by September 2012, Libya was a terrorist playground. Since then, things have only gotten worse. Libya has become a failed state, a 21st century source of boat people, as refugees from ubiquitous violence stream across the Mediterranean. Libya is now a haven for ISIS and other terrorist groups; it was on the Libyan coast that ISIS beheaded 30 Christians. Some of the “refugees” now making their way into Europe are, in fact, ISIS agents. In short, Libya is a disaster.

Whose disaster? Hillary Clinton’s. It was Hillary who, more than anyone else, pushed to overthrow Moammar Qaddafi. Why? No compelling reason. Qaddafi had been tame ever since the Iraq war, which he interpreted as a threat to his rule. Almost incredibly, Clinton and her cohorts in NATO overthrew Qaddafi (who was subsequently murdered by a mob) without having a plan for what would come next.

Who says Hillary Clinton is responsible for the Libya fiasco? She does. In fact, at one point she was poised to claim Libya as the notable accomplishment of her term as Secretary of State. In August 2011, Jake Sullivan, Hillary’s deputy chief of staff, wrote an email in which he summarized “Secretary Clinton’s leadership on Libya.” He sent to it henchwoman Cheryl Mills and State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, who passed it on to Hillary. Sullivan’s email begins:

this is basically off the top of my head, with a few consultations of my notes. but it shows S’ [Secretary Clinton's] leadership/ownership/stewardship of this country’s libya policy from start to finish. let me know what you think.

The email continues, with bold print in the original:

Secretary Clinton’s leadership on Libya

HRC has been a critical voice on Libya in administration deliberations, at NATO, and in contact group meetings–as well as the public face of the U.S. effort in Libya. She was instrumental in securing the authorization, building the coalition, and tightening the noose around Qadhafi and his regime....


Hillary s Real Benghazi Problem Power Line
 
Secretary Clinton’s leadership on Libya....

Well that was obviously a colossal failure
 
Hillary Clinton has never been about "leadership". She places herself in the position of "Queen". She doesn't feel the need to get involved in the day-to-day operations of anything - she's FAR too important for that sort of thing. It's "beneath" her. So what if a few people died? "What difference, at this point, does it make!?!?"

She is no more a leader than Barrack Obama is. Mickey Mouse would do a better job......
 
She can also run on her huge amount of air miles - she actually claims flying around as an accomplishment.
 
She can also run on her huge amount of air miles - she actually claims flying around as an accomplishment.
hillary_witch4.jpg
 
It's amazing that republicans show such enthusiastic support for such a tyriannical dictator in Qaddafi. You blame his overthrow for the violence in Libya, but you don't blame the ovwrthrow of Saddam Hussein for the emergennce of ISIS. You people are shameless.
 
And yet it's NOT AMAZING that Obama and Clinton apologists cannot see how post Qaddafi Libya has enabled the spread of ISIS.

And if you wish to point out Iraq as enabling ISIS, that happened in 2011 after Obama decided to lose the war and withdraw troops.
 
Character assassination is the product of those who support another and is used against their chosen's opponent because the clown they covet has no real upside, and is a simple demagogue who has convinced the assassins that he should be elected only because he is the second coming and his opponent is a disciple of the devil.

Everyone makes mistakes, real leaders admit when wrong and correct their thinking as facts prove what they thought was incorrect. In this we can contrast Sect. Clinton with most of the charlatans seeking the Republican nomination, at least those who have track records.
 
And yet it's NOT AMAZING that Obama and Clinton apologists cannot see how post Qaddafi Libya has enabled the spread of ISIS.

And if you wish to point out Iraq as enabling ISIS, that happened in 2011 after Obama decided to lose the war and withdraw troops.
Suit up and go fight them.

That is typical response from your stupid, intellectually bankrupt talking points.
 
And yet it's NOT AMAZING that Obama and Clinton apologists cannot see how post Qaddafi Libya has enabled the spread of ISIS.

And if you wish to point out Iraq as enabling ISIS, that happened in 2011 after Obama decided to lose the war and withdraw troops.
Suit up and go fight them.

That is typical response from your stupid, intellectually bankrupt talking points.
Try not too hard to think about it. You don't want to hurt yourself.
 
It's amazing that republicans show such enthusiastic support for such a tyriannical dictator in Qaddafi. You blame his overthrow for the violence in Libya, but you don't blame the ovwrthrow of Saddam Hussein for the emergennce of ISIS. You people are shameless.


Your idiocy shows. at LEAST 90% of people I know (100%of which are conservative) were against going into Iraq. I, and those like me, hold fast to the belief that "the dictator we know is better than the dictator we don't know".

I was absolutely in favor of leaving Hussein in power. He provided stability in that part of the region and kept Iran at bay. Bushs' sole reason for invading Iraq was retribution for the attempt on his Daddy's life by Saddam and nothing more.

We could have kept that asshole hemmed in for the next 50 years if we had kept the screws down. The DIA told Bush that "nation building in the Middle East would be a disaster" and the analyst responsible for that report was fired.

The results are obvious - and will become more obvious in the next 5 years.
 
It's amazing that republicans show such enthusiastic support for such a tyriannical dictator in Qaddafi. You blame his overthrow for the violence in Libya, but you don't blame the ovwrthrow of Saddam Hussein for the emergennce of ISIS. You people are shameless.


Your idiocy shows. at LEAST 90% of people I know (100%of which are conservative) were against going into Iraq. I, and those like me, hold fast to the belief that "the dictator we know is better than the dictator we don't know".

I was absolutely in favor of leaving Hussein in power. He provided stability in that part of the region and kept Iran at bay. Bushs' sole reason for invading Iraq was retribution for the attempt on his Daddy's life by Saddam and nothing more.

We could have kept that asshole hemmed in for the next 50 years if we had kept the screws down. The DIA told Bush that "nation building in the Middle East would be a disaster" and the analyst responsible for that report was fired.

The results are obvious - and will become more obvious in the next 5 years.
Once again......

BUSHHH!!!!!

n. the sound Democrats hear as their chances in 2016 deflate.
 
It's amazing that republicans show such enthusiastic support for such a tyriannical dictator in Qaddafi. You blame his overthrow for the violence in Libya, but you don't blame the ovwrthrow of Saddam Hussein for the emergennce of ISIS. You people are shameless.


Your idiocy shows. at LEAST 90% of people I know (100%of which are conservative) were against going into Iraq. I, and those like me, hold fast to the belief that "the dictator we know is better than the dictator we don't know".

I was absolutely in favor of leaving Hussein in power. He provided stability in that part of the region and kept Iran at bay. Bushs' sole reason for invading Iraq was retribution for the attempt on his Daddy's life by Saddam and nothing more.

We could have kept that asshole hemmed in for the next 50 years if we had kept the screws down. The DIA told Bush that "nation building in the Middle East would be a disaster" and the analyst responsible for that report was fired.

The results are obvious - and will become more obvious in the next 5 years.
Once again......

BUSHHH!!!!!

n. the sound Democrats hear as their chances in 2016 deflate.


I hate to be the one to break it to you, but it was Bush's (both daddy and sonny) decision to take Hussein down. I may be a conservative, but the truth is the truth.

It is also the TRUTH, that Hillary voted to go there also. The Middle East has been a disaster ever since.
 
Going into Iraq was a mistake. Taking out Saddam was another.

Yeah..............Saddam was a bad guy, but at least he kept the terrorists in check.
 
If I remember correctly innocent civilians were being brutalized & starved so our proud, two- term, Democratic, African American President provided air support along w/ our European allies.

rw hack OP has something wrong w/ this?
 

Forum List

Back
Top