Hillary Clinton is going to be the next POTUS

[phrodeau]

He was the sitting President of the United States and it was ultimately his call, yes. That's the extent to which you can say that without doing pretty wild mental gymnastics.

The piece makes it very clear that Clinton was the main cheerleader for the Libyan intervention in the government. And she was the second most powerful person in the government. She had sway and used it to get a desired policy outcome.

Really, the capacity of Clinton supporters to give her complete credit for anything that does her public perception favors or bolsters her credentials AND absolve her of any responsibilities for the failures associated with a majority of her decisions without any sense of irony is just weird and sad.

No, France was the main cheerleader in the Libyan intervention. They actually started military actions before the US.

As for Clinton being the second most powerful person in the government, I think Joe Biden, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell and Michelle Obama would disagree.

 

[Setanta84]

No, France was the main cheerleader in the Libyan intervention. They actually started military actions before the US.

As for Clinton being the second most powerful person in the government, I think Joe Biden, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell and Michelle Obama would disagree.

I said she was the main cheerleader for the intervention in the USG, which is true and has nothing to do with your first point. You are either responding while barely reading the posts or engaged in impairing levels of cognitive dissonance.

Also, if you think the Vice President has any real power in the structure of the United States government, you're in need of a basic civics lesson. Or psychiatric medication, given you put the First Lady up there.

I assume you're voting Clinton. You get that saying she basically had little power in the Obama administration and was just carrying out his agenda massively undercuts her campaign's entire argument in favor of her candidacy, right?

 

[KingOrfeo]

Libya . . .

I really can't fault the Admin for the way it handled Libya. The civil war was going on, no outside power started it. Either Gaddafi or the rebels were going to win, and despite the aftermath I really cannot find myself wishing Gaddafi had won, and probably you can't either. So Obama applied just enough pressure, just enough aerial bombardment, to keep Gaddafi from crushing the rebels, without putting boots on the ground or committing to a U.S. troop presence. They made the best of a bad situation.

 

[phrodeau]

I said she was the main cheerleader for the intervention in the USG, which is true and has nothing to do with your first point. You are either responding while barely reading the posts or engaged in impairing levels of cognitive dissonance.

Also, if you think the Vice President has any real power in the structure of the United States government, you're in need of a basic civics lesson. Or psychiatric medication, given you put the First Lady up there.

I assume you're voting Clinton. You get that saying she basically had little power in the Obama administration and was just carrying out his agenda massively undercuts her campaign's entire argument in favor of her candidacy, right?

Obama is on record saying that he uses Biden to inform his foreign policy decisions. Now tell me what special structural power Clinton had as Sec'y of State other than informing the President for his foreign policy decisions.

 

[Setanta84]

Obama is on record saying that he uses Biden to inform his foreign policy decisions. Now tell me what special structural power Clinton had as Sec'y of State other than informing the President for his foreign policy decisions.

If you think giving foreign policy advice is the extent of the power a person in that position has, you have no real knowledge of how our government works. (And dangerously naive if you think Biden has as much sway over decisions as they claim--you are basically taking PR for Biden at face value at that point.)

Also, according to your logic, nobody with a boss has any real power or responsibility in his or her organization. That's a dangerously naive and incurious way of looking at things.

 

[Setanta84]

I really can't fault the Admin for the way it handled Libya. The civil war was going on, no outside power started it. Either Gaddafi or the rebels were going to win, and despite the aftermath I really cannot find myself wishing Gaddafi had won, and probably you can't either. So Obama applied just enough pressure, just enough aerial bombardment, to keep Gaddafi from crushing the rebels, without putting boots on the ground or committing to a U.S. troop presence. They made the best of a bad situation.

They reduced the country to rubble and permanently destabilized the region while wildly overstating what the result of not intervening would be. And they appear to have done so completely for the financial interests of the technocrats running the US and EU. I don't think that's "making the best out of a bad situation."

 

[L1tTleD1fferent]

the only thing you retards care about is more welfare

The only thing you retards care about is making it appear like the others are the retards.

Also, to answer your own question, you cannot be more stupid, as even the mindless should be aware it is impossible to know less than nothing.

 

[JackLuis]

They reduced the country to rubble and permanently destabilized the region while wildly overstating what the result of not intervening would be. And they appear to have done so completely for the financial interests of the technocrats running the US and EU. I don't think that's "making the best out of a bad situation."

But only for the spread of Doomocracy!

If it had been me, I'd have sold the French and Italians the missiles and let them police their own oil source. The French suckered us again in Syria, probably blaming Bush for opening Pandora's Box!

The Hard Right is in the resurgence in France and how will Hillary react to a culture clash, they haven't done real well so far.

 

[underguy1]

I really can't fault the Admin for the way it handled Libya. The civil war was going on, no outside power started it. Either Gaddafi or the rebels were going to win, and despite the aftermath I really cannot find myself wishing Gaddafi had won, and probably you can't either. So Obama applied just enough pressure, just enough aerial bombardment, to keep Gaddafi from crushing the rebels, without putting boots on the ground or committing to a U.S. troop presence. They made the best of a bad situation.

There was no civil war. The USA backed Al Qaeda insurgents kicked it off for NATO then NATO acted as their air force and their command Structure.

 

[JackLuis]

They reduced the country to rubble and permanently destabilized the region while wildly overstating what the result of not intervening would be. And they appear to have done so completely for the financial interests of the technocrats running the US and EU. I don't think that's "making the best out of a bad situation."

But only for the spread of Doomocracy!

If it had been me, I'd have sold the French and Italians the missiles and let them police their own oil source. The French suckered us again in Syria, probably blaming Bush for opening Pandora's Box!

The Hard Right is in the resurgence in France, they haven't done real well so fa,r and how will Hillary react to a culture clash With a French Bigot? Business as usual, I'd guess.

 

[phrodeau]

There was no civil war. The USA backed Al Qaeda insurgents kicked it off for NATO then NATO acted as their air force and their command Structure.

Wow. Someone was talking about denying facts earlier. Was it you?

 

[sr71plt]

I really can't fault the Admin for the way it handled Libya. The civil war was going on, no outside power started it. Either Gaddafi or the rebels were going to win, and despite the aftermath I really cannot find myself wishing Gaddafi had won, and probably you can't either. So Obama applied just enough pressure, just enough aerial bombardment, to keep Gaddafi from crushing the rebels, without putting boots on the ground or committing to a U.S. troop presence. They made the best of a bad situation.

This.

I like how people post to the forum on the Mideast as if they (or anyone else) have a better policy toward the region than just trying to keep it tamped down. The absolute best U.S. policy in recent decades was supplying weapons to both the Iranians and Iraqis and letting them go to town on each other. Unfortunately, the second Bush didn't have the wisdom of the first Bush, who studiously didn't occupy Iraq. George the Lesser upset the balance by essentially becoming both Iraq and the U.S. in the region.

 

[underguy1]

This.

I like how people post to the forum on the Mideast as if they (or anyone else) have a better policy toward the region than just trying to keep it tamped down. The absolute best U.S. policy in recent decades was supplying weapons to both the Iranians and Iraqis and letting them go to town on each other. Unfortunately, the second Bush didn't have the wisdom of the first Bush, who studiously didn't occupy Iraq. George the Lesser upset the b
alance by essentially becoming both Iraq and the U.S. in the region.

Americans are Nazis.

 

[KingOrfeo]

There was no civil war. The USA backed Al Qaeda insurgents . . .

What on Earth are you talking about?

 

[1sickbastard]

What on Earth are you talking about?

He doesn't know as he has all the intelligence of neverendingme and all the knowledge of realamerican17.

But I will give him this; he's managed to make 4est4estgump appear comparatively smart.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

wow, who let the retards out of the zoo? carry on obama slaves

 

[Sean Renaud]

This.

I like how people post to the forum on the Mideast as if they (or anyone else) have a better policy toward the region than just trying to keep it tamped down. The absolute best U.S. policy in recent decades was supplying weapons to both the Iranians and Iraqis and letting them go to town on each other. Unfortunately, the second Bush didn't have the wisdom of the first Bush, who studiously didn't occupy Iraq. George the Lesser upset the balance by essentially becoming both Iraq and the U.S. in the region.

See outside of the morality of it which I'm increasingly certain shouldn't weigh heavily on politicians minds I'm not sure stopping Ghadaffi was a power play. In all likelihood he would have crushed the rebels quickly and while brutally it would have been a net gain in lives vs the scenario we have NOW.

I'm increasingly certain we need to find a whole new path with the ME.

 

[sr71plt]

I'm increasingly certain we need to find a whole new path with the ME.

Which is? What path are you proposing that either hasn't been tried already or that you think would be beneficial--especially to U.S. interests?

The U.S. didn't decide to do anything in Libya. We were content to leave it as it was, having no brilliant ideas on what would be better that was achievable (a situation somewhat like Saddam Hussain in Iraq, and it's arguable that we'd been better off to leave him blustering in his little box). The pressing for change--with no direction of change being a "good thing" for U.S. policy or much of anyone else, was imposed from elsewhere. The U.S. doesn't have control over everything everywhere, nor is it likely ever to have that.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

only the welfare class, wants hillary. why are you on welfare?

 

[underguy1]

What on Earth are you talking about?

The truth.

You clearly believe the propaganda without question.

There was no civil war in Libya. Nor in Syria.

These are US regime change operations.

 

[underguy1]

He doesn't know as he has all the intelligence of neverendingme and all the knowledge of realamerican17.

But I will give him this; he's managed to make 4est4estgump appear comparatively smart.

You are just a disgusting Team America bigot.

 

[L1tTleD1fferent]

You are just a disgusting Team America bigot.

Whereas we know you're not on the pro-US team, so you're simply a disgusting bigot.

However, you perhaps deserve points for attacking them rather than commenting on what they said about you, which you know to be negative but also completely-true things.

 

[underguy1]

What on Earth are you talking about?

The Dreadful Chronology of Gaddafi’s Murder
by CHRIS WELZENBACH

 

[Hypoxia]

See outside of the morality of it which I'm increasingly certain shouldn't weigh heavily on politicians minds...

'Morality' is a luxury for political figures. A pol's first and foremost responsibility is to their constituents, those who put and keep them in office. Next are possible backers -- can they be swung? Nobody else really matters.

The typical southern GOP congresscritter in a gerrymandered district cares about the white guys voting for him and nobody else. A USA trade or diplomatic rep negotiates for their masters' interests, not their rivals'. Everybody is a target in modern warfare -- if you're in the way of someone's power play, tough. Nobody frets over killing you.

Note: I don't like or approve of this reality. Tough. It's how the world works.

As it happens, brute force probably isn't the best option. Development, persuasion, bribery -- extensions and inducements of policy. "War is politics by other means", something like that. But if your policies and politics don't benefit your constituents first, you're gone.

 

[underguy1]

'Morality' is a luxury for political figures.

Only an immoral arsehole would believe that.