Thursday, 19 September 2013

Will Hillary Clinton run in 2016?

She will naturally tout that she was Secretary of State for four years and was the most travelled Secretary in the history of the country. That may well be true but she had zero achievements or any substantive diplomatic victories (other than Burma) which she can lay claim for.
There will be a few who will say that she was repairing the damage left by her predecessor and George W. Bush and that is an achievement enough.

That is nice political response but you only say that when you haven’t an argument to forge.
The facts are simple, she failed.

She deserves as much credit for her service in the State Department as Obama does for his Nobel Peace Prize.

After weeks into his job, John Kerry was able to get the Israel & Palestinians – peace process moving forward. Granted it isn’t going to lead to anything but what is simple, is that Hillary never got close to getting that done. Was she incompetent or inept?  

She can’t take credit for Iraq & Afghanistan as Back in 2008, Obama inherited a solid situation. With the execution of the surge, President Bush had essentially decimated Al-Qaeda and the uprising. The Bush 43 administration had signed a U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement on 16th November 2008 which called for the pull out of US troops from Iraqi cities, and 2011 as the fixed deadline for removal of US military presence in country. 
She really didn't have to do anything other than watch her primary opponent take the (undeserved) credit and administer the phased withdrawal. 

On Iran they are closer to delivering a nuclear bomb. She wasn’t able to neither make any progress nor even sit down with any of the mullahs. The same with North Korea the only difference is that she allowed former NBA basketball star, Dennis Rodman to head a diplomatic mission to the Pyongyang.

The situation with Egypt her support for the Muslim Brotherhood will be remembered as the day in which America finally allowed murderous thugs to overrun a relatively peaceful country. 

The two areas which will kill her will be Syria and Libya.

On Syria, under her watch, the civil war went on and she was clueless as to how to make arrangements with Russia in building a consensus. The fact that chemical weapons were used is an indictment of her failed leadership. For all the air miles, she wasn’t able to make an arrangement with the Kremlin to ensure that chemical weapons and other illegal weapons were removed from the battlefield. I guess the issue with Burma or coming out in favour of same-sex marriage was really time-consuming.
You can blame Bush all you like but if you don’t have a clue, you don’t have a clue. What is now happening is that John Kerry looks like a leader and Hillary looks like as irrelevant as ever. Kerry for President anyone?

On Libya and the 9/11 Benghazi attack, that day will live in infamy. While Ambassador Stevens was being dragged through the streets with four other brave Americans, the Obama administration looked on and told all troops to stand down. They knew it was an act of terror but the Democrats wanted to double-down with their idiotic idea that Al-Qaeda were defeated.
Not only did they deny it was an act of terror, they also, at the behest of Hillary Clinton, blamed the whole thing on a spoof Islamic movie! All of that has been disproved beyond reasonable doubt. When Hillary was summoned to Congress to answer for Benghazi, Senator Ron Johnson asked as follows:

No, again, we were misled that there were supposedly protests and that something sprang out of that -- an assault sprang out of that -- and that was easily ascertained that that was not the fact, and the American people could have known that within days and they didn’t know that

Clinton: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime.

She will be forever associated with that line: “what difference does that make?”

If she decided not to take the job, she would have a cushion from all of the above. She had name-recognition, money, serious support, strong network, married to Bill and she could’ve had plausible deniability in running for 2016.  

Whether she gets beaten in the primaries or in the general election, her status is diminishing. If I was running against her, I would make each debate a personal Q&A about her record at the State Department. Each campaign stop will involve someone from Benghazi or families that have been affected by her leadership (Mexico, Libya etc).

Whether she will be crowned as the Democratic nominee, I am not sure. 3 years is a long time in politics and remember she was the presumptive 2008 nominee before a freshmen Senator came along! We can never be sure. What is certain is that her legacy will endure and the longer the media coddle Obama and her records, the more folks will be thirsting for justice and answers.

No comments: