OK Exacrh tell me what mess Hillary Clinton made as Sec. of State

[conon394]

So by mess I mean definite policy and result she advocated for - not some overall Policy of the Obama Admin, Not one inherited policy from the previous administration. Potentially I will also except a 'positive' or 'better' policy that she advocated but failed to secure because she lost do to internal politics in the Obama Admin. I will not except any silly statement about policies a Republican admin might have done but were never going to happen in the Obama administration in any case or any other unrealistic potential policy.

[GrnEyedDvl]

So by mess I mean definite policy and result she advocated for - not some overall Policy of the Obama Admin,

You realize you have asked an impossible question here right?

Any position the Sec of State puts out there in public is by definition a policy position of the current administration, no matter who the person is or who the administration is.

[TheDarkKnight]

...I'm sure calling out a member in this fashion in this particular subforum is against the rules in some way...


Though I guess I could be wrong.

[GrnEyedDvl]

I would definitely prefer it was in the Fight Club, but since he threw it out in a general Pit thread I will smack him around a bit first.

[TheDarkKnight]

I would definitely prefer it was in the Fight Club, but since he threw it out in a general Pit thread I will smack him around a bit first.

Fair enough, Grn.

[conon394]

I would definitely prefer it was in the Fight Club, but since he threw it out in a general Pit thread I will smack him around a bit first.

Which seems excessive. Being the holidays I don't all that much free time and Moving the thread divorces it from the related Thread that spawned the argument. Besides Exarch specifically asked for a new thread before he would elaborate on his unsupported argument but did not do it. I don't see the issue in using his forum name? Why would I not just stick it here? And if you really want to 'slap me around' please either come out the WA and do that in person or do it now and kill this thread and reprimand me in some formal way or at least tell be via PM how this thread is some gross offense and how am now on double secrete probation or some such.

----------------------------------------

ok Conon, i'll bite, and as GrnEyedDvl pointed out, your parameters are obviously flawed, especially since it doesn't matter what a politician 'advocates', what matters is what they do. As a common saying in America goes: 'money talks, bull walks' and nowhere is this most apparent in the case being made by yourself that Hilary Clinton was a good SECSTATE because she advocated but failed. What a total BS argument, that's like saying Neville Chamberlain was a good British PM because he 'tried but failed' to stop Nazi Germany from initiating a world war based on Hitler's guarantee. There's a reason why Chamberlain is criticised and why people like Eisenhower are lauded.

No, the American people deserve better and what the American people should expect from their elected officials are real and tangible changes from the moment they entered office, which can be attributed to these officials or to a team with which they were a part of.

To illustrate my point, let's have Alex Baldwin on the podium for a sec (Strong language, warning):

Really - and actor, playing a role in a movie that is the basis for a Good Secretary of State? (which I think since its blocked is what glengarry glen ross ross?).

But in any case the larger point is between the President and any formal or informal advisers (NSA or sombody like Rice who is obviously closer to the President) and the fact the State as a fantastically tiny budget compared to the Military/Intelligence apparatus - the implication that the Secratary can eithr make or clean up a mess is ludicrous.

Any poker player knows that the moment you allow the other guy to get an emotional reaction out of you, then you're ed and nowhere is this most apparent in this clip. Too goddamn emotional, or unable to control her own emotional reactions. hell even Condi Rice was a better SECSTATE-by a wide margin at that.

Not seeing it there you would think she started yelling or crying from your description.

To further illustrate my position, i'll be going through each and every activity and/or incident involving the State Department under Hilary Clinton's tenure leading up to and including the disastrous Benghazi cluster that resulted in the death of a US ambassador.

Of you will also take into account the Ambassador chose to go to Benghazi and not be a hidden figure in a bunker?

You will also factor in as Gates said the Pentagon spends more money on Bands than the State budget

You would agree also the Secretaries of State in 83 and 98 and of course all those who failed to prevent the Attacks on the US embassy in Vietnam in the 60s were also inept - correct.

And in a related way of course the British embassy in China should have had 100s of troops to open fire back in 67 and do what? Provoke a military indecent?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...e-1245933.html

Personally I think the Bengazi report is fatally flawed in that yes an Embassy got attacked - but really considering where we spend our money in the US heads should likely have rolled in the Pentagon and Intelligene rather than the meagerly funded State Department. Second of course diplomats buried in a bunker are not very useful or effective. Third Embassies have always been and will remain targets and being in a foreign country primarily dependent on the locals for security outside of Countries you actually occupy.

But feel free if you link the result right to Clinton I be surprised.

If you're lucky we can even discuss how she was allegedly more concerned with undermining Obama for his job in 2016 than being a good SECSTATE.

Umm - I hate to break it to you but Obama can't run in the election again - I suppose maybe you mean Biaden? Second how could she undermine him from inside the administration where as Secretary of State she would share the blame if the Admin looks like a failure. Had she resigned in the first term and Bill had not emerged as huge base rallying point for Obama in the election but rather stood aloof - that argument might have traction, but not now.

No, the American people deserve better and what the American people should expect from their elected officials are real and tangible changes from the moment they entered office, which can be attributed to these officials or to a team with which they were a part of.

Now you may agree or disagree with the Policy - but in fact the US has experienced real and tangible change.

In General the US polls more favorably with our key allies.

The Obama admin got rid of the Neo-Cons and reminded Israel this year who is the Super Power and who is the local client - effectively deflecting the drum beat for some kind of attack while bringing Europe on board for harsh sanctions.

The Administration moved quickly to jump on sudden change in Burma and put in play a country that had otherwise been a reliable friend of China.

The Pivot to Asia is working out well with the US getting controversial (in the local) agreement with both he Philippines and Australia for bases and access.

The would seem to have kept most NATO and related force in Afghanistan till 2014 - yes everyone is leaving but no real black eye of a sudden break

As far as I can tell Things in Somalia seem to be working out the way the US likes

Successfully replacing costly direct intervention with supported third party actions or cheap drone wars.

Since the US is now sitting a pile of Natural Gas the fact that Obama carried the Democrats in the senate to get a Free trade deal done with the ROK is notable since the ROK is the second largest consumer of LGN in the world.

[GrnEyedDvl]

At the risk of derailing this thread I will respond.

Which seems excessive. Being the holidays I don't all that much free time and Moving the thread divorces it from the related Thread that spawned the argument. Besides Exarch specifically asked for a new thread before he would elaborate on his unsupported argument but did not do it.

I sort of figured there was another conversaion someplace that I was not aware of, which is why I let this play out as it has.

I don't see the issue in using his forum name? Why would I not just stick it here?

Threads about other members or specifically discussing another members political views are expressly off topic in the D & D forums per the ToS. What we try to avoid are personal comments about someone because they believe xxx, and what we try to promote is discussion about a topic and not about the member posting the topic. By naming someone like this in a thread title you run the risk of this thread turning into a very personal conversation in what is supposed to be a forum free from stuff like that.

And if you really want to 'slap me around' please either come out the WA and do that in person or do it now and kill this thread and reprimand me in some formal way or at least tell be via PM how this thread is some gross offense and how am now on double secrete probation or some such.

You read that completely wrong but its completely my fault.

When I said "slap you around" I meant that your premise was flawed and I would be slapping the premise around. There is no double secret probation and no gross offense committed. Apologies for how I worded that.

And btw, anytime you want to have a friendly boxing match I would be more than happy to slap you around. Or to be slapped around, whichever the case may be. Either way I will buy the dinner afterwards.

[B. W.]

Whew! How about Benghazi? How about the Russian reset button? How about the Muslim Brotherhood taking over Eygpt?

That's not all either. That only required a few seconds thought. She's been screwing up since she took the office. Unbelievably, she probably worse than Madalin Albright, and that's saying something.

[Exarch]

So by mess I mean definite policy and result she advocated for - not some overall Policy of the Obama Admin, Not one inherited policy from the previous administration. Potentially I will also except a 'positive' or 'better' policy that she advocated but failed to secure because she lost do to internal politics in the Obama Admin. I will not except any silly statement about policies a Republican admin might have done but were never going to happen in the Obama administration in any case or any other unrealistic potential policy.

ok Conon, i'll bite, and as GrnEyedDvl pointed out, your parameters are obviously flawed, especially since it doesn't matter what a politician 'advocates', what matters is what they do. As a common saying in America goes: 'money talks, bull walks' and nowhere is this most apparent in the case being made by yourself that Hilary Clinton was a good SECSTATE because she advocated but failed. What a total BS argument, that's like saying Neville Chamberlain was a good British PM because he 'tried but failed' to stop Nazi Germany from initiating a world war based on Hitler's guarantee. There's a reason why Chamberlain is criticised and why people like Eisenhower are lauded.

No, the American people deserve better and what the American people should expect from their elected officials are real and tangible changes from the moment they entered office, which can be attributed to these officials or to a team with which they were a part of.

To illustrate my point, let's have Alex Baldwin on the podium for a sec (Strong language, warning):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

You see pal, that's who I am, and you're nothing. Nice guy? I don't give a . Good father? you! Go home and play with your kids. You wanna work here - close! You think this is abuse? You think this is abuse, you er? You can't take this, how can you take the abuse you get on a sit? You don't like it, leave.

noone gives a rat's arse if hilary clinton's a woman, or who 'tried but failed'. Noone cares if she's a good woman or shops at Macys or enjoys the pussy as much as her husband. In fact the case can even be made that she's not really the icon of feminism considering she owes so much of her political career to her husband's Presidency and connections.

What matters is results and so far i don't see much improvement in the State Department from the moment she entered office in 2009 to her disastrous resignation late 2012.

To further illustrate my position, i'll be going through each and every activity and/or incident involving the State Department under Hilary Clinton's tenure leading up to and including the disastrous Benghazi cluster that resulted in the death of a US ambassador.
If you're lucky we can even discuss how she was allegedly more concerned with undermining Obama for his job in 2016 than being a good SECSTATE.

I'll leave with a clip demonstrating the sort of SECSTATE Hilary Rodham Clinton apparently is:


Any poker player knows that the moment you allow the other guy to get an emotional reaction out of you, then you're ed and nowhere is this most apparent in this clip. Too goddamn emotional, or unable to control her own emotional reactions. hell even Condi Rice was a better SECSTATE-by a wide margin at that.

[Heinz Guderian]

Be they Condi Rice, Colin Powell or Hilary Clinton. They all serve the same masters.

[xcorps]

Be they Condi Rice, Colin Powell or Hilary Clinton. They all serve the same masters.

Not Hillary. I couldn't get her to do windows no matter how much I whipped her. Colin folded like a wet noodle as soon as I snapped my finger, but Condi has welts.

[Sphere]

Be they Condi Rice, Colin Powell or Hilary Clinton. They all serve the same masters.

ESPN and ESPN2?

[Condottiere 40K]

That would be a twist, if Hilary had an affair with W in revenge.

Hard to believe that Biden has a viable chance for the nomination in 2016.

[Captain Jin]

I have to say Exarch you haven't really provided a single legitimate argument. Your arguments are based on silly things like no one cares if she's a good woman but and shops at Macy's or when you talk about advocating and failing in some non-descript regard it doesn't really help your case. In fact, you haven't really provided a single substantiated example of her being a failure as Secretary of State or a so-called mess that she created. She earned a 70% bipartisan approval rating which is pretty damn good and you don't get that off making messes. In the end all things relating to Benghazi turned controversial and whether it was her fault or not someone was going to hang the blame on somebody, it just so happened that when the report came out Clinton decided to gracefully take responsibility, which is hardly fitting of a 'disastrous resignation'. Early last year she had said she would more than likely not want to do a second term as Secretary of State if Obama won again, so it's not as if her resigning toward the end of her tenure and letting them hang the blame of Benghazi on her is very significant. And B.W. none of your examples hold any water either. Russian reset button? Please elaborate and then also explain to me how the Secretary of State should/could have prevented or manipulated the inter politics of a country like Egypt.

A lot of the tangible successes the Obama administration achieved in regards to foreign policy were thanks to Clinton which inevitably helped him get re-elected because he had a stronger foreign policy platform than Romney did. Much of that came from Clinton's efforts.

And seriously, posting a youtube clip and talking about poker and people getting emotional is a crap way to try and make a point in this regard.

[Exarch]

I

A lot of the tangible successes the Obama administration achieved in regards to foreign policy were thanks to Clinton which inevitably helped him get re-elected because he had a stronger foreign policy platform than Romney did. Much of that came from Clinton's efforts.

doubtful, other individuals such as Susan Rice or Gates had more of a hand in some of the Obama admin's FP sucesses than Clinton.
How is it that whatever she touches either turns inert or ?

And seriously, posting a youtube clip and talking about poker and people getting emotional is a crap way to try and make a point in this regard.

the key point of the clip is that it doesn't matter whether or not hillary clinton 'tried but failed'. Given the casuist nature of realpolitik, one can and should expect results from one's own public servants.

oh and another thing, it's nice and admirable for yo to pick conon's side because he's your mate, and there's a general sense in these fora that i am somehow 'unAmerican' because of my tone, but let's be real and true to the facts here. If people like Conon can't take criticism towards individuals of his favourite political party, how the hell does he expect to see himself as a Patriot? How the hell does he expect America to improve? he's like the Ed Harris character in the film, getting all worked up and prissy over his goddam pride rather than taking on the criticism and accepting that yes, Hillary Clinton may have just ed up just a wee bit as SECSTATE.

[motiv-8]

I'd have loved for Clinton to try to intervene in Egypt to stop the "Muslim Brotherhood takeover" -- gee some people have really odd descriptions of democratic elections these days -- and then we'd be seeing BW and others about how Clinton caused a Muslim Brotherhood takeover of an Egypt that would then be actively hostile to us Iran-style for meddling in their foreign affairs.

[Captain Jin]

Yeah exactly. It's typical of people's views of the United States. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Get involved in Iraq, war-mongers, don't get involved in Libya then we are ignoring the plight of those being slaughtered, then get into Libya and we are there for oil so don't get involved in Syria, but wait civilians are being slaughtered America do something.

[mrmouth]

The woman really led a total adjustment of how the State Dept. handles international affairs based on what Obama felt was a vital need for reset after eight years of Bush. And of course most people on the planet would agree with that.

So when you look at the overall success of a Sec of State over almost 1500 earth days, you kind of have to paint in broad strokes. You can get into specifics, but the list is long. And doing so in this thread wouldn't be noticeable. I could throw at a wall with similar effect.

Has she been successful in what she was tasked with? Absolutely. Has it helped the US, put us on a better footing, internationally? Absolutely.

[motiv-8]

Hell just the fact that the State Dept is even the subject of any discussion again is a major accomplishment. Under the Bush Admin the State Dept was almost totally subsumed by the DoD, it's budget was gutted and given to Defense, its counsel all but ignored. It must have taken a lot of work to start reversing that (very dangerous) trend.

[conon394]

Whew! How about Benghazi? How about the Russian reset button? How about the Muslim Brotherhood taking over Eygpt?

So on Benghazi - I still want to know for those who argue it was some kind of catastrophic failure, does that mean every Secretary of State or Foreign Minister who has been in office for a significant embassy attack is also a failure? Aside from contries you actually occupy you are dependent on mostly local security and most countries don't really want a military fortress for your embassy. The Ambassador made his own personal choice as well - which is what State should be doing - that is not being the Pentagon and CIA.

Maybe if the State had a real budget (compared to DOD) it could afford things like like security people who were low profile or better on the ground Intel so risk could be more accurately assessed, but at the end of the day if some people don't like you your Embassy will always be a target and I don't think the answer is making a prison bunker for diplomats or pretend the US can just ram in some vast reaction force.

On Russia - What can you really say the overall Obama team seemed to aim a reset but that is hard when Putin looks to making himself a Czar and Russia is four square behind Assad. But the US and Europe did get the UN authorization they wanted for Libya - with Russia abstaining it seems reasonable to assume that that was in least partly due to the Administrations efforts to improve relations. But of course Russia did not like the extent of the European/US action so diplomatic capital made and spent - that how things work. Given the intrests of Each country its not like we just going to suddenly drop everything and sing Kumbaya

How do you propose the US should have stopped the Muslim Brotherhood?

A: Invent a time Machine after realizing that supporting corrupt autocrats for 30+ years was maybe a bad Ideal and instead redirect massive and often wasteful military aid into things like building secular schools, literacy training, grants to NGOs and Micro loans for women so as to empower them and give Egypt a modern literacy rate for example.

B: Prop up a old dictator pal with a military intervention?

C: Spend hugely to help the non Muslim brotherhood force - because every country like a foreigner butting into their election and that would not at all make the non BH side look like US stooges?

D: Fill in the blank?

This is sort of the who lost China question. The US is not All Powerful - I mean we spent decades and tons of blood and treasure in Vietnam (under several different Admins with different approaches) and we still could not make S Vietnam stick as a country. The fact is most people really don't want somebody else from far away telling them who to vote for and can you blame them.