2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWikileaks: Hillary Clinton is a bigger threat to world peace than the Pentagon
Hillary Clinton is a bigger threat to world peace than the Pentagon
https://wikileaks.org/hillary-war/
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/704472712228560897
leveymg
(36,418 posts)for her. The uniformed military doesn't have that luxury, so most don't. Only the psychopaths.
I have had years of experience in dealing with Hillary Clinton and have read thousands of her cables. Hillary lacks judgement and will push the United States into endless, stupid wars which spread terrorism. Her personality combined with her poor policy decisions have directly contributed to the rise of ISIS.
Pentagon generals objected to destroying the Libyan state. They felt Hillary did not have a safe post-war plan. Hillary Clinton went over their heads. Libya has been destroyed. It became a haven for ISIS. The Libyan national armory was looted and hundreds of tons of weapons were transferred to jihadists in Syria. Hillary's war has increased terrorism, killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians and has set back women's rights in the Middle East by hundreds of years. Having learned nothing from the Libyan disaster Hillary then set about trying do the same in Syria.
Hillary publicly took credit for the destruction of the Libyan state. On hearing that the country's president had been killed by her handiwork, she became wild-eyed and gloated "We came, we saw, he died!". In the momentary thrill of the kill, she had aped, of all people, Julius Ceaser.
Hillary's problem is not just that she's war hawk. She's a war hawk with bad judgement who gets an unseemly emotional rush out of killing people. She shouldn't be let near a gun shop, let alone an army. And she certainly should not become president of the United States.
- J. Assange
BreakfastClub
(765 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)President Obama was deeply wary of another military venture in a Muslim country. Most of his senior advisers were telling him to stay out. Still, he dispatched Mrs. Clinton to sound out Mr. Jibril, a leader of the Libyan opposition. Their late-night meeting on March 14, 2011, would be the first chance for a top American official to get a sense of whom, exactly, the United States was being asked to support.
In her suite at the Westin, she and Mr. Jibril, a political scientist with a doctorate from the University of Pittsburgh, spoke at length about the fast-moving military situation in Libya. But Mrs. Clinton was clearly also thinking about Iraq, and its hard lessons for American intervention.
Did the oppositions Transitional National Council really represent the whole of a deeply divided country, or just one region? What if Colonel Qaddafi quit, fled or was killed did they have a plan for what came next?
She was asking every question you could imagine, Mr. Jibril recalled.
Mrs. Clinton was won over. Opposition leaders said all the right things about supporting democracy and inclusivity and building Libyan institutions, providing some hope that we might be able to pull this off, said Philip H. Gordon, one of her assistant secretaries. They gave us what we wanted to hear. And you do want to believe.
Her conviction would be critical in persuading Mr. Obama to join allies in bombing Colonel Qaddafis forces. In fact, Mr. Obamas defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, would later say that in a 51-49 decision, it was Mrs. Clintons support that put the ambivalent president over the line.
The consequences would be more far-reaching than anyone imagined, leaving Libya a failed state and a terrorist haven, a place where the direst answers to Mrs. Clintons questions have come to pass.
This is the story of how a woman whose Senate vote for the Iraq war may have doomed her first presidential campaign nonetheless doubled down and pushed for military action in another Muslim country. As she once again seeks the White House, campaigning in part on her experience as the nations chief diplomat, an examination of the intervention she championed shows her at what was arguably her moment of greatest influence as secretary of state.
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)calculations, namely, she wanted to show that as a woman she had no qualms acting aggressively. Libya was simply extra material for a future advert about her being capable of being CoC. Obama should have seen this and not given her the opportunity to create havoc so she could beef up her resume.
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)The latest tranche of Clinton emails recalls her pivotal role in the U.S. intervention.
Now that Libya has descended into chaos, Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton is at pains to dispel the notion that, as secretary of state, she led the U.S. intervention that toppled dictator Muammar Gaddafi in 2011.
Yet the latest tranche of emails from Clintons private server, released by the State Department on October 30, shows theres one individual who would strongly object to those efforts: the Hillary Clinton of 2011 and 2012.
A report in June by the New York Times revealed that in August 2011, Clintons advisors had urged her to take credit for what was then seen as a military success in Libya. Now, the newly released emails show that the former secretary of state was herself intent on emphasizing her key role in the affairand that her team used cozy relationships with the media to help her do so.
In one exchange, on April 4, 2012, a frustrated Clinton complains to her staffers that theyd omitted a number of key details in a timeline titled Secretary Clintons leadership on Libya. The timeline, which aims to show that Clinton was instrumental in securing the authorization, building the coalition and tightening the noose around Qadhafi [sic] and his regime, would later be provided to media.
Did I meet in Paris w Jabril [sic] (brought to hotel by BHL) on 3/14? It's not on timeline, she writes in the April 4 email, referring to Mahmoud Jibril, the prime minister for Libyas National Transitional Council during the countrys civil war, and Bernard-Henri Lévy (BHL), the French philosopher who helped drive Frances own involvement in the conflict. In fact, Clintons meeting with Jibril was listed on the original timeline produced by advisor Jacob Sullivan, suggesting Clinton was either referring to a different version of the timeline or, more likely, failed to see it on the document.
This timeline is totally inadequate (which bothers me about our recordkeeping), Clinton writes three minutes later. For example, I was in Paris on 3/19 when attack started. That's not on timeline. What else is missing? Pls go over it asap. Twenty-three minutes later, Sullivan sent Clinton an updated version of the timeline with the March 19 incident added in.
Clinton emailed her advisors twice more within six minutes, saying, What bothers me is that S/P [the State Departments Bureau of Policy Planning staff] prepared the timeline but it doesn't include much of what I did. Among the items that were left out, she notes phone calls and meetings with Arab officials, as well as her role in securing a March 12 Arab League resolution, which called for a U.N.-imposed no-fly zone over Libya.
The emails also reveal that Clintons team was feeding information to the media to push the narrative she is now contesting: that she was the chief force behind intervention in Libya.
In the same email chain, Clinton complains, The Joby Warrick piece from 10/30/11 includes more detail than our own timeline. She is referring to a Washington Post article that details Clintons pivotal role in forging and maintaining the alliance of intervening countries through her mixture of political pragmatism and tenacity.
However, Clintons team quickly assures her that Warricks piece was as thorough as it was because the State Department had diligently furnished him with the necessary information:
The comprehensive tick tock Jake put together
was done in large part for the Warrick piece. The great detail Joby had came entirely from Jake. Joby didnt do any independent research.
This suggests the timeline was provided to the Post to serve as the basis for the piece. Additionally, the fact that Clinton is rankled that the articles extensive detail outdoes the timeline, and her staffs subsequent assurance that Sullivan was the source of this behind-the-scenes detail on Clintons leadership, implies that Sullivannow one of Clintons top advisors for her presidential campaignmay have been one of the nameless State Department officials cited by Warrick.
http://inthesetimes.com/article/18592/new-clinton-emails-expose-collaboration-with-media-on-benghazi-coverag1
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)She glorifies war in a way that is reminiscent of W in a flight suit. I was also really disturbed when she said that she is proud to have "the Iranians" as an enemy. What kind of serious dignified diplomat says something like that? Especially after a peace agreement had just been negotiated.
kstewart33
(6,551 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)Her record is clear as to where she intends to lead the U.S. military: Tehran.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)jillan
(39,451 posts)NO THANK YOU!!!!
7wo7rees
(5,128 posts)Painful. Kissinger has to be proud! The daughter he never had......
Codeine
(25,586 posts)GreenPartyVoter
(72,377 posts)is a threat to the Pentagon."
kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Enough said, I think.