The Dangers of Hillary

The other night, while the boys were out, politics came up, and how dangerous that was! We at the Aardvark, for the most part, are like minded people. However we can stray a bit and here goes Uncle Doogs!! Our dangerous topics of politics is not nearly as dangerous as who I think the Democratic Party was able to rummage up for the presidential nominee. Now  I know my counterparts are both going to roll their eyes at me and say, “Donald is far more dangerous.”  Is he dangerous, sure, but as dangerous as Hilary, I think not. Besides neither one of them are getting my vote, Hey Gary Johnson!

The reason why I think Hilary is far more dangerous than Trump is the way she has handled certain events as Secretary of State. She had an American Ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens, die on her watch. How quickly people are to defend her saying that both partisan and bipartisan Committee’s have found Clinton free of wrong doing, which to me is incredibly dangerous words. My biggest problem with it all is he never should have been there at all. The State Department failed him, and his family, for keeping him safe. The order had been carried out to fortify the compound that he was staying at, but it was never followed through.

[Dis]Honorable HRC
Boom, that right there is problem number one. My fellow Aardvarkian, Patrick, gave me that little tid bit of information, which I find is a sorry excuse for a defense for someone like the Secretary of State. Making sure that my order of, “Fortify that compound” would be the first thing I followed up on every single morning until it happened. I find it foolish to think that because someone gave an order that means it will happen instantly, or not get lost in the shuffle. If the compound was not getting fortified properly, why didn’t SecState pick up the phone to POTUS? I find it irresponsible that Clinton did not use the resources she had available to her as SecState to make sure things such as security for Americans were happening.

Pat also made a valid point of being Secretary of State is an incredibly dynamic job with the demands of many things happening quite often. Indeed Patrick, a dynamic job it must be, which I 100% agree with. However it helps further my point here. She will not be able to handle the demands of being President. It is an even more dynamic situation I would think, and this is a poor showing of her abilities to over come situations. To me, the security of a compound, not an embassy, a compound, that should not have even been there in the first place, should have been her top priority every morning with a basic follow up questions of, “I need an update on the security of Ambassador Steven’s quarters” and could have easily pressed on to whatever else was on the agenda.

Clinton’s mismanagement of even allowing an Ambassador to be in that country in the first place is a second, and monumental red flag people should be seeing. The fact is allies, had pulled out all of their embassies and had Ambassadors return home. My counterpart, James, made a fair point. “Since when do we as America listen to other countries?” Honestly, I think we do quite often, and a good leader knows when to follow and listen as well. Clinton failed miserably there. Had we been proactive with wanting to keep Ambassador Stevens, alive the country would have made sure that he was not in Libya which is now a failed state and is a strong hold for ISIS.

I find myself having very troubled feelings after watching Representative Roskam’s video regarding the lack of military assets in the area. No lives could have been saved because no military forces were moving towards Benghazi. That is a monumental breakdown on the federal level. This plays into a bigger point of the Government fucking up badly with not having good oversight on what they were entrusted to have oversight on.

Hillary’s complete lack of integrity continues to prove that she is way too dangerous for the American people. Her continued inability to tell the truth regarding the email server crisis is a thermometer of her moral compass. Her inability to the tell truth greatly puts this nation’s national security at risk and puts the American people in jeopardy, while she enjoys twenty-four hour protection from the US Secret Service. Polls have even shown that Clinton is not found to be trust worthy or loyal, but yet, people will still vote for her rather than stand up to the political system that has them all tied to feeling the need to make a main stream vote.

Hilary was also equated to a “public servant” during the debate to which I can only laugh at. She is so far from a public servant. She did not fight for one second for Ambassador Stevens. She had endless resources to make sure SecDef had moved military assets near by, or simply told POTUS to keep an eye on things as well.

That brings me to another point. Let me be extremely clear here: Being a political does not make you a public servant. In my eyes, as a true public servant, it does not work that way. Clinton is in the business of politics to live the 1% lifestyle off of the American taxpayer. A public servant works for the people, and has the American people’s concerns at the forefront of their mind. Not how to break laws and hopefully not get caught (e-mailgate reference to which my fellow Aardvarkians will say, “Well the FBI director isn’t pressing charges.”) More importantly, why would you want someone who could be facing criminal charges as your presidential Nominee? I don’t get it! Does that not worry you that their integrity is being called into question? Does it not worry you that your nominee is doing shady things that may warrant the Department of Justice to weigh in on?! I think she is just such a foolish person and foolish nominee for president.

The Dem’s really fucked this one up. Get use to having someone with no integrity in office because this nation is really looking like they’ll be putting Hillary in office.

Oh and the GOP fucked this one up too. I think another article ripping Donald is due!

3 Comments Add yours

  1. Patrick Baga says:

    Well, the article’s here before us, might as well debate it a little bit. As you know I respect your opinion and the points you raise are valuable to any discussion on this.

    You write that your biggest problem with it all is that we never should have been there at all. You may be referring to Benghazi specifically or Libya as a whole. Either way, this is a point that’s raised quite often.

    First off, let’s just be clear we weren’t the only country there in Benghazi on the date of the attack. Rep. Gowdy made that “last flag flying” remark which seemed to stick although it’s inaccurate.

    From USAToday, “Some Western countries that had had a presence in Benghazi pulled out before September 2012. According to the Senate Intelligence Report on Benghazi, the European Union, Italy, France, Turkey, and Malta remained.”

    And Politifact, “The bipartisan report adopted by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence found that the U.S. was not the “last flag flying” in Benghazi. The U.S. presence—alongside the United Nations and the European Union—reflected Ambassador Stevens’ view that Benghazi was “critically important,” and he received significant deference as “one of, if not the premier expert” on Libyan matters, according to his colleagues. PolitiFact rated this claim as “False.””

    So the debate can rage on as to whether we should’ve been there (and it probably will forever). What isn’t up for debate is that we weren’t the only ones.

    Now where you and I will see eye-to-eye is on the fact that HRC and other administration officials didn’t adequately address the risks involved with being in Benghazi. In hindsight, clearly, but at the time it was clear as well and actions should’ve been taken that weren’t.

    However, and I’m just reading off the CNN piece that I’ll link to at the bottom, “[The House Benghazi Committee report] suggests Stevens himself bore responsibility for securing his post … Stevens and senior department officials were apparently keen to set up a permanent consulate in Benghazi … but the difficulty finding a suitable secure facility prompted officials to exclude the Benghazi compound from official department rules and standards that would have otherwise been more stringent.”

    If I’m interpreting this clearly, then the Benghazi compound wasn’t beholden to official standards because of the inability to find a secure facility. That sounds counterintuitive to me, in theory the less secure a place is the more stringent you would want to be, but that’s the explanation I’m reading and perhaps that is just protocol.

    “”If you are in a non-diplomatic facility, there are no security standards. They don’t exist,” one unnamed diplomatic security agent told the committee,” the article continues.

    Again, I guess this explains why there wasn’t a sense of urgency to secure properly, the facility was outside the jurisdiction of having security standards, but this feels unsatisfactory to me as it likely does to you.

    “The report says requests for more security in Benghazi repeatedly met no response or were refused by senior officials in Washington, though the parts of the report seen by CNN do not directly lay the fault at Clinton’s door.”

    This isn’t good enough, of course, and reeks of bureaucratic inadequacy as it always has. I would just argue that there would appear to be blame to go around here. It doesn’t reflect well on the administration, but to me there is a distinction between officials working under me not doing their job to the point of negligence vs. because my officials fucked up in response to requests I may or may not have had a direct hand in deciding, blood’s on my hands and I completely lack integrity. Regardless, it doesn’t reflect well on the administration.

    “The report reveals the determination of Stevens to keep the post open in Benghazi — “Chris had, I think a different tolerance of risk than I did,” said Joan Polaschik, former U.S. deputy chief of mission in Libya.”


    “In testimony to the committee, Charlene Lamb, formerly a senior State Department official, said that Stevens was ultimately responsible for security at his post. “It is very unfortunate and sad at this point that Ambassador Stevens was a victim, but that is where ultimate responsibility lies.””
    Just quoting the report here. We have the former U.S. deputy chief of mission in Libya saying Stevens was determined to keep the post open in Benghazi. We have the former senior State Department official saying that Stevens was ultimately responsible for security at his post. If it’s known not to be secure, whether it be due to Washington failing to address security concerns or due to the fact that there aren’t security standards for a non-diplomatic facility, it sounds like we have a situation where Americans were at a post they knew was insecure.

    “The report said the Benghazi mission made repeated requests for new agents in late 2011 and early 2012. After a series of attacks on international targets in the city, more requests were made. But “no additional resources were provided by Washington D.C. to fortify the compound after the first two attacks. No additional personnel were sent to secure the facility, despite repeated requests for security experts on the ground.”


    “At one point, then-State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland emailed Stevens to ask how to publicly describe the security incidents in 2012 : “Washington D.C. dismissed Stevens’ multiple requests for additional security personnel while also asking for help in messaging the very violence he was seeking security from,” the report said.”

    I’m losing steam a little but these last two paragraphs sum things up for me. Security requests were sent and Washington didn’t follow up on them. That’s not good enough. HRC bears some responsibility, as does the entire Administration.

    But what continues to stand out too is that everyone seemed to know Benghazi wasn’t secure—to the point that you had officials excluding the Benghazi compound from official rules and standards because it was so obviously not a place to be. Yet, the report says Stevens was insistent on keeping the post in Benghazi.

    For me, it’s a bureaucratic clusterfuck. Laying as much blame on HRC as the rightwing media has tried to despite all the investigations coming up empty seems like overkill—as almost all nonpartisan media and international media has concluded.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Uncle Doogs says:

      The typical, “We’ll blame it on the member” game the government loves to play. Ambassador Stevens had no prior service in the military or and sort of combat experience that would show him the vulnerabilities of the compound he was staying in. I think that sets the member up for failure, which is obviously what happened here. It is easy to say, “Well yes we should have had oversight over it, but really it came down to the Ambassador” when you’re still alive and he is dead.

      Excellent points raised at how other countries were still in Libya, but I would like to know the security protocols and measures that were in place for those compounds or embassies. I get that Ambassador Stevens was in a facility that did not fall under the “embassy” requirements for security; however, I find this yet another foolish and trying to cover your tracks argument that Clinton and the Obama Administration is using. Had nothing happened the Administration would have seen it, most likely, as we have saved money by cutting a corner. But since he died, they’re trying to cover their tracks. Someone with common sense, which I know those politicians actually have plenty of, really should have simply known better.

      The biggest gripe I have is, HRC did know better (as well as the Obama Administration) and she has on multiple instances but still loves to cut corners and prove that she is not trustworthy and an ineffective leader.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Patrick Baga says:

    Ambassador Stevens may not have had the prior service but he knew the compound wasn’t secure per his requests for personnel/resources (that, as we know, went ignored). If we’re going to play the hindsight bias game, then it would’ve followed that he stay in Tripoli if he felt Benghazi wasn’t secure. But, per the report, he was insistent on being in Benghazi.

    I, too, feel like he was set up for failure. But what it keeps coming back to for me is the claim that, “difficulty finding a suitable secure facility prompted officials to exclude the Benghazi compound from official department rules and standards that would have otherwise been more stringent.” If the Benghazi compound was excluded from official standards, then it follows that the State Department wouldn’t provide personnel/resources. I don’t think I agree with that mindset, but if rules are rules and to be executed as such, there are no security standards for a non-diplomatic facility. So for me the State Department isn’t saying “well yes we should have had oversight over it” but rather “if it were a diplomatic facility then yes we should have had oversight over it, but it wasn’t classified as such.”

    Interpreting the developments as covering their tracks is a plausible takeaway. And, agreed, if nothing happened then it’s a non-story. As before, for me the point remains the same. If a facility doesn’t fall under “embassy” requirements, then it just doesn’t. The State Department was consistent in the way they treated the compound as a non-embassy entity. It’s not covering tracks just because a tragedy happened. If they retroactively changed the classification or something, then it’d be a different story.

    My biggest problem remains their outlook on a “non-diplomatic” facility altogether. Just because a compound has that classification doesn’t give them the right to ignore the requests of Americans rightfully concerned about their safety. So even if they followed protocol in rejecting security requests for a non-diplomatic compound, I would want to know why that is the protocol in the first place. That sounds terribly oversimplified and negligent. Was that protocol instituted by POTUS, by HRC, by someone else or has that been protocol going back to previous administrations? I don’t know the answers to those questions, but that is what has and continues to bother me the most about the whole situation. The protocol felt inept, I just don’t know to what degree certain parties are accountable when it comes to agency of the protocol (and, I suppose, agency to call an audible if protocol is woefully inadequate). Thus, I may be more inclined to suspend blame on specific people, but as before I get where you’re coming from wholeheartedly and reiterate that it doesn’t reflect well on the administration and those leading it.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s