Maggie's Farm

Re: Bill Gates says that capitalism cannot save us from climate change

It just goes to show you that being smart in one area doesn't make you smart in another. On the other hand, a more skeptical interpretation is that he already has his so it makes no difference to him what economic system we have. He's pretty insulated from the insanity he proposes, until things get really bad and society starts eating the rich.

Re: Diversity

"Diversity" is just a club with which to beat the dominant (Western) culture over the head. We are supposed to stop doing, saying, or thinking all kinds of things so as not to offend others, but they never have to make adjustments so as not to offend the rest of us. Any offence that might be felt by anybody in Western culture is much less important than the offense somebody in another culture (including those who came here voluntarily) might feel. Most of the time, those claiming that a group is offended, are not even a member of that group!

Let's see... She engineered the disaster that is Libya producing an opening for ISIS there. Did not take responsibility for the providing security for her good friend Chris (who didn't even have her email address - some friend). Lied to the family members of those who were killed - as well as the rest of us about how they were killed (possibly to cover up her ineptitude). Had her private email server set up to shield her from any scrutiny and government records regulations (as well as the State Department classification system) while exposing state secrets to hackers from Russia, China, and Iran as well as whole groups of people maintaining her server and the backups who did not have security clearances. She exposed herself as incompetent to determine what information is or should be classified. And lied about whether there was any classified information on her server (Oh! That's contradictory, isn't it? Maybe I was right in the first place and she really is too stupid to know what constitutes classified material!). And she got herself investigated by the FBI for possible criminal violations of law.

Yeah, I'd say that was weak tea. She sounds like a great candidate for president. The sad thing is that most Dems will vote for her anyway because honesty, competency, an protecting state secrets aren't important if you're a Democrat.

Hillary only said she takes responsibility for the security situation in Benghazi. That's meaningless. Hillary's "good friend Chris" made scores of requests for better security that were refused or ignored. Then when there was an effort to save Chris and those at the compound, they were told to stand down. What was Dame Hillary's response to that? Did she order a complete review of the failure there? Did heads roll? Not that I ever heard. She did nothing. She was too busy figuring out how to cover her ass.

The disaster in the broader Middle East, as you describe it, was the 'Arab Spring' that the Obama administration was cheering on. It was supposed to usher in a new democratic Middle East. They were as clueless about it and the Muslim Brotherhood as they've been about every foreign policy issue. As for Hillary's role in overthrowing Gadhafi, The Atlantic says:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/hillary-clinton-debate-libya/410437/ That it blames Cheney for allowing a power vacuum in Iraq just polishes its leftist bona fides. It was her operation.

And CNN says: http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/08/politics/hillary-clinton-libya-election-2016/ She declared victory and then ignored it.

The emails clearly show she was lying when she told the public and the parents of those killed in Benghazi that she thought the attack was the result of a demonstration about a video.

Z: It didn't show malfeasance.
Why do you bring up malfeasance?? How about incompetence? Doesn't the State Department have the responsibility to protect its installations? It's ok that the "security experts" decided that defending the airport was more important than the lives of an ambassador and his team? So Hillary was ok with the security arrangements (or lack thereof) and the outcome because there was no malfeasance? What a gal!

Z: That's been debunked by multiple investigations.
The people who were there had a different view: http://www.businessinsider.com/cia-contractors-at-benghazi-speak-out-2014-12 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/world/africa/new-book-says-cia-official-in-benghazi-held-up-rescue.html?_r=0
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimdalrympleii/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-new-benghazi-book#.vwmGRkN7L2

Z: Sure, but the Arab Spring was due to changes in the region, not to the Obama Administration.
I didn't say they had anything to do with the Arab Spring. I said they cheered it on.

Z: There was little the U.S. could do.
The articles I quoted say, the US played an active role in Libya, and nobody worried what to do after Qaddafi was gone.

Security was requested and denied - this at a time when all the other Western diplomats and NGOs were evacuated because of the danger. The result was four people, including an ambassador, were killed. That should be have at least cost someone his job. There were no repercussions for this failure and more than that, Hillary tried to cover up the cause of the attack so that it would look like it came from a random demonstration and the administration couldn't be held responsible for such a freak occurance. That anybody is not troubled by the performance of Hillary and the security experts is beyond comprehension.

On top of all that, the backdrop was that of the aftermath of an operation the US participated in (we can't say led because the US doesn't lead anywhere now a days) with the goal of toppling the head of Libya. The planning of it was so inept that there was no thought of what to do after he was gone. And possible genocide? First if you're going to do something about a situation, you just don't quit when you're tired of it if the job isn't finished. During the Iraq war, the phrase, "You break it, you own it" was bandied about to describe Bush's responsibility. Hillary and Obama had that same responsibility. They (helped) break it so it is their job to help put it back together. Second, we have genocide going on now and nobody in the administration is even thinking of doing anything about it.

This is not about politics, it is about policy (What was their Libya policy? Was the outcome a success?), honesty (Hillary has not been forthcoming about anything from her secret UNSECURED email server that was maintained by personnel who did not have security clearances, to the reason for the attack, to her responsibility in the whole affair), intent (was what Hillary and Obama did to further US national goals in the region to support democratic reforms, peace, and support for our allies in the region), and competence (everything about the Libya affair was an unmitigated disaster). The administration tried to handle a policy disaster as a political issue - lie about it. As I said before, if this is what passes as Presidential performance under pressure for Democrats (like that 3 am phone call she said she was ready for), then they are in trouble. If she is elected, we are all in trouble.

Z: The rescue team was delayed...

That is non responsive. The issue was security requested by Hillary's good friend Chris Stevens (who was such a good friend that he didn't even have her email address).

Z: ... the available options were limited

The option was not to start something you weren't going to finish. Do you think they were really worried about genocide? What evidence do you have? The administration has paid zero attention to genocide since then, they have even refused intelligence to those who want to battle it (Egypt and Jordan - both run by moderate Muslims, the kind we are supposed to like - but they are falling over themselves to return money to a murderous regime that foments terror, kills US servicemen, and wants to build a nuclear bomb).

Even if you don't agree with what or how W did in Iraq, you have to admit that in spite of what John Edwards said, he had a plan. He started a war and then he attempted to leave it a better place when it was done. Hillary had none of that concern. She either couldn't be bothered or didn't know enough to be.

Z: When those are at fault, it is important to understand the failure so as to avoid it in the future.

So what did Dame Hillary do about this failure? Did she hold anyone accountable for their incredibly bad decisions that led to the death of four Americans? Did she institute reforms? She did nothing... I take that back, she lied to cover it up.

Z: Non-interference was one option.

I didn't imply that nothing should be done. I said that if you're going to start a regime change, you need to be ready for the consequences. She was uninterested in those consequences.

Z: They had a fantasy.

Maybe. Hillary didn't even have that.

Z: Almost as vague as the Iraq War plan.

Cute.

Getting back to the original issue - the 'weak tea' of the Benghazi investigations, we now have the potential of criminality: http://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-signed-nda-laying-out-criminal-penalties-for-mishandling-of-classified-info/

I understand that your standard for criminality is whether the DOJ will prosecute, which will never happen, but criminality seems to follow these Clintons wherever they go.