USA Africa Dialogue Series - Rethinking Clinton - Wall Street, Iraq and Benghazi Debacle Race for White House] ]

comment in  'How do we support a racist?' Young Republicans grapple with 2016 election

"I suppose young Democrats have to ask themselves the question "How do I support a corporate warmonger?"

.

Let's talk about that for a moment:

1. Clinton hasn't actually started a single war (yet). She merely inherited Dubya's wars, via Obama. Guilty until proven innocent?

2) Corporate shill in the pay of Wall Street. Actually she was senator for New York, which includes Wall Street. Advocating for Wall Street was part of her job. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_career_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton

3) Paid speeches to banks/hedge funds, the content of which she has refused to release.
The speeches were made as a private citizen. Being paid to make speeches at banks/hedge funds is not unusual, especially for successful former politicians, yet only Clinton gets manplained about it - see this excellent article: http://www.salon.com/2016/06/01/trumps_paid_speech_scandal_the_political_press_has_murdered_hillary_for_so_much_less_partner/

4) She voted for the invasion of Iraq -- which pretty much American did at the time (You're either with us or against, you traitor). As she has explained many times, Clinton voted for the invasion on the express understanding that Dubya would use the resolution as leverage to force Saddam Hussein to allow weapons inspectors back into Iraq - Bush went back on his word and began the invasion while those inspectors were still going about their work. She has acknowledged that this was a mistake.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2016/02/hillary_clinton_told_the_truth_about_her_iraq_war_vote.html

6) She is responsible for the attack at Benghazi and the deaths of 4 Americans-
It took a politically motivated Republican subcommittee 2 years and $7m to fail to place blame on Clinton for the Benghazi attack. Much of that money was spent trying to ignore the fact that Clinton had asked for more funding to increase security at embassies across the region, which was blocked by a Republican Congress. In fact, they cut $300m from the budget: http://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/readers/2014/05/16/congress-blocked-benghazi-embassy-security/9184963/http://www.politicususa.com/2014/06/20/reasons-admit-republicans-responsible-attack-benghazi.html

Or do people mean the "Benghazi" where a US diplomat independently moved staff to an unprotected consulate several hundred miles from the well-protected US Embassy in Tripoli, and a consulate that was unprotected, partly because of cuts to the State Department budget that occurred under the Bush regime and because of the GOTea-imposed 'sequestration'?

I'd say it's high time people cut out the lazy, unsubstantiated narratives.

from conmm

--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.