I’m a Hillary supporter and she continues to be one of the most qualified candidates ever. I supported her in 2008 before President Obama got the nomination and I support her even more strongly now. When you realize that Hillary Clinton has detailed progressive policies and is a very strong, experienced Commander in Chief then many come to a few arguments against her.
The War in Iraq – Yes, Hillary Clinton voted for the Authorization for the use of Military Force against in Iraq in 2002. Yes, she has said that if she could do it again she would. Yes, that authorization has been a factor in the quagmire in the Middle East. Yes, I was against that Authorization just as I was against both wars. No, I do not hold that vote against her. I’ve read her remarks given at the time. She was not an advocate for war. She was an advocate for soft power and expected that then President Bush was going to use his authorities carefully.
No decision is made in a vacuum and decisions such as this vote are surrounded by facts and factors that shouldn’t be judged as a sound bite. That George W. Bush pursued an unjust war cannot be blamed on Hillary Clinton. If we are to judge put the judgement where it belongs with then President Bush and those that lied with and for him to get this country into a war that was not justified. Hillary Clinton perhaps should not have voted for that Authorization At the same time, I suspect she would have been criticized for not voting for it as well.
Libya – This is another decision point where Hillary Clinton is criticized. The full context around this 2011 decision, which was ultimately the Presidents, seems to be forgotten. Do people remember the Arab Spring? There was an upwelling of unrest, particularly by young people. Our European allies were set on this. Our Arab allies were set on this. No one expected Gaddafi to fall. Hillary Clinton, after careful consultation recommended to the President that we should support our allies in an attempt to save lives. It was not about regime change, though if that happened it appeared there was a strong contingent to move into place. The Libyan ambassador himself says that this is not an external failure it is internal failure. Decisions like this are not right or wrong they are extremely complicated points of time that should not and cannot be isolated.
Benghazi – On 11 September 2012 thre was an attack against a US mission in Benghazi, that resulted in the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other men. During that time there were protests throughout the region, primarily about a video produced, poorly and embarrassingly, in America.
What the Benghazi persecution is about is confusing and not based in facts so if you are not sure what the “issue” is then you are not alone. As far as I can figure out the real issue is supposed to be that son cone, initially President Obama, then Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton, did not make the right statement at the right time. Initially, it was about the Egyptian embassy. Mitt Romney tried to use it in his campaign. That it became so much more had to do with hatred and not about facts.
There are a few facts that are important:
- It was not possible to save Ambassador Stevens and the three other Americans who died. Time and distance made that possible.
- There was legitimate question on what caused the attacks. The Obama administration was doing what an actual administration would do. They were gathering information and trying to insure it was accurate.
- The cause of the Benghazi attack was potentially separate from the other attacks and the media and the Republicans have trouble with facts especially complex facts.