News regarding Hilary Clinton’s run in 2016 is not a shocker for Americans. However, what really has Americans concerned is whether or not she will have the skills to handle foreign policy. After the Benghazi attack, Americans have been very weary about whether she would fit the role for President of the United States.
Conservatives are sharpening their spears in Washington because they are “not prepared to have a messianic Former Secretary of State under a terrorizing regime run this nation regardless if male or female. “ Republicans are swirling around, flailing, wondering who could be a good rival against Hilary. Many suggest former Texas Congressman Ron Paul’s son Rand Paul to be the nominee or New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. What conservatives need to do is to not milk the Benghazi cow; Benghazi is the chink in Mrs. Clinton’s armor, it is not enough to crack it wide open, one must exploit it.
Other Democratic nominees are also being fielded. Senator Elizabeth Warren could possibly be considered as an outside nominee. However, the elephant in the room with her will be Hilary Clinton. Unlike 2008, this election will offer new advantages as well as disadvantages. Mrs. Clinton’s foreign policy record as Secretary of State could be a huge disadvantage for her if Benghazi is to be exploited. Benghazi on its own will not be the single scandal to make Clinton’s Empire crumble.
Other foreign policy moves that Mrs. Clinton as Secretary of State made might spark the flames of antagonism towards her. Michael Crowley, journalist for “ TIME: Swampland”, wrote in his article titled “ Hilary Clinton’s Unapologetically Hawkish Record Faces 2016 Test” explains that Mrs. Clinton’s desire to use military action overseas is still there. Crowley later writes that when Robert Gates, Former Defense Secretary’s new memoir came out, it was not “…a welcoming development for Hilary Clinton” Crowley explains “Gates writes what he witnessed Clinton making a startling confession to Barack Obama: she had opposed George W. Bush’s last-ditch effort to salvage the Iraq War, the 2007 troop surge because the politics of the 2008 Democratic primaries demanded it.” This alleged confession makes Mrs. Clinton seem much more of a sheep than a leader.
What seems to be a problem with Hilary is her ulterior motives. Crowley goes on to say that “Clinton…will do anything including mislead the country by putting her political ambitions ahead of safety of Americans at home and abroad. “ This probably refers to the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack on the embassy in Benghazi. It is no surprise to anyone that this is the same day as the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers. The main issue is that Clinton still remains too detached from it and will remain detached. Americans were shocked when she shouted furiously “ What Difference Does it Make?” during the Benghazi hearings in Washington.. Crowley goes on to say that it isn’t so much Hilary that is so cryptic but more an indication of how to manage the optics for a future presidential run. Crowley states that “ whatever the truth of that surge anecdote-Clinton’s camp won’t comment on it-the larger truth is impossible to deny.” This is not a male or female issue this is an issue of truth, facts and reality. The fact that Hilary is a woman does not mean we have to be any softer on her conduct.
What surprises many Americans is Mrs. Clinton’s unambiguous support for the Afghanistan War but her lack of commitment to helping resolve The Syrian Conflict. On Syria, Crowley mentions that Mrs. Clinton “ pressed Obama to arm the Syrian rebels, and later endorsed air strikes against the Assad Regime.” This shows Mrs. Clinton not as a leader but as someone who is willing to enter any situation but instead of using Diplomacy solve with weapons.” Later, he explains that even though she “…backed intervention in Libya”, what her intervention meant was that”…her State Department helped enable Obama’s expansion of lethal drone strikes.” Reports or facts about who would be targeted in the lethal drone strikes were unavailable. But this was truly a reason to question whether or not Clinton’s foreign policy tactics were truly working. As a matter of fact “ …Clinton may have been the administration’s most reliable advocate for military action…Clinton took a more aggressive line than Gates, a Bush-appointed Republican.” Despite the strong personalities of both Gates and Clinton, Clinton was at the end of the day far more aggressive. Her aggression would later be shown through her advocacy of policies in Iraq where she was “ an advocate for maintaining a residual troop force after the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq- an issue of renewed interest given al Qaeda resurgence there.”
The Afghan Question should also be another critical thing to worry about. Crowley states that when General Stanley McChrystal “ …asked Obama for another 40,000 more troops to fight the Taliban in mid 2009, several top officials-Including Vice President Joe Biden-resisted, arguing in part that the public had lost patience with the conflict.” However, what Gates would write in his memoir that “ Clinton sided with the generals and “ strongly supported McChrystal’s approach…Clinton actually wound up favoring slightly more surge troops than he did. Obama ultimately sent another 30,000 more American soldiers to Afghanistan.” There are so many mixed messages here that almost ever American would find it hard not to be confused. Let us not forgot that Mrs. Clinton in 2007 was also strongly against President Bush’s last ditch effort to salvage the war effort and place more troops on the ground in Afghanistan.
We must put Benghazi aside and focus in on the other issues. Conservatives cannot drag this issue out in every debate moving forward or they shall win a battle themselves but ultimately lose their own war!