Not sure pointing out "Bubba" missing UBL is an example of this. If BGCard had pointed out Bush missing UBL in Tora Bora, I think your point would be spot on.

 

I was more talking about previous administrations, not opposing parties in particular and I was surprised as the poster is not one to go that route as a rule when posting. I've come to expect more from some posters than others.

Serious question, as I don't know what it entails, but what would labeling them a "terror group" have done to prevent the atrocities involving the Nigerian school girls?

 

My understanding is labeling a group a terrorist organzation opens up a lot more doors on the resources from CIA, Army etc... that you can use and makes them a priority to fight against. One article I was reading with a confidential source who worked for the State Department said labeling a group a terriorst organzation makes them a priority to stop all further action or harm that group can do. If they aren't labeled as such then our men and woman working in intellengence aren't really proactively pursuing them and are reacting to things they do instead being proactive.

Nice rationalization combined with the tired old "they did wrong too" excuse.

 

I am certainly not applying for the job of HRC apologist.

 

Putting a group on a list or not is only one thing that can be done.

 

There is probably a larger over failing of dealing with extreme Islamist in Africa in general and now they seem to be more powerful. The reason Susan Rice and others did not want to make the deal on OBL in 1997 was that the Sudan had been taken over by an Islamist group and we did not want to engage them, thus isolating them and probably driving them into a harder stance. If a group is willing to give up someone they obviously have enough savy to maybe work with.

 

The big picture is Africa is now a mess. Libya is a mess since the overthrow of Gaddafi. The Egyptians (the military and judges) are taking a hard stance against the MB and become isolated. There are Islamist groups doing terrible things in central Africa.

 

Africa is complete mess from a US policy. So having a group on or not on a list is just political fodder and seems to ignore the broader, more serious issues.

When in the last century has most of Africa not been a mess?

 

Nigeria's wealth rose at the same time Cote d'Ivoire burned.

 

South Africa emerged from apartheid not long after the Congo ripped itself apart.

 

There are a lot of messes over there and the long-term cure has never been clear.

Here, I'll label them.

 

Official spindoc news release:

 

Boko Haram is a terrorist organization.

 

Problem solved. They're likely as frightened as if Hillary had named them a terrorist group.

The issue is Hillary's incompetence. She reacts to tragedies after the fact just fine, but competent leaders who have held her position of Secretary of State recognized major threats in advance. Hillary? Her strength is managing cover-up operations after a crisis has erupted and been mishandled. Hillary honed the skills that she displayed during the Bengazi scandal as a First Lady managing the Bimbo Eruption team.

 

Boko Haram shares much of the Taliban's political/religious philosophy. If that was not enough to land them on the State Departments' list of terrorist organization, one should ask what criteria Hillary used to populate the list.

 

Hillary is another disastrous Democratic presidency waiting to happen. She has few, if any accomplishments on her resume but liberals are champing at the bit to vote for her in 2016. Obama, part trois.

Hilary will do what she has always done and that is blame someone else and say she didn't get the information or read anything requesting to list them as a terrorist group. She will claim they just didn't have enough information etc.

 

It will be the normal spin as she will deflect the issue elsewhere and claim that they are on the list now so move on.

The issue is Hillary's incompetence. She reacts to tragedies after the fact just fine, but competent leaders who have held her position of Secretary of State recognized major threats in advance. Hillary? Her strength is managing cover-up operations after a crisis has erupted and been mishandled. Hillary honed the skills that she displayed during the Bengazi scandal as a First Lady managing the Bimbo Eruption team.

 

Boko Haram shares much of the Taliban's political/religious philosophy. If that was not enough to land them on the State Departments' list of terrorist organization, one should ask what criteria Hillary used to populate the list.

 

Hillary is another disastrous Democratic presidency waiting to happen. She has few, if any accomplishments on her resume but liberals are champing at the bit to vote for her in 2016. Obama, part trois.

 

I am not HRC fan but the bolded is saying a bit much.

 

Do you feel the same about George Schultz? Beirut happened on his watch.

 

Colin Powell and 9/11?

 

James Baker for not spotting the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait?

 

The list goes on and on.

I am not HRC fan but the bolded is saying a bit much.

 

Do you feel the same about George Schultz? Beirut happened on his watch.

 

Colin Powell and 9/11?

 

James Baker for not spotting the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait?

 

The list goes on and on.

Stuff happens to competent government officials as well as incompetent ones and whether they recognize threats and take actions to minimize them or not. There is hard evidence that officials in Hillary's own State Department recognized the threat in Bengazi and requested additional security for the Libyan ambassador, which Hillary denied. Then, she helped cover up the events surrounding the deadly attack. Can you say the same about any of the Secretaries of State that you listed?

 

Shultz, Powell, and Baker had long and distinguished careers in public life that were marked by a long list of achievements. State Department officials have been stumped and left stammering for words when asked by the media to list Clinton's great achievements.

 

The key difference between those whom you listed and Hillary is their willingness to accept responsibility and face the media when things went terribly wrong on their watches. Can you cite any examples where any of them attempted to dodge responsibility by sending an underling with no involvement in a State Department tragedy to lie to the American public, as Clinton (and Obama) did when Susan Rice was dispatched to five different Sunday talk show to spew a phony narrative about what happened?

 

John Kerry may ultimately become known as the most incompetent Secretary of State ever, but that title is Hillary's to lose, IMO. Hillary's career has been marked by bitter partisanship devoid of any statesmanship or leadership.

Stuff happens to competent government officials as well as incompetent ones and whether they recognize threats and take actions to minimize them or not. There is hard evidence that officials in Hillary's own State Department recognized the threat in Bengazi and requested additional security for the Libyan ambassador, which Hillary denied. Then, she helped cover up the events surrounding the deadly attack. Can you say the same about any of the Secretaries of State that you listed?

 

Shultz, Powell, and Baker had long and distinguished careers in public life that were marked by a long list of achievements. State Department officials have been stumped and left stammering for words when asked by the media to list Clinton's great achievements.

 

The key difference between those whom you listed and Hillary is their willingness to accept responsibility and face the media when things went terribly wrong on their watches. Can you cite any examples where any of them attempted to dodge responsibility by sending an underling with no involvement in a State Department tragedy to lie to the American public, as Clinton (and Obama) did when Susan Rice was dispatched to five different Sunday talk show to spew a phony narrative about what happened?

 

John Kerry may ultimately become known as the most incompetent Secretary of State ever, but that title is Hillary's to lose, IMO. Hillary's career has been marked by bitter partisanship devoid of any statesmanship or leadership.

 

The statement you made was based on others foreseeing danger. It's clear the incidents I mentioned revealed others had blundered in their time. Btw, there were warnings about Beirut.

 

I'm not comparing HRC to any of the others. I was pointing out the fallacy of your bolded statement.

The statement you made was based on others foreseeing danger. It's clear the incidents I mentioned revealed others had blundered in their time. Btw, there were warnings about Beirut.

 

I'm not comparing HRC to any of the others. I was pointing out the fallacy of your bolded statement.

The statement was not a fallacy unless you ignore its context. I never said other Secretaries of State had no blunders to their credit. I never said that other Secs of State always acted preemptively to prevent policy disasters and I think the rest of my post made my intent pretty clear. Hillary needed to pad her resume with some foreign policy experience for her 2016 and our foreign policy and national security interests took a big hit as a result.

 

I said that Hillary's own State Department had trouble articulating what accomplishments she had during her tenure and that she was incompetent. Bengazi was an avoidable tragedy but our policy in Libya and the whole handling of the so-called Arab Spring was a disaster, whose consequences are still unfolding across the region.

The statement was not a fallacy unless you ignore its context. I never said other Secretaries of State had no blunders to their credit. I never said that other Secs of State always acted preemptively to prevent policy disasters and I think the rest of my post made my intent pretty clear. Hillary needed to pad her resume with some foreign policy experience for her 2016 and our foreign policy and national security interests took a big hit as a result.

 

I said that Hillary's own State Department had trouble articulating what accomplishments she had during her tenure and that she was incompetent. Bengazi was an avoidable tragedy but our policy in Libya and the whole handling of the so-called Arab Spring was a disaster, whose consequences are still unfolding across the region.

 

Re-read it. You implied it even if you think you did not say it.

 

The worst part of this is you have made me look like some Clinton defender. :banghead:

Hilary will do what she has always done and that is blame someone else and say she didn't get the information or read anything requesting to list them as a terrorist group. She will claim they just didn't have enough information etc.

 

It will be the normal spin as she will deflect the issue elsewhere and claim that they are on the list now so move on.

 

Followed by another "what difference does it make"?

 

Can't wait.

Re-read it. You implied it even if you think you did not say it.

 

The worst part of this is you have made me look like some Clinton defender. :banghead:

My apologies if anything that I said made you look like a Hillary Clinton defender. It was not my intent to lump you in with those fools, just to defend my questionable choice of words. :lol2:

 

What I was trying to say was that what happened in Benghazi is reflective of a pattern with Hillary Clinton. She lacked experience when Obama named her Secretary of State and she was selected for the position over many, many better qualified candidates (probably thousands) for purely political reasons.

 

I concede that the policy failures that led to the Benghazi attacks were not unprecedented. What may be unprecedented is Clinton's failure to accomplish anything positive during her stint as Sec. of State compared to others who voluntarily resigned from that position on their own terms.

 

The example of the Beirut bombings is an example of an even worse failure to secure Americans abroad, but there was no cover-up following that event and Ronald Reagan had a speedy and thorough investigation conducted into the failure and even Reagan's strongest supporters did not deny that serious mistakes in judgment were made. There was no coverup and there was massive retaliation for the attacks.