Future45, a Republican Super PAC, is now running a TV ad attacking Hillary, not for the terrorist assault on the Benghazi consulate, but for her role in the destruction of the Libyan state:
https://www.youtube.com/...
The utterly imbecilic Republicans in charge of the Benghazi hearings kept the focus on Hillary’s response to the attack on our consulate. What we learned from their interminable partisan efforts is that there was really nothing wrong about Hillary’s response in that regard – "there's no there there”, as Gertrude Stein might say. By standing up forthrightly against their baseless accusations, she achieved a major improvement in her favorability ratings.
But the new ad is not about Benghazi, but rather the illegal war of “regime change” which the U.S. and several NATO allies – egged on by Hillary as Secretary of State – inflicted upon the state of Libya. A state which had been one of the most prosperous in the Arab world, and which was using its oil revenue to make the daily lives of its citizens more secure. (Medical care and education were free for all citizens – and much, much more: http://ireport.cnn.com/....)
Under the very dubious pretext that Ghaddafi was planning to commit genocide in Benghazi (Ghaddafi’s son desperately tried to contact the U.S. State Dept. to disclaim any genocidal intent and offer a cease fire – but Hillary refused to allow his call to be taken), Hillary helped badger the UN Security Council into allowing NATO to establish a no-fly zone over Benghazi. But, instead of just enforcing such a zone to protect the people in Benghazi from an alleged threat, the NATO forces, vastly exceeding their mandate, proceeded to drop tens of thousands of bombs on Ghaddafi’s army, effectively destroying it and enabling the rebels to capture, torture, and execute Ghaddafi. The UN had not authorized a war of regime change – but Hillary and her odious accomplice Sarkozy were intent on this outcome. (Sarkozy had conducted secret negotiations with the rebels to insure that French companies would have privileged access to Libya’s oil in return for France’s support.)
Unfortunately, after Hillary did her victory lap on national TV (“We came, we saw, he died!”), she and her NATO partners had no idea of how to put the broken pieces of Libya back together. And now it is a failed state terrorized by roving bands of Islamist militias – the Islamic radicals whom Ghaddafi had insisted he was keeping in check. One of these was the militia which attacked the Benghazi consulate. Many thousands of Libyans have died or fled the country – at least 1800 drowning in failed attempts to reach Europe. Black Africans employed by Ghaddafi as guest workers were murdered and tortured. The Future45 ad highlights the beheading of 21 Coptic Christians by an ISIS-affiliated Libyan militia.
You can learn more about Hillary’s excellent adventure in Libya here:
http://www.newrepublic.com/...
http://www.dailykos.com/...
Unfortunately for Hillary, the people at Future45 don’t seem to be nearly as stupid as the Republicans on the Benghazi committee.
Perhaps they will next run an ad celebrating Hillary’s excellent Syrian adventure. We now know that the Benghazi consulate was being used by the CIA as a way station for the shipment of weapons from Ghaddafi’s arsenal to “moderate” rebels in Syria. Most of those weapons are now being used by ISIS or groups affiliated with Al Qaeda – and Syria is now an even more horrific place than Libya.
Here’s what Hillary had to say in her introductory statement at the recent Benghazi hearing:
“The United States must continue to lead… in the Middle East and all around the globe. We have come a long way in the past four years. We cannot afford to retreat now. When America is absent, especially from unstable environments, there are consequences. Extremism takes root, our interests suffer, and our security at home is threatened.”
This is American Exceptionalism on steroids. We can be assured that, if Hillary becomes President, the U.S. will meddle in any situation where instability threatens “our interests”. (Which usually means, the interests of the multinational corporations bankrolling our politicians - or of Israeli right wingers, for whom Hillary genuflects regularly:
http://www.salon.com/...)
Be warned that, if we nominate Hillary, we have nominated an unrepentant war hawk. Quite aside from what this will say about our own moral compass, it can have consequences in the election. The Republicans – as militaristic as most of them tend to be – know that the American people as a whole have little appetite for more catastrophic overseas involvements. Surveying Hillary’s “accomplishments” as SOS will give them plenty of fuel for attack ads. Whether or not one agrees with Hillary’s specific decisions or actions, there is no gainsaying the fact that countries where SOS Hillary or her neo-con appointees have meddled – Libya, Syria, Yemen, Ukraine, Honduras – are now severely screwed up.
More about the "achievements" of Secretary of State Clinton:
http://www.truth-out.org/...
http://therealnews.com/...
You can also bet that, if Hillary is nominated, the Republicans will serve up a heapin’ helping of Tuzla:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/...
https://www.youtube.com/...
If on, on the other hand, we have the wisdom and integrity to nominate Bernie, the Republicans won’t be able to point to any nations that have been devastated owing to his efforts - nor to any egregious episodes of serial lying. And they will have to attack his foreign policy from the right. They’ll have to argue that he won’t meddle enough around the world. Given the mood of the public, that’s not likely to be a winning strategy. They could of course attempt to ridicule the most fundamental emphasis of Bernie's foreign policy - combating climate change by leading the world toward a future of renewable energy - but that would only work with their know-nothing base.
And after they have screamed “Socialist!” at him repeatedly – what’s their follow-up line? Will they scare people with the crazy socialist ideas that Bernie hopes to implement – like universal medical care, a living minimum wage, paid maternity leave, tuition-free university education, war as only a last resort? Perhaps lie about how far Bernie would jack up taxes on the middle class? In a general election, Bernie would have plenty of time to explain to people his concept of Democratic socialism – essentially a system that combines properly regulated capitalism with government-run programs, funded through progressive taxation, that make our lives richer and more secure. Many popular programs that we have now – including social security, Medicare, the international highway system, police and fire departments – fall into that category. In essence, Bernie only proposes to extend the honored legacy of FDR:
https://www.youtube.com/...
So there is good reason to suspect that Republican attacks on Bernie would be a lot less successful than many suppose. And Bernie would bring to the polls millions of young and middle class voters – people who had previously been too disaffected to bother voting – who are excited about his evident integrity and his plans for truly progressive change. This would be good news not only for Bernie, but for progressive candidates at all levels of government. A Hillary nomination blows off all of this fresh new energy, and the best we could hope for would be 4-8 more years of our current stalemate – likely including more wars – if Hillary manages to win. And that’s not a sure thing, by any means. Whereas a Bernie nomination could be a crucial first step toward a fundamental transformation of our political system to one in which plutocrats can no longer buy our elections, and our government serves the best interests of the whole American family.