4 ms·

> If she's not... why did she delete thousands of emails that were illegally on a private server? Because she was covering up criminal behavior. You don't have

> If she's not... why did she delete thousands of emails that were illegally on a private server? Because she was covering up criminal behavior. You don't have to be evil to cover up criminal behavior. It's a very rational thing to do. > Why did she lie about the source of protests and then leave American's to die? She didn't want Americans to understand that their intelligence and military communities had supported extremist forces in Libya to oust a geopolitical opponent, and that these extremist forces themselves aren't particularly welcoming to America or its values. She didn't want comparisons to 9/11 and the Saudi support for those attacks on our home country. She left Americans to die because she and the administration could not muster the support to mobilize, against international law, troop movements across borders as the activity in Libya had until that point been special operations and irregular warfare. It would have been difficult to breach international law to engage an enemy in the CIA annex to the State Department buildings - bases that on the record didn't exist. All of this is very rational. Al Capone, similarly, was a very rational person, and not "evil" whatsoever. A rational person looks after themselves, their interests and the activities and events they stewart.

matt4077 10y ago
It's been well established that this protest narrative came from the CIA, who had genuine reason to believe it, although it turned out false. And of course there were emails somewhere of people predicting violence or complaining about embassy security. It's the same as those italian scientists put on trial because somebody somewhere predicted an earthquake that they didn't predict. I bet if you go through all the mail the US government gets, you'll find predictions of CERN turning into a black whole and swallowing the known universe. Does that mean the Air Force should bomb Switzerland?
- jwtadvice 10y ago
  It's been well established that Clinton knew that this narrative of what happened was completely false when she announced it to the public. This is standard leadership in America. I think it's unfair to skewer her in a biased way when most public diplomacy is just as duplicitous. For example, the misinformation out of the Bush Administation linking in the American publics' minds Saddam Hussein with the 9/11 attacks. Republicans largly supported this falsehood and the Bush Administrations executive privilege to tell it. It was well known that the attacks (between 9/11 and 9/12 in Benghazi) where extremist salafi. The protest over the videos were in a completely different country. The intelligence community and the leadership knew this. I don't want to comment on the next paragraph as I don't understand it or how it is supposed to relate to the topic.
  - kn0where 10y ago
    This. The saying that politics is like sausage, in that you don't want to see how it's made, has always been true. Also: "Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.” — Douglas Adams [1] [1] http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/2416-the-major-problem-mdash-one-of-the-major-problems-for-there-are http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/2416-the-major-problem-mdash...
wernercd 10y ago
So 1 of 4 mentioned attributes (Corrupt, evil, crooked, lying) are arguable... as unprovable as God/Yahweh/etc... Evil. As a concept, evil in the eye of the beholder. She's voted for wars. Left Americans to die. Lied about the reasons WHILE the Americans were still alive and able to be rescued. Destroyed evidence - and other classified information - illegally stored on private servers. (continue list of "bad things" for another few thousand pages) You can rationalize her "evil" deeds or argue that "evil" doesn't exist till the cows come home but at the end of the day she cares about one thing: Her. Leaving out the argument of "evil"/"goodness" (which are subjective)... she's definitely corrupt and definitely not someone who should be the most powerful person in the most powerful country. Both candidates are fatally flawed - but one stands for Herself. The other stands for Americans.
- jwtadvice 10y ago
  I share your assessment about evil. It doesn't exist. Clinton is absolutely corrupt, and indeed corruption is unfortunately standard practice on K Street. As a practiced public official in America she does not shine out as an exception. We do not share the assessment of the 'other' candidate but I don't know how productive that conversation would be. For me, neither candidate are aligning themselves with a departure from the practices and policies of the state that are most critical to me and that I think are crucial to the next generation of Americans (hint: civil rights). I do not assess Clinton or Trump as reestablishing the propaganda protections that have been stripped of the legal code, neither are promising reductions in surveillance, support for whistleblowers, curtailment of illegal wars and actions overseas, reestablishment of checks and balances, and foreign policy that doesn't make a joke out of 'democracy', 'human rights' and 'civil society' by making them strategic and politicized terms. No thanks.

matt4077 10y ago

It's been well established that this protest narrative came from the CIA, who had genuine reason to believe it, although it turned out false. And of course there were emails somewhere of people predicting violence or complaining about embassy security. It's the same as those italian scientists put on trial because somebody somewhere predicted an earthquake that they didn't predict. I bet if you go through all the mail the US government gets, you'll find predictions of CERN turning into a black whole and swallowing the known universe. Does that mean the Air Force should bomb Switzerland?

jwtadvice 10y ago
It's been well established that Clinton knew that this narrative of what happened was completely false when she announced it to the public. This is standard leadership in America. I think it's unfair to skewer her in a biased way when most public diplomacy is just as duplicitous. For example, the misinformation out of the Bush Administation linking in the American publics' minds Saddam Hussein with the 9/11 attacks. Republicans largly supported this falsehood and the Bush Administrations executive privilege to tell it. It was well known that the attacks (between 9/11 and 9/12 in Benghazi) where extremist salafi. The protest over the videos were in a completely different country. The intelligence community and the leadership knew this. I don't want to comment on the next paragraph as I don't understand it or how it is supposed to relate to the topic.
- kn0where 10y ago
  This. The saying that politics is like sausage, in that you don't want to see how it's made, has always been true. Also: "Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.” — Douglas Adams [1] [1] http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/2416-the-major-problem-mdash-one-of-the-major-problems-for-there-are http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/2416-the-major-problem-mdash...

wernercd 10y ago

So 1 of 4 mentioned attributes (Corrupt, evil, crooked, lying) are arguable... as unprovable as God/Yahweh/etc... Evil. As a concept, evil in the eye of the beholder. She's voted for wars. Left Americans to die. Lied about the reasons WHILE the Americans were still alive and able to be rescued. Destroyed evidence - and other classified information - illegally stored on private servers. (continue list of "bad things" for another few thousand pages) You can rationalize her "evil" deeds or argue that "evil" doesn't exist till the cows come home but at the end of the day she cares about one thing: Her. Leaving out the argument of "evil"/"goodness" (which are subjective)... she's definitely corrupt and definitely not someone who should be the most powerful person in the most powerful country. Both candidates are fatally flawed - but one stands for Herself. The other stands for Americans.

jwtadvice 10y ago
I share your assessment about evil. It doesn't exist. Clinton is absolutely corrupt, and indeed corruption is unfortunately standard practice on K Street. As a practiced public official in America she does not shine out as an exception. We do not share the assessment of the 'other' candidate but I don't know how productive that conversation would be. For me, neither candidate are aligning themselves with a departure from the practices and policies of the state that are most critical to me and that I think are crucial to the next generation of Americans (hint: civil rights). I do not assess Clinton or Trump as reestablishing the propaganda protections that have been stripped of the legal code, neither are promising reductions in surveillance, support for whistleblowers, curtailment of illegal wars and actions overseas, reestablishment of checks and balances, and foreign policy that doesn't make a joke out of 'democracy', 'human rights' and 'civil society' by making them strategic and politicized terms. No thanks.