Hillary Clinton

The Hillary Doctrine: Create Instability, Wing it, Then Refuse to 'Retreat'

The Democratic frontrunner takes the exact wrong lesson from an illegal, ill-advised war


It's good ta be da queen. ||| ABC7.com

In her opening statement to the Benghazi Select Committee this morning, former Secretary of State and current Democratic Party 2016 presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton continued to justify the United States' 2011 intervention in Libya in terms that should be worrying to the wide swath of the American polity that has grown allergic to haphazardly-planned, open-ended military conflicts:

America must lead in a dangerous world, and our diplomats must continue representing us in dangerous places. […]

We have learned the hard way when America is absent, especially from unstable places, there are consequences. […]

Retreat from the world is not an option. America cannot shrink from our responsibility to lead.

Under questioning, Clinton also characterized the Libya intervention as "remarkable," echoing her assertion last week that it was "smart power at its best."

What's more remarkable is how this justification translates as doctrine. President Barack Obama's official justification for this pre-emptive war of choice was that it was necessary to prevent "a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world." The president "refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action."

Bar thus lowered, the president—actively pushed by his more-interventionist secretary of state—then refused to seek congressional approval for the initial attack, refused to withdraw troops after 60 days in the absence of said congressional approval (in defiance of the War Powers Resolution), ignored the advice of his own Office of Legal Counsel to comply with the Act, chose instead the legal advice of the White House Counsel, and then declared with a straight face in an imperious letter to Congress that America's war-making did not amount to the WPR's definition of "hostilities."

It was a remarkably Cheneyesque flourish, particularly for a man who campaigned heavily on the notion that "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." So what Hillary Clinton is doing today is reiterating that she doesn't even feel the need to pretend to care about restraints on the White House's war-making authority.

It gets worse. So, America must act in open defiance of Congress before there's a potential massacre in the Middle East, but does it need to, you know, plan this stuff out? Not according to then-secretary of defense Robert Gates, an internal opponent to the intervention, who has just told The Daily Beast that "We were playing it by ear." The Beast's Nancy A. Youssef continues:

[American] attacks spread from the eastern city of Benghazi, where civilians were endangered, to the Libyan capital of Tripoli, 635 miles away. No one ever explained why the change in goal or who might succeed Gaddafi afterward.

During revolutionary-era Libya, no one in the upper ranks of the U.S. government seriously considered whether the newly created Transitional National Council, a rival government in rebel-held areas like Benghazi, could govern the oil-rich state. Nor did Clinton or top leaders ask about unintended consequences of an air campaign, especially if it successfully ended Gaddafi's 42-year rule, according to the senior defense official who was part of the conversation at the time. And as the country was falling apart, it seems no one in the higher reaches of Clinton's department took note. If they did, they did not take action.

Even if you chalk the above up to payback from disgruntled former colleagues, and unfair renderings from a hostile journalist, there is no denying the facts on the ground. The results of America's intervention bear little resemblance to what Democratic cheerleaders were bragging about in August 2011. Libya has transformed from a shitty country misruled by a dictator to an open civil-war zone spitting out terrorists, refugees, and regional instability.

So what's Hillary Clinton's response to the instability she helped cause? To say the magical phrase, Retreat from the world is not an option. In other words, lather, rinse, repeat. And, if you happen to be an American on the front lines of Washington's carelessness, die.

NEXT: Enter Gay Marriage; Exit Domestic Partnerships

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Behold, the platonic ideal of Resting Bitch Face.

    1. Haha awesome. I just came to post that the only thing I like about this article is that photo.

      Her pain is my pleasure. Her misery is my delight.

      1. Hillary doesn’t feel pain. Hillary feels only two things, contempt and dyspepsia.

      2. It appears that the reason the Hill Dog denied repeated requests for additional security in Benghazi is that to do so would cut into Sidney Blumenthol’ profits running a security company in Lybia.

        What an evil evil witch she is.

    2. I live on a dirt road on 16 acres in snow country. Some Berkeley clowns moved in to the house down the road and called themselves “Deer who runs with swallows chasing eagles” and “Sage healing wolf”. White, of course. We called them “Lame duck” and Sage bitch”.

      1. I know an aging hippie couple that moved to Oregon a few years back. She now refers to herself as “Ladyfire.”


        1. I’d go with ~FyreWoode~

      2. Is there any gamboling going on?

          1. Everywhere but forest and plain.

      3. You live in snow country? They’re from Berkeley? They’ll be gone by spring.

    3. She is a bitch indeed. However, thanks to our angry racist black people, our ignorant Latino’s that refuse to learn English no matter what, our corrupt government employees, feminists, and our liberal journalists; the Democrooks will control the White House for decades to come. So, Hillary will be our president for 8 years after that crook Obama leaves office. We may as well get used to her and her dumb ideas.

      1. our ignorant Latino’s that refuse to learn English no matter what,

        1. Most of them are ignorant, from what I have seen over the years! Although, some of them are great people.

  2. “Libya has transformed from a shitty country misruled by a dictator to an open civil-war zone spitting out terrorists, refugees, and regional instability.”

    Whoa Matt. We’re all God’s creatures all created equally shitty because Crusades.


    They have you *opinionating* on fake scandals now?

    1. CRUSADES, EXACTLY! The Islamic conquest of Christian lands of the Levant, Anatolia, the Balkins and Spain don’t count in our historical injustice tally because something something privilege. Why can’t people see that?

      1. Also – the Mongol invasion of the Middle East that inflicted far more death and destruction on the region than the Crusades ever did
        is down the memory hole and doesn’t qualify for centuries long burning hatred because, because – well that’s different.

        1. Well to be fair, I think the Mongols were Tengrists when they first invaded. It was subsequent generations of their ilk that converted to Islam, to better rule the survivors of the population they’d been murdering. But it is true that we don’t see a whole of Islamic indignation directed at the Tengri inhabitants of central Asia, beyond their usual level of aggression towards non-Muslims.

          1. Hulagu had the Sultan of Baghdad rolled up in a carpet and kicked to death.

            1. One of the Mongol rulers poured molten silver in the ears of some Islamic Prince. Islam was on the verge of being the dominant power in the world when the Mongols came through and killed most of them. They almost made it to the English Channel.

  3. “Invade the world, invite the world.” I’d prefer neither, thanks.

  4. Retreat from the world is not an option.

    Not attacking is retreating. Yay! It’s gibberish day!

    1. What do Lybians bring on a 2nd date?

      1. An ambassador’s corpse?

        1. A dictator’s corpse. Duh!

          You’re terrible at this game.

          1. A U-Haul? Was it a U-Haul?

            1. No, dumb-ass. It’s a cosmo cake, baked with joyless servitude.

              1. #ShamelessAmerica

              2. Acura Cake!

          2. I hope they toss the corpse out of the U-Haul first.

            1. No, they drag it behind. It’s like you no nothing about foreign cultures. Do you even have a passport?

              1. Yes. And it’s like you don’t even “no” how to spell.

                1. I spell like a REAL AMERICAN! ASSHOLE!

                  1. I read that as “REAL AMERICAN ASSHOLE!”…

                    1. GI SugarFree: Real American Asshole

                      I think this cartoon could really go places.

                    2. Now with Action Diabeetus Grip!

                    3. And detachable feet!

                    4. You people are all awful….and I love you for it.

      2. A woodchipper?

      3. Hitler? Isn’t the answer usually Hitler?

        1. It is, except when it isn’t.

        2. Sometimes it’s Eva …. whether Braun or Peron, your choice.

          1. Don’t cry for me, my liebe freunden!

    2. Retreat from the world is not an option

      Because Obama cut the space shuttle program?

    3. Retreat from the world is not an option

      Because Obama cut the space shuttle program?

      1. Damn squirrels double-posting my comments!

  5. Unstable 3rd World regimes, sudden and unexpected death for everyone!

    1. But we did on the cheap, so it’s perfectly OK!

    1. Shut up, he’s conservative-ing!

    2. Fuck you. Trump will fucking make them say Merry Christmas. None of this fucking Hanukkah shit. We’re a Christian fucking nation over here!

      1. I just checked the law, and shit, my bad. I didn’t realize the Constitution lets you eminent domain speech.


        1. We’ll pay you so much above market value for your happy hannukahs. You’re gonna love it

          1. *shrugs*

            Nu? Who could say no?

        2. Commerce Clause!

        3. It’s one of the penumbrae.

      2. Yeah, screw that fakakta holiday! That shit is for schmucks and fagelehs!

        1. Fucking goyim can’t spell ferkakteh.

    3. Yeah, well Jews are a lot less uptight about being told Merry Christmas than white progs.

      1. What happens when it’s a white Jewisn prog? What then?!

        1. Ask Heroic. He’s here to educate.

      2. “Yeah, well Jews are a lot less uptight about being told Merry Christmas than white progs”

        Ya know how jews celebrate Christmas ?

        They gather ’round the Cash Register and sing the old hymn, ” Oh, what a friend we have in Jesus !” .

      3. “Yeah, well Jews are a lot less uptight about being told Merry Christmas than white progs”

        Ya know how jews celebrate Christmas ?

        They gather ’round the Cash Register and sing the old hymn, ” Oh, what a friend we have in Jesus !” .

    4. Especially at that store!

    5. But not at Trump businesses, which have been sending out Happy Holiday greetings for ages.

      Saw that several weeks ago.

    6. Most of the Jews I know actually like Christmas quite a bit. Hell, I am as solid an atheist as anyone can get and I like Christmas. What isnt to like? Excellent food, gifts, family, the decorations and lights.

      Now that I think about it, it is kinda strange, an atheist and his jewish buddies wishing each other Merry Christmas.

      1. Christmas is a pagan holiday rebranded. It’s a good way to make the longest nights of the year less painful. It also conveniently spurs consumer spending which tends to act as a short-acting anti-depressant. Christmas is pretty good and it will persist absent any theological trappings.

        1. But then there are the dipshits who complain that poinsettias at city hall violate separation of church and state. For them, even the secular or pagan trappings are just too tainted with their association to a religious group’s celebration.

  6. Unfortunately for Hillary, the civil war in Lybia is only likely to get worse by election time.
    By this time next year, it could easily be as bad as Syria.

    1. At least she has the successful “reset” of our relationship with Russia to point to.

    2. We took out their murderous dictator and they fucked up the aftermath!

      Who could have predicted that?

      (Condi logic)

      1. BOOOOOSH (partisan logic)

      2. (Condi logic)

        void buttplug() {

        Side note: Reason’s comment system was written by a moron who doesn’t understand HTML.

        1. void buttplug() {

          There fixed it for you.

          1. Such recursion will result in stack overflow (unless tail-call optimized), but actually that would explain the plug’s “absences” (read: cocaine benders).

            1. template struct buttplug { enum { BOOSSHH = N * factorial::BOOSSHH }; };

              template struct buttplug { enum { BOOSSHH = 1 }; };


              BOOSSSSHHHHH = buttplug::BOOSSHH;


              1. Oops left out the angle brackets, use your imagination…

                template /int = N/ struct buttplug{ enum {BOOSH = N * buttplug/N-1/::BOOSH};};

                template// struct buttplug/1/ {enum { BOOSH = 1};};


                BOOSSSHHHH = buttplug/11111!!!/::BOOSH;



        ZOMG YOU ARE SOOOO SMART!!111!!!!!!!!1

        1. PB learned that in his “TEAM 101” class at WaPo.

        2. And thus Hillary (or any democrat, really)can make bad wars, too. “Bush” excuses all future actions.

          1. BOOOOSSSSHHHHH also get Chocolate Jesus off the hook for imperial presidency as well.

          2. And thus was the title of the highest office in the land changed from “President” to “Precedent”.

      4. Here we are two presidential terms later, Obumbles has fucked everything he has touched nearly to death and you are still blaming Bush.

        You are a true genius. A real brain-trust.

        Never change shreek, never change.

      5. Obviously Obama and Hillary couldn’t.

    3. except it will never make the news

  7. Why on earth would Clinton or Obama or any politician *not* meddle in other countries/regions? There are literally no negative consequences for them in doing so, and the positive ones are that they will often be cheered on by their idiotic sheep supporters. They will not be rebuked by Congress, or the courts, or even their base. There isn’t a single incentive (that matters to them, of course; normal humans might feel remorse or something) for them to not exercise power and throw weight around. Why wouldn’t they at every opportunity?

    1. Aren’t you supposed to be on a cop thread with that nonsense? Oh, wait…


        1. -1 Serbia

          1. Wouldn’t that be -1 Bosnia and -1 Kosovo (from Serbia).

        2. in case the proggies haven’t looked, people in Libya, Syria and Iraq are no darker than Italiams

    2. Why wouldn’t they at every opportunity?

      Human decency?

      Hillary just wants the presidential strap-on. It hasn’t been used since FDR.

      1. Polio brings out the best in all of us.

      2. Human decency?

        Good one.

      3. Human decency?


    3. Presidents are inherently ego maniacs and are obsessed with their legacy. And it doesn’t take a PhD in American history to know that the correlation between the rankings of presidential legacy and body count approaches is approaches unity.

    4. Dude, did you see when we destroyed that 40 year old Soviet tank with our big dick Raytheon missile? That was awesome!

  8. Completely misses the worst fallout from this: get a nuke or we’ll take you out. Libya was scared shitless by Iraq and actually gave up on WMDs. As a reward we killed Qaddafi. Meanwhile we(royal) expect Iran to abide by a new piece of paper at the same time they ignore an older piece of paper.


    1. What about a snuke?

    2. To be fair, once he had people shooting protesters in the head, it was all over. I suppose he could have used a nuclear bomb on the protestors but that seems a bit over the top.

      1. OTOH, we stood by and watched while the Bahrainians shot protesters with tanks. There’ve been innumerable protests in the ‘Stans that’ve been solved with government troops hosing down the unruly. So long as we needed their bases to help with Iraq and Afghanistan, we’ve not given too much of a shit.
        But Skippy’s right: U.S. foreign policy has all but told tinhorn dictators that, if you’re scared the U.S. is going to come in and kick you out—which these days means less exile in Geneva with whatever you salted away and more knife sodomy at the side of the road—you need nukes

        1. The Bahrainis actually invited Saudi tanks and Emiriti “police” in to do the shooting. I’m not sure they carried out anything themselves.

          It was disgusting all around and the only major group that even hinted at sanctions was Bernie Ecclestone’s FIA.

  9. OT but this was so good I had to post.

    On Reddit there’s a post about somebody who said that IQ tests should be mandatory to vote and have children, someone makes a comment about how these people always assume they’ll end up on the right side of things, and someone else makes this gem in response:

    “Kind of like how tea partiers who believe in the free market or what ever are convinced they won’t be the ones getting screwed over by big corporations in the end.”

    Yes, because all the free market consists of is corporations screwing people over. And we all know corporations never screw people over in regulated markets. And the government of course never screws people over and is always an impartial and fair protector of the people.

    1. It’s a retarded Turing test.

      How do you know if you’re talking to a political or cultural mongoloid?

      1. How do you know if you’re talking to a political or cultural mongoloid?

        Riddle or rhetorical question?

    2. Getting screwed over by a single, massive organization that is run alternately by malicious and incompetent people, doesn’t care about what I want or what’s in my best interest, and is backed by the force of law… why, who could imagine such a thing?

    3. Leftists don’t grasp that asking the government to protect you from corporations is like asking the Mafia to protect you from the Dead End Kids.

      1. Can I use that one. It’s definitely worth saving.

    4. I still am not aware of how corporations are screwing me over.

      Am I really paying too much for that muffler?

  10. I was all for the Lybian War until I realized it wasn’t about war at all, but rather about special rights for Lybians.

    1. You knew that it was all about forcing everyone to watch “Innocence of Muslims” from the beginning.

  11. As much as the peacenik isolationists on Reason annoy me, the arm chair generals on the conservative sites annoy me even more. I cannot for the life of me figure out why so many people are getting the vapors over China and Russia getting involved in Syria. My favorite are the “warm water port” guys. The Russkies are going to use Syria to have warm water ports. Lets forget for a moment that Assad has been a Russian ally for like 40 years and Syrian ports such as they are were pretty warm the entire time. What are they going to do with these “warm water ports”. That is never really explained. But damn it warm water ports are important and the Russkies getting them a really bad thing.

    My other favorite are the ones whose knowledge of war consists of Tom Clancy novels and reading StratFor. Those guys just know that the Chinese and Russian militaries are just vastly superior to the US military and going into Syria or invading Taiwan is just the easiest thing in the world and hardly even a speed bump on the road the Russian and Chinese domination of the world.

    1. A port in Syria allows Russian ships to refuel and stay forward deployed without having to transit the Bosphorus.

      If war were to break out between the U.S. and Russia, any Russian Ports in the med would be out of action within weeks; NATO’s numerical and qualitative advantages guarantee anything on the surface would be obliterated, and the only russian naval assets would be submarines.

      Now, if I were a senior naval officer in the USN, I would want to prevent the Russians from having bases in Syria simply because it would make fighting them easier. But them having those bases would not really worry me.

      1. And I am pretty sure the Russians being tied down in Syria makes a war with NATO a bit more complicated than it otherwise would be.

        1. OT: Thanks again for Gaia’s Dancing Indigo Children. Can’t figure out what’s better though, the posts themselves or the commenters losing their minds over how offensive the posts are. Good times.

      2. Russia already has a (small) port in Syria. I would not be surprised if they want to make it bigger.

    2. Isn’t a bit of it the ‘petrodollar’ hypothesis? Basically, if the U.S. decides to cede the question of SW Asia security to Russia and China, the oil-producing nations therein might consider switching the currency they accept for their oil from dollars to some other Russia/China/BRIC-ish currency. Extra points if it’s commodity-backed. This will lower global demand for the USD, something/something, US Treasuries interest rates will rise, economic catastrophe here.

      Something like that anyway.

      My concern is that this is looking a lot like the Spanish Civil War redux, in that all of the Great Powers are starting to use Syria to try out their latest toys, and that forward-deployed forces might accidentally on purpose start shooting at each other. Not a big deal if it’s aircraft that are lost; a very big deal if the USN screws up and gets a carrier sunk. The question then will be, “What happens now?”

      1. Really, I’m wondering how Russia is going to manage to fuck up the oil trade through the Persian Gulf, and thereby jack up energy prices to the level they need in order to fund their kleptocratic regime. $45-50 WTI and Brent aren’t going to get it done for Russia. Especially since it looks like their Ukrainian adventure is turning into a disaster for them.

        1. The existence of the US and Canadian shale fields prevents that. If the Russians want to fuck up oil production in the Gulf, I wish them luck. Oil prices will no doubt rise in the short term. But the resulting boost in profitability in US and Canadian shale would flood the market and bring prices right back down again.

      2. The petro dollar conspiracy theories are another good one. Why exactly oil no longer being priced in dollars would cause people to dump all of their dollars and T bills has always been a bit of a mystery to me.

        None of these things ever seem to account for the fact that the US no longer needs oil from the middle east. Yes, oil is fungible and having your own supply doesn’t protect you from it being more expensive if the world price goes up. Being a net exporter or oil independent, however, does make oil price increase a zero sum game on your economy. For every dollar you are poorer for having to pay more for oil, your economy is one dollar richer for being able to sell its oil for more money.

        The oil shale revolution really means that the US has no reason to give a fuck about the Middle East anymore.

        1. The oil shale revolution really means that the US has no reason to give a fuck about the Middle East anymore.

          Well, and as I tried to explain to Francisco the last time he said that, it’s not so much that the U.S. needs MidEast oil, it’s that our major trading partners (China, Japan) do. China can take care of itself, and I think we’re seeing that increasingly with the PLA(N)(AF) getting involved in Syria, but Japan I thought was still very dependent on Persian Gulf oil. We could take the Gulf’s place, if we were allowed to export shale oil or LNG, but…yeah. And if Japan craters due to high energy prices, so do we.

          To the economists here, amateur and otherwise, what would be the effect of a new currency being created by any/all of the BRIC countries, that was commodity-backed? Say if China turned around and fixed the yuan equal to a set amount of gold? Would demand flock to it vs the USD? AIUI, this would kill the competitiveness of Chinese exports, so they aren’t likely to do it (though China I thought was increasingly ceding the lowest-cost sector of manufacturing to other countries?), but suppose they did. What would that do to the U.S.?

          1. First, we can sell oil too. Second, we are not an export based economy. We depend on Japan and China to sell us stuff not buy stuff from us. So while an oil shock would be tough for them, it wouldn’t hurt us that much.

            As I explained above, the US and Canadian shale fields pretty much set the long term price of oil now. It is whatever the lowest price that allows the shale fields to be profitable. Anytime the price goes above that, the production from the shale fields will increase and bring it back down and any time it drops below, the resulting drop in shale production will bring it back up. And the price at which shale is profitable gets lower every year.

          2. India is the new China. Xiaomi, Lenovo, and OnePlus are all starting to move some production to India.

    3. Not sticking our noses into other country’s messes does not make us “isolationist”.

      GroundTruth’s first law of international policy: “First, do no harm”.

      1. But that’s how political hyperbole works. Don’t want to intervene? You’re an “isolationist.” Don’t like Obama? You’re a “racist.” Don’t like Hillary? You’re a “misogynist.” Don’t want millions of poor immigrants? You’re a “xenophobe.” Don’t think people should get into fights with cops? You’re a “bootlicker.”

        1. Don’t want millions of poor immigrants? You’re a “xenophobe.” Don’t think people should get into fights with cops? You’re a “bootlicker.”

          I’ve argued with you about immigration without calling you names and R C Dean has argued with you about police without calling you names. I suppose it’s easier to just conflate everybody together, but there is substantive debate if that’s what actually interests you.

          1. I wasn’t “conflating everybody together,” and of course I want substantive debate. You and RC are always polite, as far as I remember. But there are a number of commenters here who seem incapable of reasoned disagreement, and constantly use insults and personal attacks. You probably know who I mean.

    4. It’s like a bunch of political science majors who think they are playing Risk. JUST WAIT UNTIL I GET KAMCHATKA!

    5. I haven’t read anything from Clancy since Clear and Present Danger I think it was (the drug war one) but I’m not sure how anyone could take away from his earlier works that the Russians were superior to us in any way but numerical and that superiority is largely gone now as well.

      As far as being concerned with their getting involved in Syria, my only concern is with both of us having fighter aircraft present over the same country dropping bombs the possibility of direct US – Russian conflict is a bit too large for comfort. That said even if a couple of our fighters to start shooting at each other and there are a couple of deaths I think both sides are leery enough of the prospect of a war with the other that the odds of it escalating to an actual war with Russia is pretty much non existent.

      1. Yes. I am very concerned about Obama blundering us into a war with Russia as well. The answer to that concern is get the hell out of there and let Putin get tired down. If he thinks he can stabilize Syria or it is somehow in his interest to keep it destabilized, I wish him luck. And even if he restores Asaad, so what? Asaad’s an asshole but the US and Israel managed to contain him over the years. I will take Assaad over ISIS any day.

        1. Don’t worry, Obama speaks loudly and carries a small stick which he arbitrarily uses against whichever Middle Eastern country his dart hit. He’ll bluster us to the verge of war, blink at the last minute, then attack Qatar or something without Congressional consent a few months later.

    6. I am sort of a ‘warm water port’ guy, but I don’t get the vapors over Russia having them. I understand that that is a major motive for them, but really, how much difference does it make that they have them.

      As for world domination, how stupid does one have to be to aspire to that?

      There is a reason that the world is speckled with tiny little countries that, looking at a map, one would think could be easily overrun. Why havent they been gobbled up already? Because the people there are im-fucking-possible to deal with, thats why. Invade Yemen, Turkmenistan, Lesotho, or Guatamala and within 6 months you will be kicking yourself.

      I thought the Chinese were taking over Africa. What happened about that? *snickers*
      It is ridiculous that they had to relearn the lesson European countries learned a hundred years ago.

  12. United States’ 2011 intervention in Libya in terms that should be worrying to the wide swath of the American polity that has grown allergic to haphazardly-planned, open-ended military conflicts:

    Huh? We elected Obama twice, not much of an allergen if you aks me.

    1. Since we just bombed and left the place to rot, I don’t think it is fair to call Libya an “open ended” commitment.

      1. I suppose if we sequester Libya and ignore the rest of Obama’s military adventurism, you’d be 100% right. Libya, however, represents a pattern, a pattern that suggests that Obama, like many previous Presidents, can’t resist getting involved militarily in the ME– which is a regional open-ended military conflict.

        1. He is different than previous Presidents in that although he is quick to intervene, he has absolutely no staying power once he does. The Obama doctrine seems to involve just randomly bombing people for a few weeks now and then.

          1. The Obama doctrine seems to involve just randomly bombing people for a few weeks now and then.

            Well I feel better.

          2. He’s a one-pump-chump.

          3. Clintonian, actually.

          4. with no fucking plan of what to do…he’s fond of breaking things, just not owning them later

        2. Clearly only the US is capable of bringing stability to the region. Clearly.

          1. Well turning the entire middle east into glow in the dark glass would be a form of stability

      2. Funny to me that the whole thing was the Europeans’ idea – now they have Libyan refugees using their backyards as latrines.

        1. Wasn’t the impetus for getting involved in the first place, was the fact that Libyans fleeing the fighting were hitting the Med in whatever’d float, and the first thing they ran into was often Lampedusa or Linosa, i.e., Italy? Malta too, but they aren’t in NATO, so screw ’em.

      1. You know, I assumed you were going with when Pam on Archer eats the tofu shellfish, but going with Ilana instead is better. I’d approve, but that would mean saying something nice to you…and I just can’t do that. You understand.

        1. [bows head]


    GIT HER!

    1. Are you a vegan shreek? If not, my pitbulls are vegan. What is your excuse?

    2. Uh oh. Somebody said something mean about TEAM BLUE. Now shriek has a sad. Go do another line of coke.

      1. Fuck you. He’s the only pure libertarian there is!

        1. Now with 8% purity!

          1. shrike’s libertarianism has only been stepped on maybe 9 or 10 times!

      2. There is plenty to criticize Team Blue about without showboating pols dredging up a 4 year old conspiracy theory/fake scandal.

        1. For example, defending an illegal military intervention. Which is the subject of this post. Dipshit.


          BRILLIANCE AGAIN!!!111!! I LUV YOU PB!!!!1

        3. Classic.
          Deny, lie and stonewall, then declare it an old issue.

        4. Palin’s Buttplug – how does it smell up there?



      1. Re: American Stultified,

        If you training the Kurdish people with your own money, that is not the same as invading Iraq.

        Training the Kurdish people with MY money, that would mean you’re a fucking thief, Marxian.

  14. The Hillary Doctrine: Create Instability, Wing it, Then Refuse to ‘Retreat’

    That’s the standard government MO in any context, not just foreign interventions.

    1. When you are in a position of power, the last thing you can do is admit fault. Because if you people realize that you are fallible, they will cease to look upon you as a god.

        1. Racist teafucking freudian slip there I see.

      1. See also, “The Man Who Would be King”.

  15. “Illegal war…”

    Matt, without reading the rest of the article, you are referring to Iraq, right? Yeah that war sucked and the people who fought in that war for free dumb were pretty much morons. I agree, man.

    1. Yeah, Matt’s definitely a big fan of the War in Iraq. That was, like, totally on point, man. Also, there can only ever be one illegal war in all of history. You got it, bro.

      1. I can’t tell. Was he against the war in Iraq? So many of the libertarians here were either out right in favor of sending 100,000 troops to Mesopotamia or were too lazy and apathetic about it to lift a pen against it. You know, because legalizing it is so much cooler than actually opposing an illegal and imperialist war.

        1. So many of the libertarians here were either out right in favor of sending 100,000 troops to Mesopotamia or were too lazy and apathetic about it to lift a pen against it.

          Accusing libertarians of being in favor of or apathetic toward the Iraq War can only be one of two things, ignorance or dishonesty.

          1. What’s this then? One of many examples of “libertarians” getting their right-wing wires crossed because of BOOOSHH.

            https://reason.com/archives/ 2003/01/30/libertarianism-in-one-state

            1. The money shot in this article;

              Thirdly, and most controversially, the Federal government should revive the Reagan Doctrine?we should support, train, and finance insurgent movements aimed at overthrowing authoritarian regimes.

              I don’t see any endorsement of a full-scale invasion and decade long occupation by Mr Bailley in this article. In fact upon further review, I don’t see anything from the time period where he even remotely offers support of the invasion.

              As usual, your argument relies on people either blindly accepting your lack of evidence, or not actually looking at the evidence you do manage to offer.

              1. Yeah pretty much. His entire worldview seems to spring from blind acceptance and I suppose he expects others to not think since he doesn’t.

            2. That’s funny – I feel like I remember that article, or at least I remember reading something from Bailey at the time that caught my attention because it wasn’t the usual spittle-flecked opposition to any and every foreign intervention that you usually get from libertarians. Witness pretty much everything published at Cato in the buildup to the 2003 invasion, or everything *else* published by Reason.

              But yes, the one example of a libertarian saying “hey, maybe there is *some* role for helping oppressed people overseas” proves that *all* libertarians are secret warmongers.

        2. Nice anecdote you got there. Going to make an argument or just accuse everyone of imperialism?

        3. You really don’t do stupid halfway, do you?

          1. You don’t understand. It’s not what a person does that matters, but who the person is. Principals, not principles.

        4. Cato Institute’s foreign policy group came out against the FIRST Gulf War before it started and have opposed it consistently ever since. They lost a bunch of donations over that, but held firm.

          Socialists always lie and seldom know what they’re talking about.

    2. No self awareness. At all.

      1. And totally on-point, too

    3. Yeah dipshit. It was an illegal war. NATO had no UNSC authorization to intervene in Libya. It also had no claim of self defense. There is no “but bad things were happening” exception to the UN charter or the Kellogg Briand Pact, which is still valid law. There was no legal basis to go to war with the Libyan government. It was an illegal, aggressive war by any definition.

      1. Iraq was the only illegal war because Bush. Duh.

      2. “It was an illegal war”

        I agree. I opposed it and thought we had no business getting involved in it. Can I distinguish between a French and British-led air campaign against a tyrant and an American decade-long ground campaign involving 150,000 ground troops that cost over a trillion dollars and killed hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq? Yes, I can. Can you, fuckhead?

        1. How dare you talk about the injustice of the Iraq War when the Vietnam War was doubleplus unjust. Why are you excusing the Vietnam War by daring to mention another unjust war? SHAME ON YOU!!!!

        2. If only the US hadn’t stopped at Tripoli.

        3. No you can’t fuckhead. The Iraq war was both legal under international law and domestic law. Libya was both. Moreover, the Libya war was even more immoral. In Libya we destroyed the government and then just left the country to fall apart. That is much worse than going into Iraq and at least trying to rebuild the government. What we did in Libya was probably the most immoral thing the US has done in the last 50 years. We just intervened in a civil war, made it worse, destroyed the entire government and then just left it in chaos.

          You are an immoral piece of shit who of course thinks that is great because TEAM


            1. The only war criminal I know of is Obama. He is the one who invaded and bombed a sovereign nation without any UNSC authorization or any claim of self defense.

              The invasion of Iraq was legal under international law. The UNSC gave the US the power to use military force to enforce the ceasefire and the inspection regime. There was no such authorization for the Libya war. From a legal perspective, Obama’s intervention in Libya is no more legal than the German invasion of Czechoslovakia.

              1. I argued against GWII when before it started, and I thought the arguments for it were total bs.
                However, and I don’t know why BOOOSH didn’t make this argument, the Iraqis were in violation of trends of surrender from GWI, which is what? Either a declaration of war or a resumption of hostilities.
                It was unwise, probably immoral, but it was not illegal.

            2. Re: American Stultified,

              Hey… Psst! Buddy. Com’ere. Yeah, you! C’mere!

              Hey, let me let you on a little secret…. You ready?


              1. And even if I were, Mexican, where in that did I defend Bush much less tie myself in knots to do so?

                International law is what it is. The Iraq invasion was legal and the Libya intervention was not. Dipshits like American Socialist thought international law was a really big deal right up until Obama started breaking it.

                1. International law is what the left needs it to be at any given moment.

                2. Re: John,

                  And even if I were, Mexican, where in that did I defend Bush much less tie myself in knots to do so?

                  I don’t think you ever did. But you’re a big boy, capable of defending yourself.

                  The Stultified Marxian wants to insinuate that, somehow, your notions stem from the ideas and principles of all libertarians. First, you’re not a libertarian – you’re more of a paleoconservative. Second, the Marxian is lying; I am calling him on it.

                3. I don’t give a damn about international law. The United States is a sovereign nation and can go to war with or without the United Nations. The Libyan intervention was illegal under American law. No authorization from Congress as required by the War Powers Act (never mind a declaration of war, which seems to be a dead letter). Instead there was some Bill Clinton “define is” dissembling about how bombing the shit out of a country doesn’t really count as hostilities because we didn’t deploy ground troops. The Libyan intervention was illegal.

                  I didn’t agree with going into Iraq at the time because I couldn’t for the life of me understand why Saddam getting nuclear weapons was worse than Pakistan having them, but I was willing to give the invasion time to see how things worked out in the Middle East. Also, the Bush administration built a case for war and the Congress voted to authorize it as required by the constitution and federal law. Now twelve years later it’s clear that neither our Iraq or Afghanistan invasions made the United States any safer than we were. Instead of learning from our mistakes, we continue to double and triple down on the intervention despite our lack of success in stabilizing the region or any idea of what we are trying to do.

              2. You think he is the only one here making this sort of argument?

                1. He at least makes some sense, more than you can.

                2. I am just holding you to your own standards Socialist. You start throwing out terms like “war criminal” you might want to consider that not everyone is as ignorant as you are. Some people know what such terms mean.

                  If you don’t care about international law, fine but stop calling your political opponents war criminals like that term means anything. If you are concerned about international law, then you better ask yourself why you support a war criminal being President of the US.

    4. Tell us more about this free dumb you’re giving away. I take it you have a lot in stock?

    5. Hey AmSoc, you pay that mortgage yet?

    6. Your a idiot,as always. The Iraq war was voted on and approved by congress.It was a waste yes,never should have happened.Libya was never approved.Your a D shill,you bastardf.And how about Syria and ISSI in Iraq dumb ass? Or troops still in the Afgan war? You are a team player,nothing else..You are also,by your name,a believer in evil

    7. Re: American Stultified,

      without reading the rest of the article, you are referring to Iraq, right?

      What difference, at this point, does it make?

      BTW, all wars are illegal. Even the war on reason pursued by Marxians.

      1. So a war fought in self defense is “illegal”?

        1. Re: John,

          So a war fought in self defense is “illegal”?

          Depends on how you construe “self-defense”. If you’re defending your territory, that is not illegal, but that is because you’re not pursuing a war or acting war-like.

          If the politicians decide to send the army to attack another country, justifying the war-like behavior as “defensive”, then the politicians would be a) lying through their collective teeth and b) conducting an illegal war.

        2. I don’t know what OldMex’s point was, but war is an intentional–and circumstantially justified–exception to the normal laws. You shoot someone wearing the uniform of the enemy on sight; you bomb property that is (believed to be) held by the enemy; you imprison people who surrender to you without proving they’ve committed any crime. In an occupation, you break down doors, confiscate weapons, and detain people on a fairly minimal standard of evidence.

          All of which, as I noted, might be completely justified–and legal under the premise of “being at war”–but would be completely unacceptable outside of the context of war.

    8. Iraq was illegal? Bush went to the UN and got resolutions. Bush went to Congress and got a vote authorizing a use of force.

      Obama never told Congress, and when 60 days had passed, claimed that dropping bombs on people’s heads didn’t constitute “hostilities” as no American troops were put in harm’s way.

  16. I bought brand new BMW by working ONline work. Six month ago i hear from my friend that she is working some online job and making more then 98$/hr i can’t beleive. But when i start this job i have to beleived her

    ??????? —— http://www.HomeJobs90.Com

  17. Welch lights the “BUT BUSH!” Signal.

    1. And it looks like it was answered two minutes ago.

  18. Ugh, smells like stupid hippie peaceniks in here.

    Shit, John beat me to it.

    1. Huh huh, yeah. Peace is so dumb.

      1. Very few people actually believe in peace uber alles. I can’t speak for John, but I have a lot of respect for actual pacifists, whether they are conscientious objectors who will still contribute to the war effort, or even just ascetics/monastics who eschew worldly things altogether.

        But somebody who says they want “peace” but really just means “I support the other side in the conflict” or “I don’t like how messy war really is” is not a pacifist; they are disingenuous and/or malicious.

        1. Pretty much that. What really bugs me is the idea that we can unilaterally choose peace every time. Peace is great but we only get it when our enemies choose to give it to use. If someone decides to make war on you, you don’t get to choose peace unless you are willing to just surrender, which of course is what many people who claim to want “peace” actually want.

          1. If someone decides to make war on you, you don’t get to choose peace unless you are willing to just surrender, which of course is what many people who claim to want “peace” actually want.

            True, but you appear to be ignoring the situation where your country is making war on others, and your wanting it to stop. That seems to me to be a genuine plea for “peace.”

            1. No I am not. You are just assuming that if we stop making war on those people they will stop doing the same to us. Peace only happens if both sides quit.

              1. Who is making war on us? 9-11 happened once, and the guys who did it are dead. Since then most if not all of the terrorist threats in this country were created by the FBI. And with terrorism, there really isn’t a “side” in the sense of war. War is a tool of politics. It is used to make governments submit. Terrorism isn’t a government. Well, ISIS is, but that happened long after the War on Terruh was launched. I don’t see how a call for bringing the troops home is a call to surrender. Surrender to what army?

                1. Ahh but you miss the point. War is the lifeblood of the state, and the state has just found a way to perpetuate constant war.
                  And the extra special bonus is that they can now call anyone opposed to the State a “terrorist”, and presto: your political enemies become “enemy combatants”, with no legal protections.

  19. I bought brand new BMW by working ONline work. Six month ago i hear from my friend that she is working some online job and making more then 98$/hr i can’t beleive. But when i start this job i have to beleived her

    ??????? —— http://www.HomeJobs90.Com

  20. So is today the day we finally learn what the fuck Stevens was doing in Benghazi instead of the capital?

    Did Hillary’s loose emails get him killed?

    What was the CIA doing there in the “annex”?

    Why was Ham relieved of command?

    1. Research. No. Research. Spend time with his family.

    2. I thought it’s been established that the Benghazi consulate was being used to funnel arms, illegaly, ala Iran-Contra, to groups that Hillary Clinton’s own State Department had classified as terrorists.

  21. When is Hil-Dog gonna go bitch-on-bitch with little Ice Trey?

    I want to see that one.

    1. Are you one of the Indigo Children Shreek?

  22. When “4 pinnochios” is mentioned more than once (at current count) in a congressional hearing, it’s maybe time to reconsider gov’t’s ability to not only wage war, but to make decisions of any kind.

  23. Avast thar mateys, landlubbers and perpetually hallucinating “limited government” statist automatons![ I see the matrix still “has” you :-)]

    I don’t care which scam artist finally gets elected, or which doesn’t, nor what the Fed does/does not do, nor whether, according to Mr “investment advisor with a claimed “near perfect prediction record” [insert advisor name of choice] , we are supposedly in for recession, depression, deflation, hyper inflation, a stock market boom, or whatever .


    Because whatever happens, my entirely self-managed, fully diversified, once per year adjusted long term savings plan will be safely protected and will , 9 times out of 10, grow at an average of 8% per annum over and above the prevailing inflation [or deflation], rate, year in, year out, as it has since 1986 when I started using it.

    Savings plan results 1972-2011: http://onebornfreesfinancialsa…..gspot.com/

    1. Worst anonbot impression ever. It’s like you’re not even trying.

    2. No one will ever let you near their money? In fact,I wouldn’t let you manage the play money from my Monopoly game box if you paid me.



  24. You know who else advocated a highly interventionist foreign policy…?

    1. Montezuma?

      1. I’ll cut this short: the answer is, as always, BOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH.

        1. I thought the answer was always Hitler.

            1. Not Bush, Cheney who masterminded all.

    2. God?

    3. Dr. Manhattan?

    4. Nixon went to China.

  25. Are we winning in Cameroon yet?

    1. No, but our war with Eastasia is doing remarkably well.

      1. We are not at war with Eastasia. We are at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia

  26. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.buzznews99.com

  27. I have been recently informed by Cytotoxic that US policy in Somalia has failed to undermine that already-complete-disaster of a country, therefore this whining about “the US fomenting destabilization” in places like Libya/Yemen/Syria is all just peacenazi foolishness.

    1. Was that before or after he explained to you how the influx of hundreds of thousands of military age Muslim men with nothing to do and no reason to be there is going to make Europe more free?

      1. All of these issues are somehow magically mutually exclusive

        1. To pile onto Cytotoxic, I’ve never understood the view that a Syrian sitting in a hut in Palmyra, or a Pashtun in the Upper Swat, is the nastiest thing ever and needs to be killed on sight from the air, with fire. And his family, friends, livestock, and everyone who owed him money. Yet that same guy sitting at a train siding in Hungary needs to be welcomed into their country with open arms and wallets. Jeez, pick one or the other.

          And to those who say they aren’t the same guy, well, how do you know? AIUI, State’s pretty much thrown up their hands and said there isn’t a good database of these guys that we can use to figure out who’s a jihadi, who’s a hapless shopkeeper from Mosul, and who isn’t down for jihad, but will give assistance to those that are.

          1. False dichotomy. The Syrian in Palmyra and the Pashtun in Upper Swat should stay where the fuck they are, and the US government should leave them the fuck alone.

            1. The ‘false dichotomy’ you’re reacting to is Cyto’s odd-policy-argument which simultaneously posits that

              – there is never such a thing as a badly-conceived bombing campaign, and blowing people up around the world is generally to the good regardless of the so-called “consequences”


              – that immigration is never anything but a gigantic positive and that the Western World stands to benefit immensely from opening the doors to all-comers.

              I am myself more of a foreign-policy realist than the average libertarian; and I’m also generally pro-immigration, though by no means ‘open borders’ without caveat.

              but his one-dimensional view of “Blow up the moozies! or let them all migrate” is something of a running joke.

              1. Actually I was informed that consequences (i.e. blowback) hardly ever happen and when they do it’s no big deal so they can be ignored.

                1. If you can downplay “costs” to the point that they are negligible, then you can justify any action regardless of zero-benefit to anyone.

                  which seems to be how he rationalizes his playskool universe.

      2. A young terrorist’s dreams of jihad are dashed by the ongoing destabilization of his country, so he moves to Brooklyn and opens a food truck…Learning about life and love in the process. – A Very Special Hallmark-Cytotoxic Production

        1. I see those stories about various western refugee activists who end up being raped or stabbed while in the refugee camps in Europe and all I can think is “if they ever have those kinds of camps in Canada, that will be Cytoxic and the last thing that goes through his mind before some maniac’s ice pick will be how wonderful all these people are”.

        2. And he bangs Lena Dunham of course.

        3. “Jihad Me at Hello”

    2. Why would we attack Libertopia?

      1. Its for their own good

        side note = a key figure among Al-Shabab jihad-mongers is the wife of one of the British 7/7 bombers, referred to as The White Widow

        It is possible we have blown her up since that story, but it makes for interesting reading nonetheless.

  28. Under questioning, Clinton also characterized the Libya intervention as “remarkable,” echoing her assertion last week that it was “smart power at its best.”

    Honestly, I don’t know which possibility is more disturbing – that Clinton is lying and expects us to believe it, or that she actually believes it herself. I fail to see by what conceivable standard, even ignoring Benghazi, you can judge the Libya intervention as anything other than an abject clusterfuck.

    1. There is a Facebook meme out there with a picture of Ben Carson on one side and Hillary Clinton on the other. Below Carson the caption reads, “performs brain surgery” and below Hillary Clinton the caption reads, “needs brain surgery”.

      It is only funny because it is true. Hillary is really out of it. I don’t care what your politics are, only a complete idiot would think a woman in her physical and mental condition is fit to be President.

      1. I’m not sure Carson doesn’t need brain surgery too. He can’t seem to restrain himself from saying dumb things about topics that voters don’t really even care about. Witness his recent department of education comments.

        1. I don’t agree with him on that but what he is saying isn’t crazy. He is advocating turning the power of government against Progressives for once. Progs love big government and consider the Department of Education to be sacred and are happy to use its power to go after male college students and other political enemies. Carson is just saying that two can play that game.

          I would rather he just advocate getting rid of the department but I don’t think what he is saying is crazy.

          1. Not crazy, no. I get what you’re saying, but mainstream voters, the ones he’ll need to court to win the general election, will look at the media coverage of his comments. They’ll probably be turned off by some of the things he’s had to say. He doesn’t need to say those things to recruit the republican primary voters either, so it’s really hard to tell why he’s saying them.

            That’s what I can’t figure out about Carson. He’s got a great outsider resume, can deliver a good speech, will defuse the racist republican angle if he runs against Sanders or Clinton, and has a great shot against the perpetually self destructing Trump, but he can’t seem to restrain himself from saying things that can be used to paint him as a kook. You might argue that those things might resonate with Republican voters, but in the general election they’re political suicide.

          2. He is advocating turning the power of government against Progressives for once.

            OK, so you’ve supported my point- vector direction is different, but magnitude is the same.

            1. No I am not. If the Progs are going to use government to go after their political enemies, then the rest of us have no choice but to do the same. Further, the progs only do half of the shit they do because they know their enemies are generally people like you who would rather be run over than use their own methods against them. Let the Progs be on the wrong end of government and they will suddenly decide that whole rule of law thing and having some limits on government power isn’t so bad after all.

              1. or will we just help them empower the state way beyond anything we want?

  29. Man, that look on her face is right up there with that of a mob boss or cop who fears for his life.

    1. She is the most craven sociopath ever to run for high office in this country. The thought of her being President should send a chill down your spine. The Progs who support this woman amaze me. They actually think she won’t sell them out if doing so gives her more power. They are like those people who own vipers or Bengal tigers who are convinced their animal won’t kill them.

      1. The thought of her being President should send a chill down your spine.

        With the possible exception of Rand, you could drop any of the candidates into that sentence.

        1. No. None of them, not even Sanders or Obama or any of them are like Hillary. I think Sanders is a dangerous idiot but I don’t think he would sell out the country. Hillary would. Hillary would sell out anyone or anything if she thought it would benefit her.

          You can take cynicism too far. Just politicians suck doesn’t mean some politicians really are not much worse than others. They are not all the same.

          1. not even Sanders or Obama or any of them are like Hillary.

            Every horrible choice is an individual, horrible in their own unique way. Magnitude of horrible is pretty equal, it’s just a variance in the angle of the vector.

            1. Every horrible choice is an individual, horrible in their own unique way. Magnitude of horrible is pretty equal,

              That is both illogical and absurdly counter to reality. All choices being horrible does not preclude some of them being magnitudes worse than others. And history shows again and again that yes sometimes the only choice is the lesser of two evils.

              The Menschavicks and the Gridirons were uniquely horrible. That fact did not stop the Bolsheviks and the Jacobins from being much more horrible. Moreover, the really horrible ones depend upon useful idiots buying into the “they are all equally worthless” fallacy in order to gain power.

              1. All choices being horrible does not preclude some of them being magnitudes worse than others.

                But in this case, the magnitudes are pretty damn similar, at least if you’re not on a Team.

                1. No they are not. Hillary is much worse. And that has nothing to do with TEAM. She is much worse than Biden and Sanders. Saying they are all the same is just a cop out and an excuse not to think.

  30. Hillary = You People Have No Right To Fault Me For Anything Because Feelings

    “Washington (CNN)Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton mounted a passionate defense of her response to the Benghazi attacks at a congressional hearing Thursday, telling the Republicans arrayed against her that she had lost more sleep over the deaths of four Americans in Libya than anyone else on the panel

    And we know how important it is she get her sleep, else she get cranky.

    Was it sleeplessness that caused her to blame a video-maker for a terrorist attack?

    “Clinton rejected the claim, saying in the desperate hours after the attack on September 11, 2012, that information on the true nature of the assault on the compound by a mob was unclear.”

    True! CNN of course doesn’t note that Hillary was still blaming the video months later, and continued to pretend it was actually still a serious possibility during her congressional hearing in January 2013

    1. But of course she didn’t, at the time and for weeks afterwards, say that the “true nature of the assault on the compound by a mob was unclear.” No, they said it was the video, even though they knew that wasn’t the cause.

    2. So I guess the next time someone is up for manslaughter as a result of their actions killing someone, they can now get off if they just claim this whole thing caused them to lose a whole lot of sleep.

      Yeah, Hillary was real upset about that. She was so upset she lied to the families of the victims of her fuck up by swearing to go and get the guy who made that video that she knew didn’t cause the attack.

      1. Jesus dude, still trying to prove something that is now a given. The only reason Shillary can continue spouting this nonsense is because most Americans have better things to do than get involved in politics so they form their opinions from thirty second summaries, these summaries being delivered by “journalists” who, each and every one, are fellow travelers.

    3. Clinton rejected the claim, saying in the desperate hours after the attack on September 11, 2012, that information on the true nature of the assault on the compound by a mob was unclear.”

      Total horseshit. There was a UAV in the area during the assault. If it didn’t have video and IIR, it’d be the first one that didn’t. In addition, mobs don’t usually bring mortar teams (as opposed to a brief ‘lob bomb then run’ attack) to their demonstrations.

      1. Indeed. The weapons used and the coordination shown in the sustained attack disprove the “spontaneous angry mob” claim.

    4. Of course you can’t sleep when you know you are the one responsible for the deaths. Someone might find out and hold you accountable.

      1. That is not the reason she couldn’t sleep.

        Having the knowledge that the truth could possibly come out that the reason she denied extra security in Benghazi was so that her pal Sidney’s private sector security company in Lyia could get the contract.

        It became clear to me today that that is more than likely what took place. Sid had a private security company in Lyia. It might just be the one that ran away when they were actually needed.

        It’s going to come out after todays hearing.


  31. Caller just now to CSPAN: “This ain’t nothin’ but a witch-hunt! They need to stop this nonsense and get to legislating some kinda GUN CONTROL!!!”

    1. So Sid Blumenthal is calling into CSPAN?

    2. Finally a caller who gets it !

      1. Hopefully lunacy is not catchy.

  32. absolutely!

    if we had not intervened in libya, isil might have conquered all manner of land by now, committed untold atrocities, and announced a caliphate.

    thank god we headed that off.

    1. Lol, wut?

    2. isis is the name for the loosely grouped radical Islamic terrorists.
      isil is the formal name for the establishment of the caliphate. (As in: done deal)
      by using the isil name, you legitimize the illegitimate.
      Nobody except for the Usurper in the WH and his sycophants have legitimized these thugs by using the isil badge. Note carefully who uses what nomenclature.
      Did you not know this? or have you unconsciously tipped your hand?

  33. And so it begins *(ends)

    Putin says Syria’s Assad is open to working with some rebels

    The endgame here was never for Russia to wage a full campaign against anyone, and achieve any real substantial lasting ‘peace’ on the ground…

    …but rather to change the balance of power such that the West is presented with options of how to save-face and snatch some kind of rhetorical victory from the mess as it stands.

    That option is, “Assad pretends to negotiate with the ‘sane’ Rebels”

    (those loose mix of groups we’ve been trying to arm/train since 2011)

    … and agree to some kind of “political solution”. Which in effect means absolutely nothing except that the rebels accept that “Assad remains”, and the Russians stop bombing the FSA et al.

    The key point is that the narrative is now being dictated to the West, who …if the local ‘rebels’ concede… have no-one left to ‘support’ in Assad’s ouster.

    continue… and the best option for appearing to be “Assad compromises”

    1. (sorry, that last line was just garbage)

  34. Our intervention in Libya was obviously to stop Qaddafi’s Great Man-Made River project from turning Libya into the breadbasket of the Arab world and giving it that much more independence from the West. The Project if of course now in ruins.

  35. The Hildog Doctrine is lie lie lie lie cover up cover up all in an unquenchable thirst for naked power.

    1. We already know what a president clinton would look like when she was selling access to US uranium mines to the Russians for donations to her ‘foundation’.

  36. She is our next president for 8 years after that crook Obama leaves office. Thanks to racist black people, ignorant Latino’s that will never learn English, feminists, government employee crooks, liberal educators,and liberal journalists. We will always see Democrooks controlling the White House, thanks to these groups of people. She will probably use executive orders to make Spanish our official and only language, and she will eliminate the Second Amendment by executive order. She will also give government employees a free pass on paying their taxes. Of course, most government employees already get away with not paying their taxes.

    1. Thank the Prohibition Party for advising the Republican National Committee on how to write a platform. The GOP candidates and platform, plus Nixon’e anti-libertarian law, elected what you see.

    2. I forgot to mention the personal injury asshole lawyers as being for Democrooks as well. Democrooks, love the jack pot by jury system for lawyers.

  37. ‘We Love Bernie’ Social Network to Mobilize Progressive 99% Movement!
    Inspired by Bernie Sanders and his message about taking back America for the 99%, the social network offers the bells and whistles of Facebook where users can post profiles and photos, promote their organizations, books, music, artwork, films, documentaries and other items of interest to this community.

    Join the Progressive Revolution here: http://welovebernie.net/

    1. These aren’t the droids you’re looking for.

    2. Progressives are regressive.
      You have a better chance a Neocommunist ruling this country as seeing the sun rise in the West.

  38. Richard Nixon said essentially the same things, and signed the anti-libertarian campaign subsidies law. Voters are now told by teevee that they have to choose between her and antiabortion prohibitionist warmongers. Is this clarity or oversimplification?

  39. I’m not that crazy about the Republicans either. But, I would take Trump, Cruz, Paul, or Rubio over the Democrooks. You know, the lesser of the two evils way of thinking.

    1. People in Texas are pretty happy with Cruz. He’s the first politician in my life (59 yrs) that has done what he said he would do when he was campaigning.

      To me that is big. You may not exactly like what he campaigns on but you can trust him to to it when elected. At least you don’t get someone who goes back on their word once in Washington like Rubio did to Floridians. He ran as a tea party type and then joined the amnesty group of Republicans when promised some plum committie chair.

      I know someone who has known Cruz professionally and personally for 15 years. He claims Cruz is much more Libertarian than people assume. He is much more of a live and let live person and doesn’t think that he or anyone in government should be telling others how to live their life.. He is also a brilliant person.

    2. Trump would be a lesser of two evils?

      I don’t know, man. That sort of choice is where I’d stay home.

  40. A car salesman friend once told me he was processing a loan for a client, his boss asked him ‘how much credit does he have’? My friend looked him with a straight face and quipped ‘he’s got lots of credit, and it’s all bad!’

    That is allegorical to what we see today. The community agitator currently occupying the WH had/has no credit, the empty pantsuit vying for the job, has lots of credit, and it’s all bad.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.