In a recent interview, Hillary Clinton suggested that the Benghazi fiasco was the thing she regretted the most during her stint as Secretary of State, it should not be!
Since Benghazi is heavily scrutinized, and will likely to remain under the microscope until the 2016 election, it is a smart move for Mrs. Clinton to discuss it rather than to have the opposition have the lead. Yes, the Benghazi situation was horrible, from mismanagement, to cover-up, to the callous statements in front of Congress, but it was not her major failure at State.
Declining relations with many allies, from Poland, to Gulf nations, and even with Israel. But there are worse yet: Leading from behind at Arab Springs, a movement to shore up Sharia law in North Africa, to declaring Bashar Assad a “true reformer,” keeping away aid to the rebels and largely contributing to well over 100,000 Syrian civilians slaughtered, and 4,000,000+ Syrian refugees dumped on the region, a situation that will change the geo-political alignment of the region, forever; likely keeping a “two-state” solution for the Israeli/Arab conflict from ever happening.
Yes, indeed, Mrs. Clinton your Benghazi handling was terrible, but your other blunder as Secretary of State clearly disqualify you as the person to answer the red-phone at 3:00AM, or at any other time
Starting with overview of President Obama’s recent political view about the GOP, he seems to be right, even though he seemed to be walking on eggs by not mentioning the African-American vote. Based on Obama’s horrible performance, neither he, nor the Democrats are very popular. That notwithstanding, the Republicans are not doing much better, and as Obama said, their relations with minorities are abysmal.
Moving to the Middle East where the Obama Administration, under Hillary Clinton, did a horrible job. Mrs. Clinton mistook and supported Arab Springs not realizing that it was a move towards strengthening Sharia law, and labeled Assad: “A true reformer,” being in large part responsible for the escalation of the conflict.
Moving on to President Obama’s view of the Israeli situation: In order to have peace one must have to have an entity with whom to have peace, and since there is no “Palestine,” there is much less than 50% chance for peace. The”Palestinians” are not ready for a state any more than the Arab part of the region is ready for a new state. This is especially so with the influx of over four million Syrian refugees dumped mostly on Jordan and on Lebanon.
As to “peace” in Syria, the likelihood is more like 10% than Obama’s 50%. The present regime (a branch of Shiite) will prevail, but with someone else in place of Assad; it will operate under a strong Iranian influence.
As to geographic changes; there will be some, including more secure borders for Israel.
Finally, a significant Sunni/Shiite conflict will likely continue in Syria and Lebanon, for many years. The conflict will have Iran (with Russia,) supporting the Shiite, while the Saudis (with elements of al Qaeda) and with some minimal US help, supporting the Sunni.
There is no end in sight to the regional Inter-Islam conflict in the; let us hope the the “collateral” damage, and the “scapegoating” of Zionism, does not hurt Israel too much.
Shared with: Zyonism.org
Inequality: A Divine concept that Obama cannot change! Equitability could be the answer!
No two people were created equal! Regardless of one’s view regarding the creation, very few, or anybody objects to the premise that no two people are the same.
Should President Obama new priority of equalization was even taken seriously, the divine creation would stand on the way of America’s young but naive President.
The same starting point almost never cause a tie at the finish, be it in track-and-field, in swimming, or in contribution that can be measured in science, engineering, or any other human endeavor…As a physicist who studies at respectable schools, and worked very hard, I can with high level of certainty that my knowledge and contribution in the field are many order of magnitude smaller of that of Albert Einstein, or Steven Hawkins…Why does President Obama, or his cohorts think that they can make people equal to one another?
Reich: 2013 worst income disparity; indicting Obama, or Socialism?
Robert Reich, a Socialist, or at least a pseudo Socialist is either indicting the Obama economic policy with its bail-outs, and stimulus, for the horrible income disparity in the United States. Even President Obama is complaining of the inequality of income in the country.
Equality is not what we want since that means everyone regardless of contribution, or effort, receiving the same benefits, the same level of wealth. What one seeks is equitable distribution based on contribution,. or at least the effort to contribute to society.
President Obama’s four years, culmination with 2013 which the indictment by Reich support my early blog that deals with the fact that neither pure Socialism, nor pure Capitalism is viable; my contention: Only a hybrid economic system can be successful for humans…