The list for why we should oppose Clinton is long indeed
Re “Hillary’s far from perfect, but the Donald would be utter disaster” letter by Bob Fournier.
Mr. Fournier points out something that many are aware of, that we may not have the best of choices for the next president. I have to agree. Where we don't agree is that Hillary Clinton is the best choice because of her “political experience” and that she “understands how our government works.”
Ignoring her early previous record in government, she was a good senator from New York. She was on several committees, among them Armed Services, Committee on the Environment and Public works, and Health Education and Labor. She was active and effective on these committees. She also voted to support the invasion of Iraq in October 2002, which you seem to think was a mistake.
To be fair, she later said the vote to invade Iraq was a mistake.
Her first real test was when she became secretary of state. One of her well known policies was the “Reset with Russia,” which was supposed to reset, or improve, relations between the U.S. and Russia. Since the reset, many believed, especially the 2012 Republican nominee for president, Mitt Romney, that Russia was a geopolitical threat.
Since the reset, Russia has given asylum to former National Security Agency employee Edward Snowden, a leaker of NSA secrets. Russia has continued to arm pro-Russian separatists in the Ukraine. Russia has continued to back Bashar al-Assad of Syria. Doesn't sound like the reset was very effective and that maybe Romney was right about Russia.
You believe Trump's lack of “self-control will get the US into more wars.”
Clinton's reckless Libyan policy came close to getting the U.S. into another war. When the administration was split on whether to get involved in Libya, it was Clinton’s view that prevailed. Some who opposed were Vice President Joe Biden, Tom Donilon, national security adviser, and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.
According to an email, Clinton's top security adviser, Jake Sullivan: Clinton “has been a critical voice on Libya in administration deliberations, at NATO and in contact group meetings -- as well as the public face of the U.S. effort in Libya. She was instrumental in securing the authorization, building the coalition, and tightening the noose around Qadhafi and his regime.”
Libya today is a failed state and a home for terrorists.
Everyone knows of the Benghazi policy. Without going into detail, it was a failure. Lax security was instrumental in the death of a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans. According to testimony, many times an increase in security was requested; it didn't come, even after other countries had withdrawn their staffs. Clinton said she never received the security requests. This failure, and the above, go to the ability of Clinton’s “political experience” and understanding of “how government works.”
The FBI director commented on the lack of security in the State Department.
Clinton, along with her staff, has shown very poor judgment and extreme negligence in handling sensitive government information, according to the director. This alone doesn't show “common sense, experience and a knowledge of how government works,” but just the opposite.
Whether one believes the Iraq war was a mistake, al Qaida was defeated in Iraq with the “surge” and the Obama administration took credit for it. Preliminary withdrawal of troops from Iraq without a U.S. military force immediately caused a downward spiral of the Iraqi government . And yes, I know it was Bush's policy to withdraw troops by 2011 according to the Status Forces agreement of 2008, but he would have negotiated to leave a credible U.S. force there to discourage further terrorism and assist the new Iraqi government as his military aids advised. I say this because President Bush had made previous agreements with Iraq.
You imply that Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and President Bush may have been corrupt because they served in the Nixon administration. Two of them also served in the Reagan administration. You also imply that Bush advisers and corporations were in this war to profiteer. There may have been some of this going on, but like in other wars, in our system of government, private industry supply’s many of the needs of the military in wartime. Kaiser and Ford are good examples of supplying our military in WWII.
I believe like you, we do not have the choices that I would have expected, but I do not automatically default to Clinton and a third term of President Obama.
The writer lives in Murrells Inlet.
This story was originally published August 14, 2016 at 10:06 AM with the headline "The list for why we should oppose Clinton is long indeed."