[Breitbart] Friday on "The Hugh Hewitt Show," former CIA deputy director Mike Morell said it was a bad idea for Hillary Clinton to use a private email server while serving as head diplomat at the State Department because any foreign government that has good intelligence was able to hack the Clinton server. "Bad idea"...? No mention of rules violated or laws broken.
When asked if it was a good idea Hillary used a private server, Morell said, "I don't think that was very good judgment. I don't know who gave her that advice, and she is paying a price for it now." Typical politico-thinking Klingon. No thought given the 'price paid' by personnel in uniform or our society at large.
When asked if he thinks foreign governments could have gotten information from Clinton's server, Morell said, "So I think that foreign intelligence services, the good ones, have everything on any unclassified network that the government uses whether it's a a private server or a public one. They are that good." Thanks for the 'heads up' Mike, you bloody genius. Who knew ?
#1
Blackmail. However, not limited to white propaganda, ie real messages, but black propaganda, ie made up stuff. Why not? What can she verify now that its all been wiped? Trust her on her word? HEH (c-Instapundit). Yeah, I know, one third of the population are koolaid drinkers, but the rest generally are not.
#2
You heard it here first: Shrillary will lose in a squeaker, there will be leftist riots like just happened after the US elections, jimmuah cahtah will protest to the UN (if he's still alive) and then life will move on...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
05/16/2015 8:42 Comments ||
Top||
#3
UK elections.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
05/16/2015 8:43 Comments ||
Top||
#4
When asked if it was a good idea Hillary used a private server, Morell said, "I don't think that was very good judgment.
We have to cut Hildabeest some slack. After all, she had to keep the money-laundering pipeline open for foreign, ahem, cough, cough donors and investors in charity. It was for the children; namely narcissists her Bill and Chelsea. As BJ Clinton said: "I had to pay the bills." SOBs ought to be serving time instead of scrubbing servers.
#5
Bush's Libya turned out great -- for us. Daffy was defanged and was minding (more or less) his own business. That was 2004 an he saw the writing on the wall.
It was Champ that upset what Bush had done, there as elsewhere, whereupon Daffy learned just how much his people hated him.
Posted by: Steve White ||
05/16/2015 7:34 Comments ||
Top||
#6
The problem was, that after dealing with Saddam, trying to install a 'democracy' (now isn't that a joke from the Beltway that issues fiats on a daily basis micromanaging our lives and economy while ignoring the framework of the Constitution) instead of putting someone in charge of the place (or places after a partition - can you say three state solution?).
#8
...but none of those questions validates the 'awe and majesty' of the MSM (particularly when the intent is to cover their own actions to make it a failure).
#9
Everyone seems to forget the context when discussing this topic.
The WTC had just been leveled, AlQ was, apparently, paling around with Saddam (remember the training base near Baghdad?) there were creditable reports that Saddam had WMDs in some quantity.....now what was GWB supposed to do?
I disagreed at the time with a few of the details but not the general idea.
"Knowing what we know now..." exactly WHAT do we know now that would have changed the game then?
Did we find those truck convoys that went to Syria to be full of Humus?
#10
Part of me says we ought to just take out some of these Mideast countries because we can and it would be a humanitarian act for the world, then another part of me says the same thing.
#13
What we know now is that Seventh Century barbarians are incapable of democracy. If nothing else the so called Arab Spring proved that once and for all. Whether or not we should have taken out Saddam is another question. I certainly don't have any sympathy for him. But then I think it would have been better to take out the Soddies and the Paks. Just don't go in there thinking we're gonna set up a Western style democracy. Bounce the rubble a few times and let the survivors figure it out.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
05/16/2015 12:42 Comments ||
Top||
#14
break shit and leave - no nation building
Moral: If you can't be a good example, then be a horrible lesson
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/16/2015 12:47 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Well, anyway, here's what he said:
"Any president would have likely taken the same action President Bush did with the information he had, even Hillary Clinton voted for it, but knowing what we know now, we should not have gone into Iraq. President Bush deserves enormous credit for ordering the surge, a courageous move that worked.
"Unfortunately, President Obama and Secretary Clinton hastily withdrew our troops, threw away the gains of the surge, and embarked on a broader policy of pivoting away from the Middle East and leading from behind that has created chaos in the region."
Should be, "Knowing what we think we know now..."
Walker doesn't have access to the inside scoop. Yet.
I figure that for at least the next 2-1/2 years we're committed to the "liberation and reform" option in Iraq and Afghanistan. And that's as it should be; it's something we simply must try, and try as best we can, if for no other reason than to be able to say honestly, "we really did try to show the Islamic world a better way, and we gave it everything we had." And I don't see this administration abandoning that commitment, not even in the face of another mass-casualty terrorist attack.
But I don't see us extending that effort anywhere else but where we're already making it. Not even under GWB, and certainly not under any possible successor-- Republican or Democrat. After watching the wringer Bush has been put through the last four years, can you imagine ANY future American president making the political decision to undertake yet another "long, hard slog" like Iraq, in yet another Muslim country? I can't.
So as best I can figure, once Bush leaves office, the Bush Doctrine is effectively dead. The "nation building" part of it most certainly will be, and the "pre-emption" part of it may be as well, particularly if he is replaced by a Democrat.
And if Bush's successor has to deal with another 9/11-style mass-casualty terrorist attack-- or even worse, such as a terrorist nuke going off in Lower Manhattan-- what option(s) will he choose?
I hope we don't have to find out. I really don't.
Check out his comment #38 as well, and the rest of the thread, which is well worth rereading.
As for knowing then what we know now... until there is a way to go back in time and do things differently, the entire question is onanistic in intent and outcome.
#18
The best way I could put it, which the fainting couch class would deliberatelyisconstrue andangle in their quest for offence...
Knowing what I know now about the American mandarinate, I would not have voted to invade Iraq, or Afghanistan... Or Morocco, or Sicily, or Italy or Normandy...
Of course we should have gone in, nothing we've learned since has changed that.
Nation building? Democracy building? That sucked then and still does.
Frank G has it correct. In other words Wash, Rinse and Repeat as necessary. I believed that then and still do. The only "viable" option is colonialism and I doubt that would work, don't you?
#20
Think back to the Shad of Iran, and how all this would be different if we had not let him be deposed while Jimmuh Karter fretted and bollocked the whole thing, and instead had another guy lined up for when the Shad went toes up.
In Vietnam the Russians supported the locals and the US tried to fight the war instead of making the locals do it. Bad plan America.
In Afghanistan the US supported the locals while the Red Army tried to fight the war instead of making the locals fight it. Bad plan Russia.
In post-911 Afghanistan the US supported the locals to a smashing victory. We had a light footprint initially and all worked well. Good plan America. Yeah.
Then in Iraq we went in and took over the war, and in Afghanistan we ramped up and took over all the fighting. We had locals sitting around while we fought to secure their countries which made them ripe for believing the propaganda that we were conquerers (propaganda from both Al Queda and the American left). Bad, bad move.
The whole thing is terribly predictable. Let the locals do the fighting. Support them as necessary.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
