| It was another cloud in a darkening sky of public opinion caused
by Clinton's lackadaisical attitude toward official e-mail. Nine days
later a November 6 Comey letter stated: "Based on our review, we have
not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July with respect to
Secretary Clinton." But additional concerns, doubts, and flags were raised practically on the eve of the election—two days later, Clinton lost the presidency to Trump. Given Barrack Obama's spectacularly successful presidency, she should have won easily... Her opponent had deal-killing negatives ranging from referring to women in stupidly vulgar ways to racking up bankruptcies as a silver-spoon tycoon. Clinton's a brilliant, well-educated, accomplished, dedicated, freedom- and equality-loving woman with excellent ideas and so is her husband. Both served the nation well and fell not due to malfeasance but instead to carelessness. Right-wingers would not have voted for her regardless, but it was the undecideds and angry Bernie supporters who cost her the election. Bill Clinton's foolish behavior helped elect a man who took christianity seriously but ignored Jesus' pacifist teachings, as nationalist fundamentalists usually do. Though he never left America to engage an enemy himself, Bush directed an invasion of Iraq over what proved to be false claims about despot Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction." Hundreds of thousands died in the conflict, and it's still not over. And now, thanks to Hillary's carelessness, we have a president who has no relevant experience for the office other than celebrity. His campaign was built on tavern-talk beliefs about people, commerce, globalism, the environment, science—worst of all, war—and a willingness to cater to christian-myther objectives including banning abortion and same-sex marriage. Trump appears to have no motivation beyond personal aggrandizement. Some have said Republicans brought the Clintons down through decades of harassment and investigations, that every effort was made to destroy them because they championed progressivism. True. But shouldn't both have been hyper-sensitive to the scrutiny they faced? Shouldn't they have taken all pains to avoid actions that might provide ammunition for attacks involving easy-to-understand weaknesses-transgressions such as sexcapades, cover-ups, and imprudence involving national security? Fundamentalist nationalists are vicious, as exemplified by the horrendous eight-hour grilling they subjected presidential candidate Clinton to on October 22, 2015 before the House Select Committee on Benghazi. I watched some of the ugly proceedings on C-SPAN, and the obvious aim was breaking her, making her falter or give in to fatigue (or boredom at being asked about the same things over and over), forcing her to weaken and say, "I'm tired, can we start again tomorrow?" After which her remarks would be used in anti-Clinton ads during the 2016 campaign to show she didn't have the stamina to be the nation's leader. What a disgusting waste of federal resources. Clinton took responsibility, but the Benghazi raid was a complicated action that defies easy explanation and was difficult to predict or defend against. Her organization failed the Americans who were targeted, and it failed her, but many factors were involved. In a New Yorker article, Dr. Anne Stevens, sister of Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was murdered during the assault, said: "It is clear, in hindsight, that the facility was not sufficiently protected by the State Department and the Defense Department. But what was the underlying cause? Perhaps if Congress had provided a budget to increase security for all missions around the world, then some of the requests for more security in Libya would have been granted. Certainly the State Department is underbudgeted. I do not blame Hillary Clinton or Leon Panetta." 6 Moreover, far worse slaughters occurred during Reagan's presidency when Democrats held the Congressional majority. A second New Yorker article contrasts how the suicide bomber attack on barracks in Beirut that killed 241 American troops, mainly Marines, early on October 23, 1983 was handled. "There were more than enough opportunities to lay blame for the horrific losses at high U.S. officials’ feet...Instead of playing it for political points, a House committee undertook a serious investigation into what went wrong...Two months later, it issued a report finding 'very serious errors in judgment' by officers on the ground, as well as responsibility up through the military chain of command, and called for better security measures against terrorism in U.S. government installations throughout the world."7 |