Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Third Base Politics


Video: Hillary’s legacy as Secretary of State is a disastrous foreign policy

Remember when Barack Obama was elected President, and Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State?

We were repeatedly told that “the grownups” would now be in charge. We were told that this administration would exhibit “smart power”. Obama and Clinton said that they would repair relations with our allies and engage with our enemies and rivals, like Russia, to improve those relationships as well.

Over five years later, we have actually pushed away and betrayed most of our European allies and relations with Russia are at their worst since the end of the cold war.

The RNC has put together a good recap of some of the horrible choices that Clinton made during her tenure in the State Department.

This is Hillary Clinton’s legacy.


The choice: Whether to increase security in Benghazi.

Clinton’s State Department had to decide whether to send more security to the mission in Benghazi, Libya, prior to the September 11, 2012 attacks. Ambassador Stevens, who was killed in the attacks, had asked for that extra security.

The decision: No added security.

Clinton’s State Department did not increase security in Benghazi. Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the September 11 terrorist attack.


The choice: Whether to label Boko Haram terrorists.

As Secretary of State, Clinton had to decide whether to designate Boko Haram as a foreign terrorist organization, which the FBI, CIA, and Justice Department encouraged her to do.

Her decision: They’re not a terrorist organization.

She chose not to designate them a terrorist organization, making it harder for the U.S. to go after the group or thwart their attacks. Last month, Boko Haram kidnapped over 200 Nigerian schoolgirls. They are threatening to sell them.


The choice: Whether to support the unpopular healthcare law.

Clinton had to decide whether to give her support to ObamaCare.

Her decision: Support cost increases and job loss.

She gave it her endorsement, even though Americans have lost jobs, insurance plans, and doctors thanks to the law. Today, families are seeing their premiums rise thanks to the law’s provisions, and the economy is struggling under its onerous regulations.


The choice: Whether to give back money from an illegal shadow campaign

After recent revelations that Clinton adviser Minyon Moore had personally secured money from embattled D.C. businessman Jeffrey Thompson for an illegal 2008 shadow campaign on Clinton’s behalf, Hillary Clinton had to decide whether to give the money back.

Her decision: $$$$

She chose not to give the money back, indicating she’s not above illegal campaign activity.


The choice: Whether to let an army of pro-Hillary SuperPACs do her bidding, while profiting from being a “private citizen.”

Candidate-in-denial Clinton had to decide whether she would give her approval to an army of “unaffiliated” SuperPACs and other groups laying the groundwork for a presidential campaign while she crisscrossed the country raking in massive speaking fees, free of any the restrictions of being a candidate.

Her decision: Have it both ways.

Clinton chose money over transparency, giving her blessing—directly or indirectly—to SuperPACs run by her loyalists. She gets all the benefits of being a candidate without any of the responsibility.


The choice: Whether to stand up for disadvantaged kids.

Clinton had to decide whether to speak out against New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, her former Senate campaign manager, for his attacks on school choice, charter schools, and the needy students they serve.

Her decision: Stand up for left-wing special interests.

She chose to be silent, even as de Blasio, bowing to pressure from the teachers unions to shut down charter schools in New York city, depriving underprivileged children of schools that were helping them and that they and their parents chose and liked.


The choice: Whether to support job creation.

Clinton had to decide whether to endorse the Keystone pipeline construction, a project that would create jobs and to which the State Department found “no major environmental objections.”

Her decision: Support Tom Steyer.

Clinton has thus far chosen not to support Keystone, leaving Americans who could work on the project unemployed. Her failure to support Keystone certainly pleases leftwing donor-activist and ally Tom Steyer, who’s bankrolling candidates who oppose Keystone and would have plenty of money to support a Clinton campaign.

Welcome to 3BP!

Have a tip? Interested in posting on 3BP? Drop us an email at tips @ thirdbasepolitics .com. (remove the spaces)

Third Base Politics is an Ohio-centric conservative blog that has been featured at Hot Air, National Review, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, and others.


You May Also Like

Third Base Politics