After I wrote this morning about Hillary Clinton's lies at last night's Democrat debate, I got a bunch of email complaining that I ignored the substance of what she had to say. That's fair enough; I usually disagree so strongly with Hillary that I find most of her positions not worthy of discussion. We probably ought to discuss Hillary's most outlandish claim last night, nevertheless.
In the course of the debate, Hillary was asked about the strategy for dealing with ISIS and said this:
“We now finally are where we need to be...We have a strategy and a commitment to go after ISIS. … And we finally have a U.N. Security Council resolution bringing the world together to go after a political transition in Syria.”
Think about that for a moment. Here is Hillary Clinton both endorsing president Obama's failed strategy for dealing with ISIS and declaring that a resolution of the UN Security Council will stop the civil war in Syria. In the last two months, Obama has announced that ISIS has been contained, a statement that was followed a few days later by the slaughter by terrorists of 140 in Paris. Obama called that attack a "setback" but went on to say that there were no credible threats to the USA from ISIS. Less than a week later, we had the ISIS inspired terrorist attack in San Bernardino. If you add in the terrorist bombing of the Russian plane over the Sinai peninsula in Egypt and other bombings in Lebanon, Iraq, and elsewhere in Asia and Africa, Obama's supposedly successful strategy saw ISIS terror attacks on four continents that killed almost 1000 innocent people. Meanwhile, ISIS has grown from just a problem in Syria and Iraq to also having major forces in Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, Egypt, and Lebanon with other areas seeing increased ISIS activity as well. It seems that the only "success" for the Obama strategy is that America has not yet surrendered to the terrorists.
Then there's the Security Council resolution. Just think about how those UN resolutions "bring the world together" to accomplish so much. There are many such resolutions calling for an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict. That's still going strong after nearly 70 years. There are resolutions ordering Iran not to build nuclear weapons or to test ballistic missiles. The Iranians just conducted their second missile test in two months. The Iranian bomb program never stopped and the latest "agreement" guarantees the mullahs a bomb. The UN Security Council also passed resolutions to end the dispute between North and South Korea. That resolution was in 1950 and there's no resolution yet. Let me put it another way. Hillary says that the UN resolution will affect what happens in Syria. IS SHE KIDDING? DOES SHE ACTUALLY BELIEVE THIS?
The fight against radical Islamic terrorism is one of the defining problems that the next president will face. Over the last seven years with Obama in the White House, the terrorists have grown stronger while the efforts against them have grown weaker. It would still be relatively easy for a concerted effort to destroy the terror groups, but the time to make that effort is growing short. The failure of the current policy to stop the spread of ISIS and the other terrorists has been recognized by every former Secretary of Defense under Obama, every former head of the Joint Chiefs, and every former head of the CIA or DIA. That policy has also been called a failure by both the Republican chair and the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Do we really want another president who won't recognize the failure of current policy? Can America afford to let another four years go by without having a real confrontation of the problem of terrorism? That, clearly, is what Hillary is offering.
Hillary Clinton cannot be president. Too many innocent people will die if she gets into office.
In the course of the debate, Hillary was asked about the strategy for dealing with ISIS and said this:
“We now finally are where we need to be...We have a strategy and a commitment to go after ISIS. … And we finally have a U.N. Security Council resolution bringing the world together to go after a political transition in Syria.”
Think about that for a moment. Here is Hillary Clinton both endorsing president Obama's failed strategy for dealing with ISIS and declaring that a resolution of the UN Security Council will stop the civil war in Syria. In the last two months, Obama has announced that ISIS has been contained, a statement that was followed a few days later by the slaughter by terrorists of 140 in Paris. Obama called that attack a "setback" but went on to say that there were no credible threats to the USA from ISIS. Less than a week later, we had the ISIS inspired terrorist attack in San Bernardino. If you add in the terrorist bombing of the Russian plane over the Sinai peninsula in Egypt and other bombings in Lebanon, Iraq, and elsewhere in Asia and Africa, Obama's supposedly successful strategy saw ISIS terror attacks on four continents that killed almost 1000 innocent people. Meanwhile, ISIS has grown from just a problem in Syria and Iraq to also having major forces in Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, Egypt, and Lebanon with other areas seeing increased ISIS activity as well. It seems that the only "success" for the Obama strategy is that America has not yet surrendered to the terrorists.
Then there's the Security Council resolution. Just think about how those UN resolutions "bring the world together" to accomplish so much. There are many such resolutions calling for an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict. That's still going strong after nearly 70 years. There are resolutions ordering Iran not to build nuclear weapons or to test ballistic missiles. The Iranians just conducted their second missile test in two months. The Iranian bomb program never stopped and the latest "agreement" guarantees the mullahs a bomb. The UN Security Council also passed resolutions to end the dispute between North and South Korea. That resolution was in 1950 and there's no resolution yet. Let me put it another way. Hillary says that the UN resolution will affect what happens in Syria. IS SHE KIDDING? DOES SHE ACTUALLY BELIEVE THIS?
The fight against radical Islamic terrorism is one of the defining problems that the next president will face. Over the last seven years with Obama in the White House, the terrorists have grown stronger while the efforts against them have grown weaker. It would still be relatively easy for a concerted effort to destroy the terror groups, but the time to make that effort is growing short. The failure of the current policy to stop the spread of ISIS and the other terrorists has been recognized by every former Secretary of Defense under Obama, every former head of the Joint Chiefs, and every former head of the CIA or DIA. That policy has also been called a failure by both the Republican chair and the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Do we really want another president who won't recognize the failure of current policy? Can America afford to let another four years go by without having a real confrontation of the problem of terrorism? That, clearly, is what Hillary is offering.
Hillary Clinton cannot be president. Too many innocent people will die if she gets into office.
No comments:
Post a Comment