Overnight, I thought a bit more about Hillary Clinton claims of experience because she "worked on" this or she "worked on" that. The claims were most recently made last night on NBC at the so called Commander In Chief Forum held in New York. Hillary told us that she worked on a long list of things with a list of other people like John McCain and Lindsey Graham. But here's the problem: she never tells us what actually got accomplished by all this claimed work.
Let's look at it a different way. If you were trying to hire a captain for a new cruise ship would you be impressed if an applicant came in and said that he or she "worked on" safety features for the Titanic? Would you hire a new security guard because he told you he "worked on" door security at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando? Of course not. "Working on" something is of interest only if that work pays off with an achievement. Now, to be fair, Hillary is following a commonly held Democrat view in her argument. For many decades, we have seen many social programs put in place by the Democrats which fail in their intended purpose. Think of all those programs that were going to fight or end poverty; we spend trillions, but the level of poverty today is actually higher than it was when the so called War on Poverty began 50 years ago. The Democrats never admit that their efforts have failed; they just talk about how they had good intentions in what they did. In their argument, what matters is that they tried to do something, not that what they did failed. Those arguments by the Democrats have always, until now, been about domestic social programs. Hillary is trying to extend the argument to national security and defense.
When dealing with national security, it is not enough just to "work on" something. You have to succeed. Working on a national security problem and failing at the effort means people die and our country is less safe. Too many national security instances where one only "works on" things but never achieves anything and our whole country could be in danger.
Let's put it this way: in school, the teacher may give the pupil partial credit for a wrong answer. When it comes to our national security, however, the only thing that matters is getting the right answer. Hillary Clinton cannot tell us about any instance where she got it right. Her idea for the Russian reset was very wrong. Her push to bomb Libya and oust the Gadaffi government was a terrible failure resulting in another failed state and more terrorists. Hillary's support for the Iraq War was, in her own view, a mistake. The rapid pull out from Iraq on which she advised Obama was a mistake. Her handling of classified information on a private unsecured email server was a mistake, again by her own admission. (I would say it was a crime, but that's for another post.) What did she do that wasn't a mistake?
Let's look at it a different way. If you were trying to hire a captain for a new cruise ship would you be impressed if an applicant came in and said that he or she "worked on" safety features for the Titanic? Would you hire a new security guard because he told you he "worked on" door security at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando? Of course not. "Working on" something is of interest only if that work pays off with an achievement. Now, to be fair, Hillary is following a commonly held Democrat view in her argument. For many decades, we have seen many social programs put in place by the Democrats which fail in their intended purpose. Think of all those programs that were going to fight or end poverty; we spend trillions, but the level of poverty today is actually higher than it was when the so called War on Poverty began 50 years ago. The Democrats never admit that their efforts have failed; they just talk about how they had good intentions in what they did. In their argument, what matters is that they tried to do something, not that what they did failed. Those arguments by the Democrats have always, until now, been about domestic social programs. Hillary is trying to extend the argument to national security and defense.
When dealing with national security, it is not enough just to "work on" something. You have to succeed. Working on a national security problem and failing at the effort means people die and our country is less safe. Too many national security instances where one only "works on" things but never achieves anything and our whole country could be in danger.
Let's put it this way: in school, the teacher may give the pupil partial credit for a wrong answer. When it comes to our national security, however, the only thing that matters is getting the right answer. Hillary Clinton cannot tell us about any instance where she got it right. Her idea for the Russian reset was very wrong. Her push to bomb Libya and oust the Gadaffi government was a terrible failure resulting in another failed state and more terrorists. Hillary's support for the Iraq War was, in her own view, a mistake. The rapid pull out from Iraq on which she advised Obama was a mistake. Her handling of classified information on a private unsecured email server was a mistake, again by her own admission. (I would say it was a crime, but that's for another post.) What did she do that wasn't a mistake?
No comments:
Post a Comment