The frustrating thing about the right-wing Republican critics of Hillary Clinton is they criticize her for all the wrong things. I think I’m as strongly opposed to Clinton as they are, and they put me in the position of defending her.
In the U.S. intervention in Libya, she is criticized for failing to arrange protection for the U.S. ambassador from the terrorist attack on Benghazi, a legitimate issue, and for mis-characterizing the attack as a spontaneous reaction instead of a planned terrorist attack, an insignificant issue.
But neither of these things matter as much as the total disaster she brought down on the people of Libya.
My e-mail pen pal Bill Harvey sent me a link to an article in Counterpunch that sums up what’s wrong with Clinton very well.
First Libya:
The results of “Operation Unified Protector” … … include the persecution of black Africans and Tuaregs, the collapse of any semblance of central government, the division of the country between hundreds of warring militias, the destabilization of neighboring Mali producing French imperialist intervention, the emergence of Benghazi as an al-Qaeda stronghold, and the proliferation of looted arms among rebel groups.
Now the whole Clinton record: