To the actual email then. Leaving aside the highly sensationalised coverage on the site that you linked to, the email itself is something that was sent to a member of Clintonâs staff and then forwarded to Clinton herself, who then asked for it to be printed off for her.
Whatâs in the email? A list of whatâs seen as Clintonâs accomplishments regarding Libya. Did Clinton ask for this to be done? Possibly, though thereâs no email to that effect. Yes, it appears more than a little self-congratulatory, but then you have to bear in mind when it was sent - early September 2011, a time when Gaddafi was still alive and Libya was by no means the basket case that it has since become. Is it bragging about what a great job Clinton did in reducing Libya to this parlous state? Hardly, as that was yet to happen. Viewed with hindsight, it looks appalling, thatâs certainly true. But at the time it was actually sent many had hopes, however ill-founded, that Libya would emerge from the Gaddafi years to become a functional democratic state. That it didnât has plenty to do with the actions of the US and of this country, who were happy to assist in the overthrow of Gaddafi but then saw no reason to help out in the aftermath. Not quite like Iraq, as in the case of Libya there was a popular uprising already taking place, but horribly similar in every other way.
Clinton clearly bears no little responsibiity there, but to suggest that she somehow deliberately planned what happened, or that she revelled in it once it had happened, is simply wrong. Neither does this email show anything of that sort. And itâs quite clearly not, as the Duran article headlines it âA step-by-step guide to destroy Libyaâ. The article is a classic example of writing with the benefit of hindsight, but not acknowledging this hindsight.
What do you think would have been the correct action to have taken in Libya? Personally, Iâm always of the opinion that military intervention rarely, if ever, improves matters. On the other hand, Gaddafiâs forces were poised to suppress an uprising and would cerainly have done so in a very brutal manner. Would it have been right to simply let this happen? Iâm not suggesting that I have answers to either of those questions, just interested to hear your thoughts.
If you had to make a choice though mate. Thereâs no choice really, moreso the decision for the next supreme court judge which is a lifetime role. Itâs fucking imperative that Clinton wins, like her or not
Itâs from a Wikileaks cable. That website just happened to be one of the many outlets covering the Tick Tock emails. In hindsight, I should have linked the PDF directly, but Iâm kinda glad I didnât.
This has been revealing.
What has?
Your specific area of focus. That site contained a link to a leaked email which enumerates all the ways in which Hillary (or HRC as sheâs known) is going to take credit for leadership in Libya.
Not only did she exercise some massive errors of judgement, the Libya Tick Tock emails would indicate that she was complicit in destroying a country and creating a porous lawless space which has contributed to thousands of deaths on the Med and a migrant crisis in the European interior. Itâs a âbrag listâ. I donât think itâs easily ignored, and yet thatâs precisely what happened.
Do those pro-Russian links on the right invalidate what her own people were boasting about in their emails? Youâre letting her off.
If someone posted a link to something similar, and it just happened to be on Breitbart, your first action would be to pick them up on their choice of link. Iâm simply applying your standards to your post.
Thatâs a fairer point. Youâre still letting her off.
To the actual email then. Leaving aside the highly sensationalised coverage on the site that you linked to, the email itself is something that was sent to a member of Clintonâs staff and then forwarded to Clinton herself, who then asked for it to be printed off for her.
Whatâs in the email? A list of whatâs seen as Clintonâs accomplishments regarding Libya. Did Clinton ask for this to be done? Possibly, though thereâs no email to that effect. Yes, it appears more than a little self-congratulatory, but then you have to bear in mind when it was sent - early September 2011, a time when Gaddafi was still alive and Libya was by no means the basket case that it has since become. Is it bragging about what a great job Clinton did in reducing Libya to this parlous state? Hardly, as that was yet to happen. Viewed with hindsight, it looks appalling, thatâs certainly true. But at the time it was actually sent many had hopes, however ill-founded, that Libya would emerge from the Gaddafi years to become a functional democratic state. That it didnât has plenty to do with the actions of the US and of this country, who were happy to assist in the overthrow of Gaddafi but then saw no reason to help out in the aftermath. Not quite like Iraq, as in the case of Libya there was a popular uprising already taking place, but horribly similar in every other way.
Clinton clearly bears no little responsibiity there, but to suggest that she somehow deliberately planned what happened, or that she revelled in it once it had happened, is simply wrong. Neither does this email show anything of that sort. And itâs quite clearly not, as the Duran article headlines it âA step-by-step guide to destroy Libyaâ. The article is a classic example of writing with the benefit of hindsight, but not acknowledging this hindsight.
What do you think would have been the correct action to have taken in Libya? Personally, Iâm always of the opinion that military intervention rarely, if ever, improves matters. On the other hand, Gaddafiâs forces were poised to suppress an uprising and would cerainly have done so in a very brutal manner. Would it have been right to simply let this happen? Iâm not suggesting that I have answers to either of those questions, just interested to hear your thoughts.
First off, we shouldnât have been involved at all unless under the aegis of a UN resolution. This wasnât that. It was three nations acting in some loose coalition off their own backs. Hillary led the charge with Obama.
thereâs been so much coverage of this election on British TV and newspapers that it feels like weâre actually involved and participating as opposed to mere bystanders, some of whom are interested. Do other countries cover the US elections like this? Do other countries cover our elections? Watching it on TV now, it really is like this is a British election.
Trump appears to be winning projected to win in the swing states and more importantly has gone from 6-1 to 1.74 to 1 in the odds which is certainly more of an indicator
âItâs still early in the night but it looks like Trump has overperformed against the polls. Hereâs one theory why: non-college educated white Americans, which form a significant share of his voting base, donât tend to be accurately reflected in the polls. There are several reasons why - perhaps those voters are less inclined to tell a polling company what they plan to do, perhaps those voters are more likely to make a last minute decision. Either way, itâs possible Trump will do well in states like Georgia where there are a lot of those votersâ
