I was in Libya at the time. It's not a particularly well written article, but it gets some things right. I care about it because I was there, the Republicans care about it because it hurts Hilary. The difference being that I'd still be calling bullshit on her actions if she weren't the front runner for president, it's just no one would care.
Also, I do not believe she mishandled Benghazi, where I was at that time we had some similar stuff going on and it was definitely a response to the koran burning like the original intelligence report said. They just didn't know that there was ALSO a terrorist attack going on.
The U.S. owed both Gaddafi and Mubarrak everything. They were our puppets. We will never have another puppet again if that's what we let happen to the ones we've created. OK, so maybe that's not the worst thing in the world, but still, the way we let Gaddafi hang out to dry was a disgrace. You can't just get in bed with dictators and then join in with the mob when their policies come back to bite them in the ass. Those were OUR policies, after all. Gaddafi was in bed with the U.S. and Europe. You can't just pretend that never happened when it suits you. If you want allies, then you have to stick by the allies you have, or more won't join you. If you find that within the same term of office you're at first supporting and then dismantling the same dictatorship, then something is seriously wrong, and you don't belong in that office at all.
This is my problem with Hilary. It's an incredibly cold move to let another world leader with whom you have sat face to face in recent memory just get torn apart like that. She clearly COULD have intervened, as many European leaders wanted the US to do (and yeah, Berlusconi led them, which doesn't help my case, but in this singular situation he was right). It's also incredibly stupid from a diplomatic standpoint, as it just destroyed our credibility in the region among any standing government. If it had been a smart political move, I'd be just as skeptical about any vestiges of humanity Hilary might have. But because it was a stupid move politically, and an incredibly cold, heartless thing to do as a person, I will never trust a single word that comes out of her mouth.
Again, I'm one of the only people who has a problem with this. I'm not criticizing her handling of the Benghazi attack, which couldn't have been dealt with much better, honestly. I'm criticizing her as a human being and as a statesman.
It's not a refusal to hear from them, it's directing them to the right person to hear them.
So you've never been put on hold then, I'm guessing? Hilary Clinton should have moved mountains to make sure Gaddafi had a fair trial. If he was offering surrender to the U.S., she obviously could have arranged for it to be accepted. That's what you are owed if you play ball with the United States. I'm less concerned about America abandoning Mubarrak because he was at least ostensibly given a fair trial, though it's really the same issue. You create and maintain the conditions that enable these dictators, and then you act like you're on the side of the people when the dictators start to fall? It's like Diem all over again (another person whom we should not have let die, regardless of his political position). This is not how you conduct diplomacy, on a person to person basis, otherwise we would have already assassinated al-Assad. Clinton broke an unwritten rule of diplomacy that goes back further than this country. I'll always hate her for that. Also Obama, for killing al-Awlaki, and Bush for the torture memos. Each one of those people betrayed this country, and deeply. None of them should be anywhere near political office. Bush, we all agree on. Obama, we're coming round to. Next to get rid of is Clinton, and then her husband's Reaganite legacy. The left has to disown the Clinton years. That was more akin to what came before and after. After that, there may be a future for the left wing in the U.S. But not while Hilary Clinton has any say in it.