Any smidgen of confidence that I had that Hilary Clinton could be a good president has pretty much evaporated now. There was absolutely no logical reason whatsoever to not list Boko Haram as a terrorist group. On top of that, there was plenty of reason to do so, as the kidnapping incident shows. Hilary Clinton can never be allowed to become president if she cannot even make the correct decision on trivially obvious decisions?
I was wondering why this article reminded me so much of something that would normally appear on Fox News when I realized that Newt Gingrich was the author of this opinion piece. While, yes, it is a little disturbing that Boko Haram was not on the list of terrorist organization, the piece itself only accuses Clinton of malfeasance and answers no questions and gives no actual details as to why the decision not to was made. I would be interested in learning more, preferably from an unbiased author.
I agree with Emily one hundred and ten percent. In my opinion, anything coming from Mr. Gingrich should be taken with a grain of salt. I feel that Boko Haram deserves a spot on the list of terrorist organizations, but then again there is a lack of details as to why not. Don't you think that you're being a bit over the top by saying that Hilary Clinton wouldn't be a good president? How could one make that assumption from a piece written by an unreliable source.
Adding Boko Haram to the list of terrorist organizations may not have prevented the kidnapping of all the Nigerian girls. Gingrich does not go into detail about what calling a terrorist group a terrorist group actually means. Does it impose political and economic sanctions? I think this is less of an informative article and more of a personal attack. Hilary Clinton is a very competent person and I'm sure she had her reasons for deciding not to list Boko Haram as a terrorist group at the time. Of course, now, circumstances have changed and she has clearly had a change of heart.
I think Andrew has gone a bit overboard saying that Hilary Clinton should never be allowed to become president. I agree with the others who commented when they said that this piece is really just Newt Gingrich's opinion and unbiased conclusions can't really be drawn from it. As Christian pointed out, the Boko Haram group definitely deserves a spot on the terrorist list, but the article does not really say why they shouldn't be on the list according to Hilary.
I would like to know the reason this group was not designated as a terrorist group. There seemed to be legitimate reasons to declare the group as such in 2011. The reason given that they didn't want to draw attention to the group would only work for a group that has not already committed violent crime. At least that's what I think.
This article is so blatantly biased it's hard to get a clear description of the events that have actually taken place. What I took away from this article is that, basically, Hilary Clinton could've prevented the capture of the school girls by naming Boko Haram a terrorist group. Now, that seems pretty far-fetched to me. Although Boko Haram very closely resembles a terrorist group, there was no substantial reason for us to target the group. Also, Hilary Clinton could not have prevented Boko Haram from taking these girls just by labeling them as a terrorist group.
This article doesn't address anything as to why the department decided to not designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization. It's biased and doesn't actually explain anything. I doubt Hillary Clinton decided to not designate Boko Haram as a terrorist group because she thought it would be fun. I just want to know why before I pick a side to be on.
I've found it very difficult to trust anything that comes from the exceedingly disingenuous Newt Gingrich. There may be valid criticism somewhere in the article, but it offers nothing from the opposing side to refute. What was Clinton's rationale for refusing to classify Boko Haram as a terrorist organization? Gingrich asks many more questions in this article than he answers. I remain unconvinced by his heavily biased rhetorical questions and am forced to disregard this article as a personal attack for the sake of politics until there is something substantive to discuss about what Clinton actually did.
My biggest concern with Clinton is that she lacks the aggression that they POTUS should have. Boko should have obviously been listed as a terrorist organization. This was an easy call and she blew it, also blowing any faith I had in her to begin with.
As it's been stated, this article is more of a biased personal attack on Hillary than anything else. Why didn't she name Boko Haram as a terrorist group? I'm sure she had reasons; she's an intelligent politician that hasn't let our country fall apart yet. What would have happened exactly if she had named Boko Haram as a terrorist group? You can't pick a side in this with so little information.
Any smidgen of confidence that I had that Hilary Clinton could be a good president has pretty much evaporated now. There was absolutely no logical reason whatsoever to not list Boko Haram as a terrorist group. On top of that, there was plenty of reason to do so, as the kidnapping incident shows. Hilary Clinton can never be allowed to become president if she cannot even make the correct decision on trivially obvious decisions?
ReplyDeleteI was wondering why this article reminded me so much of something that would normally appear on Fox News when I realized that Newt Gingrich was the author of this opinion piece. While, yes, it is a little disturbing that Boko Haram was not on the list of terrorist organization, the piece itself only accuses Clinton of malfeasance and answers no questions and gives no actual details as to why the decision not to was made. I would be interested in learning more, preferably from an unbiased author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Emily one hundred and ten percent. In my opinion, anything coming from Mr. Gingrich should be taken with a grain of salt. I feel that Boko Haram deserves a spot on the list of terrorist organizations, but then again there is a lack of details as to why not. Don't you think that you're being a bit over the top by saying that Hilary Clinton wouldn't be a good president? How could one make that assumption from a piece written by an unreliable source.
ReplyDeleteAdding Boko Haram to the list of terrorist organizations may not have prevented the kidnapping of all the Nigerian girls. Gingrich does not go into detail about what calling a terrorist group a terrorist group actually means. Does it impose political and economic sanctions? I think this is less of an informative article and more of a personal attack. Hilary Clinton is a very competent person and I'm sure she had her reasons for deciding not to list Boko Haram as a terrorist group at the time. Of course, now, circumstances have changed and she has clearly had a change of heart.
ReplyDeleteI think Andrew has gone a bit overboard saying that Hilary Clinton should never be allowed to become president. I agree with the others who commented when they said that this piece is really just Newt Gingrich's opinion and unbiased conclusions can't really be drawn from it. As Christian pointed out, the Boko Haram group definitely deserves a spot on the terrorist list, but the article does not really say why they shouldn't be on the list according to Hilary.
ReplyDeleteI would like to know the reason this group was not designated as a terrorist group. There seemed to be legitimate reasons to declare the group as such in 2011. The reason given that they didn't want to draw attention to the group would only work for a group that has not already committed violent crime. At least that's what I think.
ReplyDeleteThis article is so blatantly biased it's hard to get a clear description of the events that have actually taken place. What I took away from this article is that, basically, Hilary Clinton could've prevented the capture of the school girls by naming Boko Haram a terrorist group. Now, that seems pretty far-fetched to me. Although Boko Haram very closely resembles a terrorist group, there was no substantial reason for us to target the group. Also, Hilary Clinton could not have prevented Boko Haram from taking these girls just by labeling them as a terrorist group.
ReplyDeleteThis article doesn't address anything as to why the department decided to not designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization. It's biased and doesn't actually explain anything. I doubt Hillary Clinton decided to not designate Boko Haram as a terrorist group because she thought it would be fun. I just want to know why before I pick a side to be on.
ReplyDeleteI've found it very difficult to trust anything that comes from the exceedingly disingenuous Newt Gingrich. There may be valid criticism somewhere in the article, but it offers nothing from the opposing side to refute. What was Clinton's rationale for refusing to classify Boko Haram as a terrorist organization? Gingrich asks many more questions in this article than he answers. I remain unconvinced by his heavily biased rhetorical questions and am forced to disregard this article as a personal attack for the sake of politics until there is something substantive to discuss about what Clinton actually did.
ReplyDeleteMy biggest concern with Clinton is that she lacks the aggression that they POTUS should have. Boko should have obviously been listed as a terrorist organization. This was an easy call and she blew it, also blowing any faith I had in her to begin with.
ReplyDeleteAs it's been stated, this article is more of a biased personal attack on Hillary than anything else. Why didn't she name Boko Haram as a terrorist group? I'm sure she had reasons; she's an intelligent politician that hasn't let our country fall apart yet. What would have happened exactly if she had named Boko Haram as a terrorist group? You can't pick a side in this with so little information.
ReplyDelete