Yesterday, Hillary Clinton spoke with the New Hampshire Union Leader on a wide range of topics. When asked what her top two accomplishments were as Secretary of State, Clinton said, “putting together the coalition that imposed sanctions on Iran” and “continuing with a persistent effort to actually enforce those sanctions.”

Unfortunately for Clinton, these “accomplishments” are hollow. Let’s take a look at the facts:

CLAIM: Clinton said she put “together the coalition that imposed sanctions on Iran”

FACTS: Clinton made concessions, including lifting othersanctions against Russian companies, and altering U.S. missile defense plans in Eastern Europe, to build an international coalition on Iran sanctions. Clinton’s State Department tried to water down and “vigorously opposedalmost all” of Congress’ sanctions on Iran.

Further, once sanctions were in place, Clinton repeatedly exempted major countries, such as Russia and China, from punishments for violating those sanctions.

CLAIM: Clinton said she developed better communication with China, reached out to European allies who “felt neglected,” won and kept American jobs, and made progress on internet freedom.

FACTS: The Chinese used Clinton’s Strategic and Economic Dialogue to attack the U.S.’s China policy while the talks themselves produced “few, if any, tangible results.”

Despite Clinton’s claims about reaching out to European allies, the opinion of the U.S. in key European countriesactually went down while Clinton was Secretary of State.

Additionally, jobs continued to flow out of the U.S. between 2008 and 2010, while in 2010, large American companies invested more in jobs abroad than at home.

Finally, Clinton’s few successes on Internet freedom were undermined by the Snowden revelations, which made her push for Internet freedom seem “hypocritical.”

Originally posted by kripiii

Secretary of State John Kerry will appear today before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to discuss the controversial Iran nuclear deal. Because Hillary Clinton issaid to “own” the Iran deal, it is worth reviewing some provisions Clinton has supported that are now being challenged.

Inspections are emerging as one of the most significant concerns surrounding the deal. Clinton, in April, called for an “intrusive inspection program with no sites off limits,” and last week said the deal included “unyielding verification.” But the inspection provisions in the deal are now under fire for being inadequate:

The Obama administration’s claim that the Iran nuclear accord provides for airtight verification procedures is coming under challenge from nuclear experts with long experience in monitoring Tehran’s program. … [S]everal experts, including a former high-ranking official at the International Atomic Energy Agency, said a provision that gives Iran up to 24 days to grant access to inspectors might enable it to escape detection.

Clinton claimed the nuclear agreement “can make the United States, Israel, and our Arab partners safer,” adding later in her statement that the US must be “clear-eyed” about “the broader threat Iran represents.” But Clinton has not been clear-eyed about the nuclear agreement she is supporting – the very agreement Clinton claimed can make America safer is said to free up over $100 billion for Iran. The unsettling belief that Iran will use these funds, in part, for terrorism is widespread.

The Washington Post: Its most immediate effect will be to provide Tehran with up to $150 billion in fresh assets from sanctions relief over the next year, funds that its leaders will probably use to revive the domestic economy but also to finance wars and terrorist groups in Iraq, Syria, the Gaza Strip, Yemen and elsewhere.

A Wall Street Journal report: Iran will uphold its anti-American policies and continue to support regional allies inimical to Western interests, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Saturday

Despite Clinton’s rhetoric, this nuclear deal is facing serious questions from experts and given the lack of resounding support on Capitol Hill, it is only likely to get worse.

This morning, President Obama’s Army chief-of-staff nominee, Gen. Mark Milley, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee. When asked by Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) what he believed to be the greatest threat faced by the United States, Milley said he believed Russia, China, North Korea, ISIS, and Iran to each pose national security threats to the U.S.

This is just the latest example of how out of step Hillary Clinton was as Secretary of State. During her tenure at State in 2012, Clinton said, “I think it’s somewhat dated” to view Russia with as a threat, going so far as to call Russia an ally of the United States:

According to a report yesterday, Boko Haram is suspected to be behind yet another attack in Nigeria, as two bombings at a market have left 50 people dead and 70 injured.

Notably, Hillary Clinton’s State Department refused to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist group despite the fact “counterterrorism officials in the State Department, Justice Department and FBI all favored officially designating the group as an ‘official terrorist organization.‘” The grouppledged its allegiance to Islamic State earlier this year.

Recently, in a letter to the FBI, Sen. Chuck Grassley raised significant questions about an operative of Islamic State, Ali Awni al Harzi, who ” planned and perpetrated the attack against the Consulate of the United States in Benghazi.” After being obtained in Turkey and sent back to Tunisia, Harzi was interviewed by the FBI and subsequently released by a Tunisian judge. Shockingly, when asked if she found the release of Harzi “distressing,” during a 2013testimony to Congress on Benghazi, Clinton said she did not.

According to a terrorism expert, Harzi, who was killed in a drone strike last month, was said to be “a jack-of-all-trades,” for Islamic State, as well as “extremely dangerous for the U.S. and a versatile asset for ISIL.” These latest developments are another reminder of Hillary Clinton’s weak record on fighting terrorism.

According to the terms of the Iran nuclear agreement reached yesterday, sanctions imposed on Iran would be rolled back “sequentially as Iran complies with the requirement of the accord.”

While Clinton talks tough on sanctions, she is now supportive of a deal in which “Iran got more up front relief than the United States wanted, with the most important sanctions — those on the energy and financial industries — possibly being lifted this year if Iran complies with the principal requirements in the accord.”

Last August, Clinton called for restricting Iran’s breakout time, which is the time Iran needs to produce enough uranium for a nuclear bomb, to “more than a year.”

QUESTION: Would you be content with an Iran that is perpetually a year away from being able to reach nuclear-breakout capability?

CLINTON: I would like it to be more than a year. I think it should be more than a year. No enrichment at all would make everyone breathe easier.

Instead, the new agreement would restrict Iran’s breakout time to only one year for the next ten years, when Iran will be allowed to develop advanced centrifuges. The New York Times noted that after ten years “the breakout time diminishes to just a few months” as Iran’s nuclear program returns to where it is today.

Clinton’s support clearly fails to adhere to the standards she set for the deal many people agree she now owns.

A year ago almost to the day, Hillary Clinton said that any nuclear deal with Iran should allow for “so little enrichment or no enrichment … for a long period of time” because she believed “any enrichment will trigger an arms race in the Middle East.”

“This is a – this is the real nub of it, because if you cannot be persuaded that the Iranians cannot break out and race toward a nuclear weapon, then you cannot have a deal. I believe strongly that it’s really important for there to be so little enrichment or no enrichment, at least for a long period of time, because I do think that any enrichment will trigger an arms race in the Middle East.”

However, under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action just announced yesterday, Iran is allowed uranium enrichment up to 3.67% for the next 15 years. In addition, Saudi Arabia and other Arab states have already said they will “match” Iran’s enrichment capabilities.

Clinton’s endorsement of a deal that doesn’t meet her previous expectations is yet another example of the failed Clinton-Obama foreign policy that she undeniably now owns.

SIGN and SHARE if you think Hillary Clinton should say no to the Iran Deal. >>> http://bit.ly/1CH5kyL <<<

Today, Barack Obama’s nominee to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said “Russia presents the greatest threat to our national security” and said Russia’s behavior is “nothing short of alarming.” 

This statement is astounding, especially since President Obama’s 2012 campaign attacked Mitt Romney for saying Russia was our main geopolitical foe, including then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who called Russia an ally: