So what you are saying is that after multiple but vague accusations when asked for clear and specific charges you won't give them. I'm not taking about Libya for the moment; however, you again said she was responsible for Iraq but provide no other reason than she voted for it.. You will not address the fact that as a Senator she had no say in what the Bush administration decided to do diplomatically or militarily when they were in charge for the early years. Being that ISIS is a terror organization, you are putting all counter-terrorism blame on her even though counter-terrorism is more the responsibility of the CIA and NSA. Being a US Senator and Secretary of State, she also bears responsibility of reversing almost 1400 years of civil strife between Sunni and Shia. In that she has as much responsibility as Kerry who also voted for the Iraq War AUMF and is now Secretary of State. Are you willing to blame Kerry as much? If not, is your hatred for her that deep?

Now let's talk Libya. What did she do specifically (and not the call of the administration)? If you are blaming her for everything that means you are to blame for everything your bosses does. Everything your father does. Everything your coach does. Again is your hatred so deep for a person that you can't see reason.

You have yet to posit one thing that Hillary knew that would implicate her.

And have you called all of them out or is your hate still fixated on Hilllary?

So you are willing to blame the wrong person if it means you can hate on the person you dislike. Isn't that like saying you would support sending an innocent person to prison as long as a hated and possibly guilty person goes to jail? Where does your hate end?

Please explain how civil strife in nation-states like Syria where there is little American much like the Secretary of State's influence are Hillary Clinton's fault. Especially when Iraq's civil strife is caused by religious differences between Sunnis and Shia that have been brewing for the last 1400 years. You seem to not understand history.

So the policy of the Obama administration are all on her? Really so you are at fault for what your boss or father decides?

So far much of what you have posted is against Hillary for things beyond her control. Again tell me how her bad judgement allowed North Korea to develop nuclear weapons when their first successful test was in 2006 under the Bush administration (especially since they had been developing them for at least two decades)? Tell me how her bad judgement as of the Secretary of State allowed a terrorist organization like ISIS to gain power and how the CIA or NSA do not have more responsibility when it comes to counter-terrorism. Please be specific.

I find it ironic that many of the people I grew up with are so rabidly anti-Obama because they believe the lies the right puts out about him. Now that Hillary might win the Presidency they are practically foaming in disbelief and denial. From my standpoint the right had to make up things about Obama to keep their base hating him: He's a socialist, Muslim, Kenyan immigrant who did poorly in school. With Hillary they don't have to make things up and that must really burn them.

I have to disagree on this point. His job at Bain was to make money. If that meant saving a company made more money, that's what he did. If more money was made chopping it up to sell and shipping the jobs to China, that's what he did. Romney is a pure capitalist.

My question is why are you willing to blame her for everything that has happened to the US under her watch? Why do you have that need? That's like me needing to blame Collin Powell for 9/11. He was the Secretary of State at the time.

So far many of the things that have been complained about took decades to come to fruition and some of them are not diplomatic in nature. For example, ISIS is a terrorist organization but that is somehow Clinton's responsibility not CIA or NSA according to the parent. The administration's failures to act in Syria is something that reflects badly on Clinton. The unrest in Yemen may also prove to be a negative on Clinton's legacy.

That maybe so but what if like many Americans she was misled about the true nature of Iraq's threat when she voted? Remember 97 other Senators and 420 Representatives joined her including Kerry, McCain, Biden, Saunders (Congressman).

Yes she voted for AUMF. And as a member of the Senate she was in charge of the Bush administration's diplomacy? She was in charge of the military decisions of the Bush administration?

What are you smoking? The administration is criticized for not doing enough in Syria and your complaint is that they made "regime change". Again you must on something really powerful.

You are apparently fixated on her as being one of 98 Senators and 420 Congressmen who voted for it. You seem less fixated on the Bush administration that misrepresented the justifications as well as mismanaged the war. But yes blame one Senator.

Really, she could have stopped North Korea from developing nukes? Something that the CIA, MI6, Mossad could not do. Are you serious?

I'm a registered Republican but like all things, your assumptions are telling of what kind of logic you use.

You missed the point. It was not a criticism of GWB as pointing out to you the EXACT reason ISIS came to power. But it must be Clinton's fault right?

The US did nothing really to foment the crisis in Libya as it is a civil war. As opposed to Iraq where the US went in an army and occupied the country for more than a decade. Thus the other Muslim countries are not upset at the US about this. See the difference?

First of all that is not what you posted in your other thread.

Second, your complaint is that he voted "present" still implies that this was more important than the thousands of "yes" or "no" votes he cast. I would argue that was an important part of job was to cast votes.

Having exposed your lie, now you want to switch it that so that he proposed no meaningful legislation. Seriously, can you use the internet?

Washington Post says you're lying. The New York Times says it as well. Do you live in an alternate world where you just believe things which are not only untrue but easily verified to be untrue but believe them anyway?

Add to that: They don't have preconceived notions because they have never done things the wrong and learned from it.

Yes because her being in her post for 4 years can reverse the 12 years of Putin rule and the undo decades of Ukranian-Russian tensions in Crimea. Yes, totally her fault on that one.

Because the US removal of Saddam Hussein under Bush leaving a power vacuum which fomented and led to the rise of ISIS is completely Clinton's fault.

I agree with you 100% that Hillary should do something to undo China's tendencies that they have had for decades.

Yes because she should have parachuted in James Bond style and erased their program which they had been building for decades especially after their first successful test while Bush was in office.

So far your biggest complaint about Hillary is her lack of a time machine to change things that have been decades in the making and happened before her time as secretary.