Hillary’s “Hard Choices”
FROM: RNC Communications Director Sean Spicer @SeanSpicer
TO: Interested Parties
RE: Hillary’s “Hard Choices”
As the publication of Hillary Clinton’s memoir Hard Choices nears, let’s reflect on some of the major choices Clinton has faced in recent years.
Of course, most Americans probably wouldn’t think these were really that “hard.” When choosing between jobs and billionaires or school kids and special interests, the decision seems pretty obvious. When deciding whether to grant an ambassador’s request for more security and whether to support a law that increases healthcare costs, most Americans would make the obvious decision.
But not Hillary Clinton. These “hard choices” resulted in wrong decisions:
The choice: Whether to increase security in Benghazi.
Clinton’s State Department had to decide whether to send more security to the mission in Benghazi, Libya, prior to the September 11, 2012 attacks. Ambassador Stevens, who was killed in the attacks, had asked for that extra security.
The decision: No added security.
Clinton’s State Department did not increase security in Benghazi. Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the September 11 terrorist attack.
2. BOKO HARAM
The choice: Whether to label Boko Haram terrorists.
As Secretary of State, Clinton had to decide whether to designate Boko Haram as a foreign terrorist organization, which the FBI, CIA, and Justice Department encouraged her to do.
Her decision: They’re not a terrorist organization.
She chose not to designate them a terrorist organization, making it harder for the U.S. to go after the group or thwart their attacks. Last month, Boko Haram kidnapped over 200 Nigerian schoolgirls. They are threatening to sell them.
The choice: Whether to support the unpopular healthcare law.
Clinton had to decide whether to give her support to ObamaCare.
Her decision: Support cost increases and job loss.
She gave it her endorsement, even though Americans have lost jobs, insurance plans, and
doctors thanks to the law. Today, families are seeing their premiums rise thanks to the law’s provisions, and the economy is struggling under its onerous regulations.
The choice: Whether to give back money from an illegal shadow campaign
After recent revelations that Clinton adviser Minyon Moore had personally secured money from embattled D.C. businessman Jeffrey Thompson for an illegal 2008 shadow campaign on Clinton’s behalf, Hillary Clinton had to decide whether to give the money back.
Her decision: $$$$
She chose not to give the money back, indicating she’s not above illegal campaign activity.
5. SHADOW SUPERPAC CAMPAIGN
The choice: Whether to let an army of pro-Hillary SuperPACs do her bidding, while profiting from being a “private citizen.”
Candidate-in-denial Clinton had to decide whether she would give her approval to an army of “unaffiliated” SuperPACs and other groups laying the groundwork for a presidential campaign while she crisscrossed the country raking in massive speaking fees, free of any the restrictions of being a candidate.
Her decision: Have it both ways.
Clinton chose money over transparency, giving her blessing—directly or indirectly—to SuperPACs run by her loyalists. She gets all the benefits of being a candidate without any of the responsibility.
6. SCHOOL CHOICE IN NYC
The choice: Whether to stand up for disadvantaged kids.
Clinton had to decide whether to speak out against New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, her former Senate campaign manager, for his attacks on school choice, charter schools, and the needy students they serve.
Her decision: Stand up for left-wing special interests.
She chose to be silent, even as de Blasio, bowing to pressure from the teachers unions to shut down charter schools in New York city, depriving underprivileged children of schools that were helping them and that they and their parents chose and liked.
7. KEYSTONE JOBS
The choice: Whether to support job creation.
Clinton had to decide whether to endorse the Keystone pipeline construction, a project that would create jobs and to which the State Department found “no major environmental objections.”
Her decision: Support Tom Steyer.
Clinton has thus far chosen not to support Keystone, leaving Americans who could work on the project unemployed. Her failure to support Keystone certainly pleases leftwing donor-activist and ally Tom Steyer, who’s bankrolling candidates who oppose Keystone and would have plenty of money to support a Clinton campaign.
Most Americans would probably agree she made the wrong decisions. The more Americans learn about “hard choices” like these, the less likely they will be to choose Clinton in any future election. A book isn’t going to change that.
View Full Press Release : http://www.gop.com/trending/hillarys-hard-choices/