Also, her tenure strikes me a little like democrats running cities into the ground. They praise her over and over for her great work on corruption, but the Ukraine is totally totally totally corrupt. It's like Dem mayors in sh*thole cities ... taking praise for fighting valiantly all the city's problems. At what point do you say 'eh, maybe they are part of the continuation of the problem or even the original cause of it.'?
Same with people who credit FDR with saving the country from the depression, when it was his and his party's policies that elongated it to so many years.
So every time I hear praise for how she's carried herself I think 'yeah, but you never point to results.' I would have canned her too . I've yet to hear a single measurable good RESULT of her tenure. Maybe they exist, but where are they?
“”They praise her over and over for her great work on corruption, but the Ukraine is totally totally totally corrupt””
You raised all good points.
I’ve been wondering just HOW and WHY State Department personnel get to be ambassadors. As long as I can remember, it’s always been someone a president favored from large campaign donations, a golfing buddy - whatever! I’m just surprised that she was a career State Department employee who was chosen to be an ambassador so many times. Maybe I’ve just forgotten how the game is played. Funny that we’re expected to believe that anyone with 30+ years in a government job means they were exemplary employees deserving of no criticism at all - deserving a job until they hang it up.