Sunday, December 2, 2012

The Never Ending Arrogance of Hillary Clinton

This week, Hillary Clinton, who has been too busy or too tired to speak publicly about the Benghazi fiasco, issued several criticisms of Israel over settlements and their lack of empathy and generosity for the poor oppressed Palestinians. At the same time, she is quite silent on the transformation in Egypt to another Iran.

Hat tip Daily Caller/Jihad Watch

This should serve as another wake up call for Israel. If this woman becomes president in 4 years (which she probably will) Israel will have yet another enemy in the White House.

Of course, neither she not the current occupant have much if anything to say about what has been happening in Egypt. President Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood "Freedom and Justice" Party are favored sons in this administration because they represent the entire Obama policy in the Middle East, which has crashed and burned in utter failure.

Given the performance of the State Department in this "Arab Spring" and particularly in Benghazi, Ms Clinton should have been totally removed from consideration for a future presidency. One can only wonder why she hasn't been called to testify already before Congress as her DOS Accountability Review Board figures out a way to exonerate her from any responsibility for Benghazi. Instead, she is now blasting away at Israel for having the temerity for wanting to survive in a sea of terrorists.

Does the arrogance of this woman know any bounds?


Squid said...

Hillary Clinton as our next President? She maybe the next President, as our Country slides deeper into the Socialist slime posited by Obama. Remember, Hillary wrote a Masters thesis praising the tactics of Saul Alinsky, which is the strategy of the "Community Organizer and Chief". As Obama has successfully turned America into a "House Divided", with American grouos turning against each other, Hillary will continue the effort and get the vote.

Sad to say, her arrogance is the fruit of the poison tree called the Obama Administration.


Siarlys Jenkins said...

Why should she be saying anything about Benghazi? That's old news. I suspectvGary earnestly wishes for Hillary to be the Democratic nominee in 2016... for obvious reasons.

Findalis said...

If Jews don't know what being oppressed is, who does?

You do know that the Nazis talked about Jews this way before they started their program against the Jews to fix upon the mind of the Germans a hatred for Jews. It seems the US government is now doing the same thing.

Question: Will Obama stop his destruction at the Jews of Israel or will he subject the Jews of the US to his "solution" to the Mideast problem too?

elwood p suggins said...

If the special prosecutor/counsel had had a pair, he would have indicted/convicted her of perjury/obstruction of justice when he had the chance, which would have taken care of her ever being President. What a wusss!!!

elwood p suggins said...

Siarlys will continue to call this speculation/conjecture. Let him. As with terrorists/freedom fighters, one man’s speculation/conjecture is another man’s analysis. And as I have previously observed, absence of evidence is not necessarily, and in fact almost never is, the equivalent of evidence of absence.

Siarlys asks “Why should she be saying anything about Benghazi“? Perhaps because, depending on who is talking, Hillary Clinton is Rice’s boss or, alternatively, Rice reports directly to Obama with a “dotted-line” up the chain-of-command to Hillary. In either event, it would appear that one, or both, certainly with the knowledge of the other, directed her to appear on the Sunday talk shows and either told her what to say or told other(s) to tell her what to say.

Gary previously posted the question “As a high-ranking official in the State Departement (albeit not connected to the specific incident) did she (Rice)not learn from anyone in those 5 days that it was really a terrorist attack”.

Obama has a former Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, who therefore undoubtedly (or at least hopefully) has significant expertise relative to Africa, at his right hand. She is also a stone liberal Democrat who happens to be black and who therefore, one would thnk, almost certainly has great interest in matters African. She also happens to currently be his U.S, Ambassador to the UN. Obama would most certainly have called upon her for advice and input on the recent Benghazi mess. If this did not occur, seems to me that he would be incompetent/derelict.

Assuming he is not, then Ms. Rice necessarily communicated with some combination of Obama/Hillary Clinton/various members of the intelligence community/DOD/other administration officials in the Benghazi aftermath. Again, particularly given her long-time closeness to Obama, not to have utilized her knowledge and expertise would have exceeded incompetence/dereliction and would have at least approached, or bordered on, the “criminally negligent” which is being tossed around. So, it seems safe to assume she was at least partially, and more likely totally, in on the act.

And if she was, then as her brain was picked (briefing/debriefing are somewhat interactive), she would in turn necessarily have received information from others, particularly in the intelligence community, by osmosis if by no other process, which would have told her early on that this was in fact a terrorist attack and not a response to an offensive video, and would further have made it obvious to her that the subsequent “talking points” were inaccurate/invalid. Otherwise, she must be as dumb as a day-old donkey, and that obviously is not the case. As it is, she has in fact subsequently admitted/conceded that the “talking points” and her rendition of them were inaccurate and therefore not truthful.

Which in turn, of course, then makes her statements relative to absence of a terrorist attack not merely a mistake or misunderstanding, but deliberate, calculated, and blatant lies for the sole purpose of partisan politics. There cannot possibly be another reason. It would be bad enough under any circumstances. Attempts to conceal the true story relative to the deaths of U.S. citizens and an atack on American soil for political reasons are well over the top and are in fact unconscionable.

In my view, this makes her entirely unsuitable to be nominated for dogcatcher, let alone U.N. Ambassador, even further let alone Secretary of State. Mr. Obama, terminate her services immediately and find two other proper candidates for these positions.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

elwood, you ought to take one of Gary's English classes. Short of that, read some Lewis Carroll, specifically the dialog where Humpty-Dumpty pontificates, "When I use a word, it means exactly what I choose it to mean."

"Freedom fighter" and "terrorist" are subjective terms expressing approbation or antipathy for the act of taking up arms. They can be distinguished by accountability to a supportive community, adherence to a code of conduct, and choosing non-civilian targets. But, most efforts to suppress terrorism end up indiscriminately slaughtering civilians too.

Conjecture, and analysis, distinguished objectively, by the absence or presence of facts to support the analysis. Facts being absent, what this site presents is indeed conjecture, however much elwood years for the role of Humpty Dumpty.

Findalis... are you saying that the Nazis talked about the never-ending arrogance of the Jews? And so, Gary should stop talking about Hillary like that? Or what?

Gary Fouse said...


You should not call the kettle black. Frankly, your prose is something like contemplating your navel from a circumspect angle.

elwood p suggins said...

Gary--thanks for the support, I could not agree more and often have trouble understanding him. And Siarlys, with all due respect, if I should take an English course, perhaps you should take a class in either typing and/or spelling?? You are often fairly mediocre at either one or the other.

elwood p suggins said...

P.S.--English class or not, what I meant was that “jihadists”, at least as I understand the term, no doubt consider themselves freedom fighters, while most of the rest of us, but possibly not you, consider them to be terrorists. That’s all.

And each of us makes judgments, draws inferences, and comes to conclusions about a variety of issues/subjects on a daily basis. Sometimes you have more “facts” than at others, but that does not necessarily mean that conclusions reached without 100% of the facts are wanting. It also involves common sense (if you have any), as well as simple logic and deductive reasoning (if you are able to perform those functions), coupled with analysis based on experience/knowledge of similar situations. See how easy it is??

Gary Fouse said...

Part of the concept of jihad is the defense of Islam. Unfortu
nately, the practicioners often confuse offense with defense.