Posted on 09/15/2012 12:34:33 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Last year, Mrs. Clinton was inspired by the revolution in Libya and praised the rebels for "taking back their country." This year, when US Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens' murdered corpse was desecrated in a manner reminiscent of how rebels treated the body of "we came, we saw, he died" Muammar Gaddafi,....Hillary Clinton seemed shocked and confused.
Hillary Clinton, who must have been asking herself...."How can this happen" question when Bill was caught with his pants down in the Oval Office, responded to the crisis by asking "How can this happen in a country we help liberate, in a city...we helped save from destruction?" One would think that Mrs. Clinton would have learned by now that in certain situations, trust is not prudent and appreciation for loyalty, especially from those who've proved untrustworthy,is often not expressed with good behavior.
Much like her complicated and confounding pseudo-marriage, Clinton said that her question about Libya "reflects just how complicated, and at times,how confounding the world can be."
...Despite the brutality of what is now believed to be a coordinated 9-11 anniversary attack, Mrs. Clinton....believes..."The friendship between our countries, borne out of shared struggle,will not be another casualty of this attack."....much like staying married to a serial womanizer and recognizing the political necessity of putting his victims last,....
....a Scripture in the Gospel of Luke comes to mind...."Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much." If, for political gain,Hillary Clinton continues to be dishonest about the reality of her own sham of a marriage, it's highly unlikely, if political reputations and careers were jeopardized, that she or Barack Obama would admit that their handling of the Libya situation is yet another example of abysmal failure.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Who would of thought the dems would have run out of pixie dust so soon, the basis for all foreign policy from the dimwits is the pixie dust found in unicorn horns.
To be honest, the author makes very good points about SOS Clinton’s approach and failed foreign policy naïveté. However, I think those points could have been made without bring her marriage into it. I didn’t like it when the Left went after the Palin marriage or penned suspicious comments about Secretay Rice because she was single and to be fair, I don’t think it should be part of the discussion in this article. It detracts from the intended message, IMO.
Almost a decade earlier—in the name of the very principles they so casually betrayed for Clinton—the same feminists had organized the most disgraceful lynching of a public figure in America's history. Despite fiercely proclaimed commitments to the racial victims of American persecution, they launched a vicious campaign to destroy the reputation of an African American jurist who had risen, unblemished, from dirt-shack poverty in the segregated south to the nation's highest courts. They did it knowingly, cynically, with the intent to destroy him in his person, and to ruin his public career.
Has there ever been a more reprehensible witch-hunt in American public life than the one organized by feminist leaders who then emerged as vocal defenders of the White House lecher? Was there ever a more sordid betrayal of common decency than this collective defamation—for which no apology has or ever will be given?
What was the sin Clarence Thomas committed to earn such punishment? The allegation—that he had talked inappropriately ten years before to a female lawyer and made her uncomfortable—appears laughable in the post-Lewinsky climate of presidential gropings and borderline rapes that the same feminists have sanctioned for their political accomplice. Thomas' real crime, as everybody knew but was too intimidated by the hysteria to confirm at the time, was his commitment to constitutional principles they hated. They hated these principles because the Constitution was written for the explicit purpose of preventing the realization of their socialist and egalitarian dreams............................"
Whore of Babylon.
There is always the duality: the nation/state and one person who embodies it.
Or maybe the Whore of Babylon this go-around is Obama.
Sadly, we’ll see...
That is one outstanding article! And I can’t recall ever reading it. And although I’ve read similar descriptions of what goes on in the Clinton head, I’ve never seen it so well defined as that Horowitz article. Thank you for that link.
I would agree if she had not blamed Bills scandal on “ a vast right wing conspiracy.” She was either very naive or was trying to divert the blame. It is the same with this crisis and I don’t believe she is that naive, blaming a movie is equally as foolish.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.