Skip to comments.The Administration 's New Fronts in the War on Women (Clinton & Benghazi)
Posted on 01/27/2013 10:31:11 AM PST by jazusamo
This week, the administration that rode to a second term decrying a fictitious war on women by the opposition, opened real fronts on the war on women, perpetuating feminism's worst inconsistencies through its contradictory programs and in the words and deeds of the avatar of these inconsistencies, Hillary Clinton, the "Athena" of low information women voters. Only CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson by her persistence and competence keeps me from burying my head in shame.
As the Weekly Standard's Daniel Halper noticed, there was a serious disconnect this week in the administration's approach to women.
On the one hand, the president's close aide, Valerie Jarrett tweeted:
"If there's one thing we should all agree on, it's protecting women from violence. Congress needs to pass the Violence Against Women Act."
At almost the same moment, as Jarrett was tweeting her plea for legislative embodiment of the notion of women's need for special protections, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced -- without any consultation with Congress -- that he was removing the ban on women in combat positions.
The disconnect between the two positions seems irreconcilable except for James Taranto's sage analysis:
One way of defining feminism is as the pursuit of the mutually irreconcilable goals of sexual equality and sensitive treatment of women. You'd think that contradiction would be a weakness, but it's actually strength: Every advance for equality creates a demand for more measures to promote sensitivity, and vice versa. Feminism's failures perpetuate feminism, at the expense of other goals such as defending the country.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
The real reason we will not get answers isbecause they do not want us to know.
This whole Benghazi affair much like F&F has a smell to it that Fabreeze will not take away.
There are many thing that smell bad in this administration, including it’s leader.
Exactly, I just didn’t put a sarc tag.
Valerie Jarrett is not his lordships aide, she's his handler.
Thanks for the ping.
Clarice Feldman is one of the shining lights.
Quite the theatrics and frightening to think that thing could one day be sitting in the Oval Office.
Wow, jaz.....Clarice NAILs this. I could almost imagine the steam coming off her head.
Yes she did. In my view she always does a stellar job but this piece is outstanding.
Should have pinged you also, glad you found it.
Clap your fins like this Bronco and you get another fish and a cigarette out behind the Whitehouse!
Anyone wanting on or off this ping list, please advise.
Feldman’s piece is excellent. I like how she makes clear the great work done by Sharyl Attkisson.
Clarice does a good job rounding up what others have said on an issue and pulling it all togther in her essay on a subject. Clarice posts Sharyl Attkissons’ questions that she tweeted SHOULD have been asked by the panel investigating Benghazi. From:
“”@SharylAttkisson What time was Ambassador’s Stevens’ body recovered, what are the known details surrounding his disappearance and death...”
“. ..including where he/his body was taken/found/transported and by whom?””.........
......””Who is/are the official(s) responsible for removing reference to al-Qaeda from the original CIA notes?”
“Was the President aware of Gen. Petraeus’ potential problems prior to Thurs., Nov. 8, 2012?””.............
and so on.
I have been a fan of Sharyl Attkisson for quite some time, she’s an excellent investigative reporter.
Some years back it seems I read somewhere that she’s married to a former Marine, I’ve looked recently on a couple of occasions and can’t find anything about it. Have either of you ever read that?
It will be a huge job to secure women in a combat circumstance.
ROE's rules of engagement will undobutedly have to be changed and before long the ROE's will be so strict we can't fight the enemy. Quite possibly the entire idea of the regime.
Women in combat will all have huge targets on their backs and every mad muzzie out there will be trying to capture one of our fighting gals.
We already know what terror types do to gays in the military one can only imagine what they would do to one of our women.
That's why everything humanly possible will be done to see to it that it never happens. But you gotta ask, At what cost?
The end result is much more time spent defending gals in combat. Much more men,money, and machines to get the same job done as before. All for feminazis to score a few more points against the right. Real BS here.
Found this from a Q&A interview she did on C-Span with Brian Lamb...
LAMB: And whats your husband do?
ATTKISSON: Hes a retired lawyer. Before that he was in law enforcement. He was head of his SWAT team in the local market where I worked in Florida. And he was in the Vietnam War before that.
LAMB: And whered you meet him?
ATTKISSON: I met him while he was working with the sheriffs office in Indian River County, Florida. And I was a local news reporter in Vero Beach, Florida.
Here is a lady,Sharyl Atkisson, who has really paid her dues. Love to know what she thinks about women in combat situations.
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.