The Common Ills: A Cranky Clinton presidency?

Wednesday, October 14, 2015

A Cranky Clinton presidency?

From last night's debate:

COOPER: Secretary Clinton, on the campaign trail, Governor Webb has said that he would never have used military force in Libya and that the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was inevitable. Should you have seen that attack coming?

CLINTON: Well, let's remember what was going on. We had a murderous dictator, Gadhafi, who had American blood on his hands, as I'm sure you remember, threatening to massacre large numbers of the Libyan people. We had our closest allies in Europe burning up the phone lines begging us to help them try to prevent what they saw as a mass genocide, in their words. And we had the Arabs standing by our side saying, "We want you to help us deal with Gadhafi."
Our response, which I think was smart power at its best, is that the United States will not lead this. We will provide essential, unique capabilities that we have, but the Europeans and the Arabs had to be first over the line. We did not put one single American soldier on the ground in Libya. And I'll say this for the Libyan people...

COOPER: But American citizens did lose their lives in Benghazi.

CLINTON: But let -- I'll get to that. But I think it's important, since I understand Senator Webb's very strong feelings about this, to explain where we were then and to point out that I think President Obama made the right decision at the time.
And the Libyan people had a free election the first time since 1951. And you know what, they voted for moderates, they voted with the hope of democracy. Because of the Arab Spring, because of a lot of other things, there was turmoil to be followed.
But unless you believe the United States should not send diplomats to any place that is dangerous, which I do not, then when we send them forth, there is always the potential for danger and risk.

COOPER: Governor O'Malley?

A number of e-mails note that Muammar Gaddafi was a contained and limited threat and had been brought to the table by the previous administration (Bully Boy Bush).

That's true. It's also true that Gaddafi had first normalized relations with the United Kingdom and then with the US (and was taken off the terrorist list in 2006).

I think most of Hillary's 'history' is as short-sighted as she is.

I highlighted the above in last night's snapshot because there she was (yet again) promising she would "get to that" (the dead Americans) and there she was (yet again) ignoring the dead.

That was what was key in the exchange to me.

And before The Hillary Eunuchs start insisting, "Anderson moved on!"

Did you watch the debate?

She was comfortable cutting him off repeatedly and continuing to talk when she wanted to (even though she was repeatedly over the time limit).

She chose not to discuss the dead.

That's the story of her life.

The dead matter when she can use them as props.

Otherwise, she has no interest in them.

She is a liar and she was caught in her own lie, no surprise.

I'm surprised she's not running with a slogan of "It's Not My Fault" because nothing, apparently, ever is.

The e-mail scandal -- subject of a federal investigation -- isn't her fault.

It's her e-mails, it was her server, but it's not her fault.

At best, it was a 'mistake.'

Her vote for the Iraq War isn't her fault either.

It's 'Bush's war,' the eunuch's insist. Her vote for it, her years of support for it, none of that makes it Hillary's War.

Benghazi?

She was Secretary of State. State did not provide adequate security -- even though it was requested.

But again, that's not her fault.

Nothing ever is.

Apparently, a job for Hillary is just a shot at photo ops.

She's not expected to actually perform any duties.

She's just there to smile for the cameras.

And when things go wrong, it's not her fault.

Can you imagine the presidency someone like that would preside over?

The following community sites updated: