This article about Hillary's testimony before Congress was Hillary-ous. Most of the credit is due to Hillary herself. Her choice of glasses was a particular stroke of genius. She's a right likeable lady. My mother voted for her for in the 2008 Presidential primary, while I voted for Obama. Together, as they are now, they make a great team. I don't know whether Hillary would have made a better President, but she makes a superb Secretary of State.
I think the U.S. frankly needed a black President just to set things right, given our country's history, but Obama's election was not affirmative action. I wouldn't have voted for just any black candidate, even if the fellow agreed with me on everything. I wouldn't have voted for a smart and well-educated black man either, unless he was as good a speaker as Obama. I wouldn't have voted for a black politician that exaggerated and played havoc with the facts or played the race card all the time, like some I can recall. In fact, for me at least, a politician's skin color is neither advantage nor disadvantage; one simply observes after the fact that yes, it is probably a good thing for the sake of history that the U.S. showed the world we can elect a black man to the highest office. It's like thumbing our nose at the world, you see, with all its harsh criticisms of the United States, and saying, "You don't know us, after all. We're America, land of opportunity!"
A potential Hillary candidacy in 2016 would be interesting, but I am afraid she may be too old then. I don't know why she is stepping down as Secretary of State--missed that explanation.
2 comments:
"I don't know why she is stepping down as Secretary of State--missed that explanation."
She was coming under fire for the way the State Department lied to cover up what happened in the Benghazi attack - and, more importantly, why.
The state department repeatedly called it an American "consulate", although it is more accurately described as a CIA compound (based on the independent report that came out after the attack). Either way, the state department insisted the attack was due to outrage over a YouTube video - a claim they made for WEEKS all over tv and to the press. They later back-pedaled and said they didn't really know why it happened or whether it was a terrorist attack and the YouTube claim was based on the "best information available". Of course, this was all made up as a distraction to keep people from asking the more important question, what was the CIA doing in Libya?
We now know John Stevens & the CIA team under his command were in Lybia to run weapons to Al Qaeda groups in Syria (to fight Assad) through intermediaries in the Turkish government. In fact, the night the compound was attacked, Stevens had just finished a meeting with a Turkish government representative, presumably working out the details of a large shipment of arms that had arrived in the Turkish docks days before.
Now, why is this a big deal and why would the state department work so hard to distract us? For one, the Obama administration repeatedly claimed it would not provide arms to "rebels" in Syria unless a "red line" (i.e. chemical weapons) was crossed. Of course, this was just a bluff to the world as we were already running arms under the table (or through Turkey to be more accurate). Secondly, it's damning to expose the fact that the US government directly funds Al Qaeda affiliates in the middle east. This is actually all part of a military strategy dubbed "full spectrum dominance", but that's a whole different conversation.
Hillary got grilled on the cover-up and distractions in senate hearings and eventually stepped down to effectively stop the investigation (or at least let her save face unless she ends up being fired for incompetence - or worse - intentionally lying to congress and the American public. This, of course, would severely hurt her in a presidential election bid).
Now, notice how there have been claims of 2 chemical weapons attacks in Syria since the Benghazi attack. Notice how the Obama administration has been foaming at the mouth to "get involved" in Syria. This is because the cat is out of the bag, thanks to the Benghazi investigation. They want to get involved in running arms to the Al Qaeda "rebels" in Syria so they can then deflect criticism for doing it under the table and lying about it.
So there you have it. I imagine if you liked George Bush, you LOVE Obama. And if you love both of them, Hillary will give you "Four more years! Four more years!"
Do we know that? I missed that headline somehow. Seems to me it would have been reported in the New York Times at least.
Post a Comment