Generalissima Clinton Expanding the Empire

25 Jul

By Ralph Nader

Hillary Clinton has completed her four-year tenure as Secretary of State to the accolades of both Democratic and Republican Congressional champions of the budget-busting “military-industrial complex,” that President Eisenhower warned about in his farewell address. Behind the public relations sheen, the photo-opportunities with groups of poor people in the developing world, an ever more militarized State Department operated under Clinton’s leadership.

A militarized State Department is more than a repudiation of the Department’s basic charter of 1789, for the then-named Department of Foreign Affairs, which envisioned diplomacy as its mission. Secretary Clinton reveled in tough, belligerent talk and action on her many trips to more than a hundred countries. She would warn or threaten “consequences” on a regular basis. She supported soldiers in Afghanistan, the use of secret Special Forces in other places and “force projection” in East Asia to contain China. She aggressively supported or attacked resistance movements in dictatorships, depending on whether a regime played to Washington’s tune.

Because Defense Secretary Robert Gates was openly cool to the drum beats for war on Libya, Clinton took over and choreographed the NATO ouster of the dictator, Muammar al-Gaddafi, long after he had given up his mass destruction weaponry and was working to re-kindle relations with the U.S. government and global energy corporations. Libya is now in a disastrous warlord state-of-chaos. Many fleeing fighters have moved into Mali, making that vast country into another battlefield drawing U.S. involvement. Blowback!

Time and again, Hillary Clinton’s belligerence exceeded that of Obama’s Secretaries of Defense. From her seat on the Senate Armed Services Committee to her tenure at the State Department, Hillary Clinton sought to prove that she could be just as tough as the militaristic civilian men whose circle she entered. Throughout her four years it was Generalissima Clinton, expanding the American Empire at large.

Here is some of what the candid camera of history will show about her record:

1. A Yale Law School graduate, she shared with President Obama, a former Harvard Law Review President, a shocking disregard for the law and separation of powers be it the Constitution, federal statues or international treaties. Her legal advisor, former Yale Law Dean Harold Koh, provided cover for her and Obama’s “drone ranger” (to use Bill Moyer’s words), John Brennan, Obama’s counterterrorism advisor. Brennan gave the president weekly opportunities (White House aides called decision day “Terror Tuesdays”) to become secret prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner. Imagine thousands of push-button deaths and injuries of internal resisters and civilian bystanders in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and elsewhere who presented no threat to the U.S.
The war on Libya, which Clinton spearheaded for Obama, was conducted without a Congressional Declaration of War, without even a War Resolution or a Congressional authorization or appropriation. She and her boss outdid Cheney and Bush on that score.

2. Although touting “diplomacy” as a priority, Clinton made little attempt to bring the United States into the community of nations by signing or ratifying international treaties already having as signatories over a hundred nations. As a former senator with bi-partisan support, Clinton didn’t use much of her capital on climate change agreements.

Human Rights Watch reports that chief among the unratified treaties are “international conventions relating to children, women, persons with disabilities, torture, enforced disappearance, and the use of anti-personal landmines and cluster munitions.” The last two treaties are designed to save thousands of lives and limbs of the children and their parents who are major victims of these concealed, atrocious weapons. Clinton has not gone to bat against the advocates for those “blowback” explosives that the Pentagon still uses.

When the Senate recently failed to ratify the treaty on disabilities, Clinton, with former senator and injured veteran, Robert Dole on her side, still didn’t make the maximum effort of which she is capable.

3. Secretary Clinton had problems heralding accurate whistleblowers. A 24-year-Foreign Service Officer, Peter Van Buren spent a year in Iraq running two State Department Reconstruction Teams. He exposed State Department waste and mismanagement along with the Pentagon’s “reconstruction” efforts using corporate contractors. Unlistened to, Van Buren, true to his civil service oath of office, went public. Clinton fired him. (wemeantwell.com.)

4. Possibly the most revealing of Clinton’s character was ordering U.S. officials to spy on top UN diplomats, including those from our ally, the United Kingdom. Shockingly, she even ordered her emissaries to obtain DNA data, iris scans (known as biometric data) and fingerprints along with credit card and frequent flier numbers.

The disclosure of secret State Department cables proved this to be a clear violation of the 1946 UN convention. Clinton included in this crude boomeranging personal espionage, the Secretary General of the UN, Ban Ki-Moon and his top officials all around the world. As befits these lawless times, there were no Congressional hearings, no accountabilities, and no resignation by the self-styled civil libertarian Secretary of State, not even a public apology.

5. Clinton led a dangerous expansion of the Department’s mission in Iraq. As reported in the Wall Street Journal on December 10, 2011, “In place of the military, the State Department will assume a new role of unprecedented scale, overseeing a massive diplomatic mission through a network of fortified, self-sufficient installations.”

To call this a diplomatic mission is a stretch. The State Department has hired thousands of private security contractors for armed details and transportation of personnel. Simply guarding the huge U.S. embassy in Iraq and its personnel costs more than $650 million a year – larger than the entire budget of the Occupational Health and Safety Agency (OSHA), which is responsible for reducing the yearly loss of about 58,000 lives in workplace-related traumas and sickness.

Another State Department undertaking is to improve the training and capability of Iraq’s police and armed forces. Countless active and retired Foreign Service officers believe expanded militarization of the State Department both sidelines them, their experience and knowledge, in favor of contractors and military people, and endangers them overseas.

Blurring the distinction between the Pentagon and the State Department in words and deeds seriously compromises Americans engaged in development and diplomatic endeavors. When people in the developing countries see Americans working to advance public health or clean drinking water systems within their countries, they now wonder if these are front activities for spying or undercover penetrations. Violent actions, fueled by this suspicion, are already jeopardizing public health efforts on the border areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Clinton’s successor, former Senator and war veteran, John Kerry, says he wants to emphasize peace, human rights, and anti-poverty endeavors. He doesn’t have to prove his machismo should he strive to de-militarize the State Department and promote peaceful, deliberative missions in the world, from which true security flows.

SOURCE: http://nader.org/2013/02/08/generalissima-clinton-expanding-the-empire/

 

A Clinton Scandal Primer

24 Jul

By John Wilson

Below is a guide to the Clinton scandals:

I’ve already written about the corruption issue as it relates to the current issue of earmarks. My primary reason for bringing up these scandals is because I think the same standards should be applied to all candidates (I’ll get to John McCain’s scandals later this year). If Barack Obama is going to be attacked for the very minor Rezko “scandal”, then Hillary Clinton deserves the same treatment for her involvement in many more scandals of far greater significance. The books by Carl Bernstein as well as Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta also provide useful (and often damning) information that the public hasn’t heard in the media coverage of the campaign.

Even Hillary Clinton’s appointment of Maggie Williams (a central figures in one of the Clinton scandals) as campaign manager prompted almost universal silence about the Clinton scandals. We need to re-examine the scandals of the Clinton Era involving Hillary for two basic reasons: 1) these scandals will not be forgotten by the press and the 527s in the general election, so they will become a campaign issue hurting Democrats; 2) these scandals may indicate what kind of administration Hillary Clinton will have, and the danger is that she may appoint people like Williams with this history of misconduct.

For each Clinton scandal (and I don’t pretend to cover every single one), I provide a short summary along with my judgment of how serious the scandal was, and the degree of Hillary Clinton’s involvement in it (on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being the highest scandal).

Johnny Chung Fundraising Scandal

Level of Scandal: 2

Hillary Clinton’s Involvement: 9

Johnny Chung gave $366,000 to the Democratic National Committee, and Hillary Clinton’s office was his strongest defender under Hillary’s chief of staff Maggie Williams. Williams declared, “This is the one office where I can run it the way I want to,” and she gave Chung remarkable privileges during Chung’s 51 visits to the White House, including signed photographs with the first lady and the privilege to eat on her tab at the White House Mess. Williams testified, A prime example of his … misguided behavior was his persistent request to give money directly to Mrs. Clinton. On more than one occasion, I told Mr. Chung this was not possible, although his offer was much appreciated. However, Williams’ aide Evan Ryan directly told Chung that the DNC owed the White House $80,000 for a Christmas party and asked for a donation to help pay off the debt. Chung personally gave Williams inside the White House a $50,000 check for the DNC. Two days later, Chung brought in a group of Chinese businessmen into the Oval Office to watch Bill Clinton deliver his radio address, and have their picture taken with him. Chung pled guilty to election law violations for his illegal fund-raising.

Conclusion: The announcement on February 10, 2008 that Maggie Williams would become the new campaign manager for Hillary Clinton was a particularly shocking example of the influence-peddling that Hillary is willing to tolerate. Maggie Williams was Hillary’s chief of staff as First Lady, and in that role Williams was deeply involved in an especially sleazy aspect of the Clinton Administration. Chung summarized his view of the Clinton Administration this way: The White House is like a subway — you have to put in coins to open the gates.

Cattle Futures Trading

Level of Scandal: 2 (5 for cover-up)

Hillary’s involvement: 10

Wikipedia summary: “In 1978 and 1979, lawyer and First Lady of Arkansas Hillary Rodham engaged in a series of trades of cattle futures contracts. Her initial $1,000 investment generated nearly $100,000 when she stopped trading after ten months….At one point she owed in excess of $100,000 to Refco as part of covering losses, but no margin calls were made by Refco against her…..In 1995, economists from Auburn University and University of North Florida ran a statistical computer model against a record of Rodham’s trades, factoring in Wall Street Journal market data from the time, and concluded in an article published in the Journal of Economics and Statistics that there was only a 1 in 250 million chance that Rodham could have made the profits she did legitimately.”

Conclusion: There’s no evidence that Hillary Clinton realized that she must have been getting some preferential treatment in order to benefit her and her husband financially. But she’s not dumb enough to think that people make free money like this without risk. That’s why she tried to conceal these facts. In 1992, Hillary personally warned staffers not to talk about the tax returns showing her profits, and the Clintons tax returns were only revealed up to 1980. The campaign successfully created a fake cover story to explain the jump in net worth, falsely telling reporters that it was a gift from Hillary’s parents.(Gerth and Van Natta, p. 114-5) The fact that the Clintons currently refuse to reveal their tax returns strongly suggests they have something to hide, considering that their history of selective concealment of tax information to prevent scandalous information from coming out.

Travelgate

Level of Scandal: 1 for scandal (7 for cover-up)

Hillary Clinton’s Involvement: 9

In 1993: “May 19: The White House fires seven employees of its Travel Office, following a review by Associate Counsel William Kennedy III, a former member of the Rose Law Firm. Mr. Kennedy’s actions, which included attempts to involve the FBI and the Internal Revenue Service in a criminal investigation of the Travel Office, are sharply criticized.”

Conclusion: The Travel Office firings were inept and misguided, but never a huge scandal. Hillary actually wanted to show her good government credentials by cleaning up the questionable activities of the White House Travel Office, never realizing that the workers had close relations to the media. I believe Hillary had only good intentions, even though the fact that Arkansas buddies taking over the office made it seem like a patronage issue. But the key fact is that Hillary lied under oath (or came perilously close) in denying any involvement in the firings. The independent counsel concluded, “The evidence is sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Mrs. Clinton had a ‘role’ in the Travel Office firings and that she had ‘input’ into that decision. Her testimony to the contrary was factually false.” Hillary could have easily been charged with perjury and obstruction of justice, but proving that she knowingly lied was difficult, and Hillary was never the main target of the investigations, so they gave her a break. Still, the scandal shows Hillary’s managerial ineptitude and her propensity to deny responsibility.

Pardongate

Level of Scandal: 5

Hillary Clinton’s Involvement: 1

From wikipedia: “In March 2000, Bill Clinton pardoned Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory, owners of the carnival company United Shows International, for charges of bank fraud from a 1982 conviction (the couple were already out of jail, but the prior conviction prevented them from doing business transactions in certain states). First Lady Hillary Clinton’s youngest brother, Tony Rodham, was an acquaintance of the Gregorys, and had lobbied Clinton on their behalf. In October 2006, the group Judicial Watch filed a request with the U.S. Justice Department for an investigation, alleging that Rodham had received $107,000 from the Gregorys for the pardons, in the form of loans that were never repaid, as part of a quid pro quo scheme….Almon Glenn Braswell was pardoned of his mail fraud and perjury convictions, even while a federal investigation was underway regarding additional money laundering and tax evasion charges. Braswell and Carlos Vignali each paid approximately $200,000 to Hillary Clinton’s brother, Hugh Rodham, to represent their respective cases for clemency. Hugh Rodham returned the payments after they were disclosed to the public.”

“Marc Rich, a fugitive, was pardoned of tax evasion….Critics complained that Denise Rich, his former wife, had made substantial donations to the Clinton library and to Mrs. Clinton’s senate campaign….According to Paul Volcker’s independent investigation of Iraqi Oil-for-Food kickback schemes, Marc Rich was a middleman for several suspect Iraqi oil deals involving over 4 million barrels of oil.”

Conclusion: Bill Clinton’s abuse of his pardon power disgusted nearly everyone, but there’s no clear evidence of Hillary Clinton’s involvement. Still, it’s hard to believe that she knew absolutely nothing about what her husband was doing on behalf of her brother and one of her major donors.

Whitewater

Level of Scandal: 1

Hillary Clinton’s Involvement: 5

According to Wikipedia: “The Whitewater controversy was the focus of media attention from the publication of a New York Times report during the 1992 presidential campaign, and throughout her time as First Lady. The Clintons had lost their late-1970s investment in the Whitewater Development Corporation; at the same time, their partners in that investment, Jim and Susan McDougal, operated Madison Guaranty, a savings and loan institution that retained the legal services of Rose Law Firm, and may have been improperly subsidizing Whitewater losses. Madison Guaranty later failed, and Clinton’s work at Rose was scrutinized for a possible conflict of interest in representing the bank before state regulators that her husband had appointed; she claimed she had done minimal work for the bank. Independent counsels Robert Fiske and Kenneth Starr subpoenaed Clinton’s legal billing records; she claimed to be unable to produce these records. The records were found in the First Lady’s White House book room after a two-year search, and delivered to investigators in early 1996.”

Conclusion: Ultimately, the Whitewater scandal is not about a failed investment; it’s about McDougal using his influence with the Clintons to get preferential treatment for a failing bank. It’s possible (but ultimately unproven) that Hillary did try to cover up billing records that embarrassed her. They showed that either she was lying about her involvement in the legal work that included the Castle Grande transaction which “were quickly found to be a sham meant to hide from bank examiners that Madison was breaking federal lending rules”(p. 161), or (the most likely case) she was padding her billing on the case in order to make more money for work she didn’t do. As Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta conclude, “her invoices were undocumented, inaccurate, or padded.”(p. 162)

Hillarycare

Level of Scandal: 1

Hillary’s Involvement: 10

Wikipedia summary: “In 1993, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, along with several other groups, filed a lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and Donna Shalala over closed-door meetings related to the health care plan. The AAPS sued to gain access to the list of members of the task force. Judge Royce C. Lamberth found in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded $285,864 to the AAPS for legal costs; Lamberth also harshly criticized the Clinton administration and Clinton aide Ira Magaziner in his ruling. Subsequently, a federal appeals court overturned the award and the initial findings on the basis that Magaziner and the administration had not acted in bad faith.”

Conclusion: Hillary Clinton’s secrecy about her health-care plan reflects a troubling tendency to avoid public disclosure. It probably wasn’t illegal, but it hurt the effort to pass health care reform.

Rose Law Firm

Level of Scandal: 1

Hillary Clinton’s Involvement: 10

Wikipedia summary: “Clinton continued to practice law with the Rose Law Firm while she was First Lady of Arkansas. She earned less than all the other partners, due to fewer hours being billed, but still made over $200,000 in her final year there. She continued to rarely do trial work, but was considered a rainmaker at the firm for bringing in clients, partly due to the prestige she lent the firm and to her corporate board connections. She was also very influential in the appointment of state judges. Bill Clinton’s Republican opponent in his 1986 gubernatorial re-election campaign accused the Clintons of conflict of interest, because Rose Law did state business; the Clintons deflected the charge by saying that state fees were walled off by the firm before her profits were calculated.”

Conclusion: It’s not reasonable to expect the governor’s wife to give up her law practice to avoid contact with anyone doing state business. Still, Hillary clearly had some questionable dealings, and falsely promoted the idea that her profits were walled off from the start. Also, the disappearance of Rose Law records about her legal work (the surface a few days after the statute of limitations on fraud expired) raises serious questions.

Vince Foster Records

Level of Scandal: 1

Hillary Clinton’s Involvement: 8

In 1993, “July 20: The Little Rock FBI obtains a warrant to search the office of David Hale as part of its investigation into Capital Management Services. In Washington, Deputy White House Counsel Vincent Foster drives to Ft. Marcy Park and commits suicide. That evening, White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum, Clinton aide Patsy Thomasson, and Mrs. Clinton’s chief of staff Maggie Williams visit Mr. Foster’s office. According to testimony by a uniformed Secret Service officer, Ms. Williams exits the counsel’s suite with an armful of folders.”

Conclusion: Obviously, the conspiracy nuts who think Vince Foster was murdered are idiots, but Hillary did try to block investigators from seeing all the records in Foster’s office, and there is evidence that her current campaign manager, Maggie Williams, removed records from his office.

Summary: I don’t consider any of these Clinton scandals, alone or taken together, to be a disqualifying scandal that should prevent her from becoming president. I don’t even think these scandals are the primary reasons why people shouldn’t vote for Clinton in the 2008 primaries. However, many of these scandals do include real components that show very bad judgment on the part of Hillary Clinton. They are, at the very least, relevant information that the public deserves to know about before they cast a vote.

SOURCE: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-k-wilson/a-clinton-scandal-primer_b_87792.html

Hillary Clinton’s Alinskyism and the Brave New Village

21 Jul

Hillary Clinton is the leading member of a generational cohort of elite liberals who brought fascist themes into mainstream liberalism. She and her cohort embody the maternal side of fascism—which is one reason why it is not more clearly recognized as such.

Hillary Clinton is conventionally viewed by her supporters as a liberal—or by conservative opponents as a radical leftist in liberal sheep’s clothing; but it is more accurate to view her as an old-style progressive and a direct descendant of the Social Gospel movement of the 1920s and 1930s.

Hillary increasingly draped herself in the rhetoric of the movement—the youth movement, the women’s movement, the antiwar movement—and gravitated toward others who believed that both her generation and her gender had a rendezvous with destiny.

After graduation from college, Hillary was offered an internship by her hero Saul Alinsky—famed author of Rules for Radicals—about whom she wrote her thesis: “There is Only the Fight: An Analysis of the Alinsky Model.” In an unprecedented move, Wellesley College sequestered the thesis in 1992, even refusing to divulge the title until the Clintons left the White House.

Alinsky would invent his famous “method” of community organizing, borrowing tactics from Al Capone’s mobsters, University of Chicago sociologists and John L. Lewis’s union organizers. His violent, confrontational rhetoric often sounded much like that herad from Horst Wessel or his Red Shirt adversaries in the streets of Berlin. Alinsky joined forces with the CIO—then chockablock with Stalinists and other communists—learning how to organize in the streets. In 1940, he founded the Industrial Areas Foundation, which pioneered the community activism movement. He became the mentor to countless communist activists—most famously Cesar Chavez—laying the foundation for both Naderism and the Students for a Democratic Society. He believed in exploiting middle-class mores to achieve his agenda, not flouting them as the long-haired hippies did. Alinsky believed that working through friendly or vulnerable institutions in order to smash enemy redoubts was the essence of political organization. He worked closely with reformist and left-leaning clergy, his chief patrons. He mastered the art of unleashing preachers as the frontline activists in his mission of “rubbing raw the sores of discontent.”

Alinsky’s methods inspired the entire 1960s generation of New Left agitators (Barack Obama, for years a Chicago community organizer, was trained by Alinsky’s disciples).

Hillary turned down Alinsky’s job offer in order to attend Yale Law School. He told her it was a huge mistake, but Hillary responded that only by marching through America’s elite institutions could she achieve real power and change the system from within. Hillary helped edit the Yale Review of Law and Social Action, which at the time was a thoroughly radical organ supporting the Black Panthers and publishing articles implicitly endorsing the murder of police. One article, “Jamestown Seventy,” suggested that radicals adopt a program of “political migration to a single state for the purpose of gaining political control and establishing a living laboratory for experiment.” An infamous Review cover depicted police as pigs, one with his head chopped off.

Hillary volunteered to help the Panthers’ legal team, even attending the trial to take notes to help with the defense. She did such a good job of organizing the student volunteers that she was offered a summer internship in the Berkeley, California law offices of Robert Treuhaft, one of Bobby Seale’s lawyers. Treuhaft was a lifetime member of the American Communist Party who had cut his teeth fighting for the Stalinist faction in the California labor movement.

The most revealing aspect of Hillary’s career prior to her arrival in Washington was her advocacy for children. Clinton wrote articles advocating the rights of children to “divorce” their parents. Hillary Clinton’s writings on children show a clear, unapologetic and principled desire to insert the state deep into family life—a goal that is in perfect accord with similar efforts by totalitarians of the past. She condones the state’s assumption of parental responsibilities because she is opposed to the principle of parental authority in any form. Clinton’s writings leave the unmistakable impression that it is the family that holds children back, the state that sets them free.

Selections from “Liberal Fascism,” by Jonah Goldberg (Brave New Village chapter)

Hillary Clinton Offends Gandhi, India

21 Jul

Doing The Benghazi Shuffle

21 Jul

July 6, 2013

Whilst our beleaguered non-commander-in-no-chief used his teleprompter early on to vow to “not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act,” Americans are still waiting to find out who actually orchestrated the September 11, 2012 attack in Benghazi that killed two of our brave former Navy Seal heroes (Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty), our Ambassador to Libya (Christopher Stevens), and Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith, and just why known imminent threats to security were not properly addressed by our government in time to avoid this bloodletting on designated American soil.

In fact, we are still waiting for the non-commander-in-no-chief Barack Hussein Obama and former Secretariat of Statism Hillary Clinton to be held accountable for their gross incompetence and their willful negligence in upholding their sworn duty to protect and defend our Constitution, with the primary focus of protecting the lives of American citizens the world over. That accountability is the only justice that will satisfy many of us. What we are witnessing instead is an ongoing cover-up that looks like a newer version of just another old government dance. This one should be called The Benghazi Shuffle.

Let’s take a look at the early steps of this new dance.

Of course, the day after the Benghazi attack, our no-chief danced around the issue by making a Clintonesque speech about “terror.” These are his exact words: “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.” He continues: “I want people around the world to hear me. To all those who would do us harm: No act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values we proudly present to the world.”

If you study his prepared speech carefully, you will see that never once did he call the attack in Benghazi an act of terrorism. He called it “this terrible act.” He mentioned the term “terror” twice, but in a general sense of our resolve in the face of terror. We have known for a long time that specific words can lose their precise meaning as we remember the now-infamous words of another shamed and shameful non-commander-in-no-chief, William Jefferson Clinton, when he said in a grand jury testimony: “It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the—if he—if ‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement.” Looks like our first mulatto president studied well the dance steps from our first black president, and justice was denied again.

That same day, our former Secretariat of Statism Hillary Clinton came under scrutiny with her own prepared speech that began by adding more intricate steps to The Benghazi Shuffle with the following spin of cause and effect: “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our Embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the internet. America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear – there is no justification for this, none. Violence like this is no way to honor religion or faith. And as long as there are those who would take innocent life in the name of God, the world will never know a true and lasting peace.”

I would first like to point out that no one, anywhere in the world, claims this murderous attack was committed in the name of God. Excuse me, Mrs. former Secretariat of Statism, it is Allah to whom you should have given attribution, and Allah does appear to condone the taking of innocent life in his name.

Further, notice how Hillary immediately parses her words by stating that “some have sought,” when not one person she spoke to in those first twenty-four hours has come forward and said that they told her this attack was in response to “inflammatory material posted on the internet.” No doubt this was a deliberate choice of words so that she could not be left standing without a chair when the music finally stops. Never let it be said that truth might get in the way of one of the most famous Shuffle dancers in the world today.

Sadly then, shortly after the beginning of The Benghazi Shuffle, Clinton fainted and bumped her head, so she wasn’t able to complete the dance steps and testify while the embers were still smoldering.

The ensuing MRI results showed that a blood clot in her brain was discovered. But, according to Aaron S. Dumont, director of cerebrovascular surgery at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia “head trauma can cause blood in a venous sinus to clot, but it almost always has to be severe enough to cause a skull fracture … It’s probably a coincidence,” he said of Clinton’s fainting spell and the clot.

Being something of a skeptic when it comes to leftist politics and their two-step media, with all due respect for the health and well-being of former Secretariat of Statism Clinton, I can’t help but find myself wondering how these most convenient moves happen at just the right choreographed time and place. But then, really, what difference does it make?

SOURCE: http://www.westernjournalism.com/doing-the-benghazi-shuffle-part-i/

Hillary Clinton is About to Find Out What Difference Benghazi Makes

21 Jul

Mark Whittington, Yahoo! Contributor Network
May 8, 2013

COMMENTARY | With the Benghazi hearings preparing to detail Obama administration malfeasance surrounding the massacre of four Americans, according to CBS News, the person with the most to lose may be former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

That would be just fine with Pat Smith, the mother of Sean Smith, one of the four victims along with Ambassador Chris Stevens and two special ops officers, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods. According to RealClearPolitics she told CNN’s Jake Tapper that she personally blames Hillary Clinton. Clinton was in charge and needs to be held responsible not only for what happened in Benghazi, but during the aftermath with the lies and cover up.

Clinton is being haunted by her ill-considered statement during congressional statement. “What difference at this point does it make?” It demonstrated a certain callousness for the dead Americans and a clear desire to put the scandal in her rear view mirror. Ms. Smith recounts how Obama administration officials are freezing her out, claiming that she is not a member of Sean Smith’s immediate family, a remarkable statement considering that she suffered labor pains bringing him into the world.

To be sure Clinton is an old hand at deflecting scandal, dating back 20 years to the travelgate and cattle futures imbroglios and including her husband’s various instances of in flagrante delicto. The difference is that the all the other scandals were cases of financial misconduct or her husband’s sexual embarrassments. This time there are dead people involved. That is not something that can easily be waived away. It’s not just about sex any more.

Americans are going to want blood for what happened to Stevens and his companions. Thus far the terrorists who murdered them have not been caught or killed. So someone or more than one someone is going to have to be the person overboard to be offered up as sacrifice. Hillary Clinton may well fit that bill.

All depends on how well Clinton can tap dance and how fervent her enablers in the media and in Democratic political circles are to shield her. But dead Americans are not so easily swept under the rug.

What difference does it make? Clinton and the rest of us are about to find out.

SOURCE: http://voices.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-find-out-difference-12128587.html

Hillary Clinton, the Law of Karma, and Shattered Dreams

21 Jul

After the last several days of major damage control efforts by the Obama administration concerning the murders of  US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans at the US Consulate in Benghazi, the law of karma has finally found Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton at State Dept – Alex Brandon (A/P)

From the time she spoke as valedictorian at Wellesley College in 1969, Hillary Clinton’s ultimate goal was to be the first female President of the United States.  When she met Bill Clinton, she recognized in him her alter ego, and with his unmatched political skills, they crafted their road to the White House.  Scandals went with the territory, from her legal work at the Rose law firm, Whitewater, Travelgate, and cattle futures trading, to her post-White House move to New York, so she could run for the Senate.  Nothing tainted the steely Hillary brand.  When she decided to run for the White House, the public was weary of yet another round of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton, and she had to watch her campaign shredded under the buzzsaw of Barack Obama, along with the betrayal of none other than Mr. Democrat himself, Ted Kennedy.

When she accepted the offer to become Secretary of State, the news media gushed over her unique qualifications, and yet what exactly were those qualifications.  She served as First Lady accompanying her husband overseas, met heads of state, and hosted many of them at the White House.  Yes, she’s always been very sagacious, dedicated, and well read, however, when Hillary’s foreign policy credentials are compared to those of Madeleine Albright, or Condoleeza Rice, you find her serious lacking.  During her time at the White House, she always positioned herself as an advocate for women, children and families, not foreign policy.  But yet, her star was on the ascent once again, heralded as a team player, the most popular member of the Obama Administration.

Now, after almost four years of the Obama/Clinton foreign policy, we’re facing a debacle in the Middle East.  Syria’s Bashar al-Assad continues to be armed by Iran and Russia, interested in establishing regional hegemony with Lebanon’s Hezbollah.  Assad’s army has killed, wounded or displaced thousands of citizens, while the US remains sidelined.  Iran is slowly enveloping Iraq into its sphere of influence, while the Taliban regains footholds in Afghanistan as the US withdraws, with a Vietnam-like redux only too likely to play out.  Iran has put its efforts on steroids to develop a nuclear weapon, while our own Administration officials issue waivers and the Senate waters down sanctions.

Meanwhile, in other parts of the world,  Japan and China are saber rattling over the Senkaku Islands, which might have repercussions for the US, as in 1960, we signed the “Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between Japan and the United States of America.”  China’s incursions into the South China Sea are escalating tensions, as  it continues to lay claim to vast tracts rich in oil and gas, while rejecting international arbitration over territorial claims.  Venezuela and Iran, have been collaborating since 2007, providing a corridor into Latin America for Iranian agents and Hezbollah operatives.  How many of them have already crossed over into the US via Mexico, establishing sleeper cells.

But the buck stops on Hillary’s desk for the apparent gross incompetence and mis-handling of the Benghazi Consulate debacle.

More evidence and confirmations are coming out from different sources that the attack on the US consulate at Benghazi was pre-meditated.  Libyan President Mohammed el-Megarif interviewed this morning by Face the Nation host, Bob Schieffer, contradicted the ridiculous explanation put forth by the Obama administration that the violence was due to a video.

 

In another interview, a Libyan guard who was at the Consulate at the time, and is now recovering from wounds suffered in the violence, gave his account supporting the assertion of pre-meditation (h/t PowerLine).

Earlier this week, the US Marine Corps spokesperson, Capt. Kendra Motz, confirmed to Breitbart, in response to an article appearing in PowerLine, that “no Marines are stationed at the Embassy in Tripoli or the Consulate in Benghazi. Security in Libya, such as it existed, apparently was provided by contractors. The Rules of Engagement under which they operated are unclear.”  More specifically, in an email to Breitbart, Motz wrote:

Regarding no Marines at the embassy/consulate in Libya:

Embassy security in Tripoli and the consulate in Benghazi fall under the Regional Security Officer with the State Department.  The U.S. maintains over 285 diplomatic facilities worldwide.  MCESG (Marine Corps Embassy Security Group) provides 152 security detachments provide internal security at designated U.S. diplomatic and consular facilities in order to prevent the compromise of classified material vital to the national security of the United States.  Perimeter security is the responsibility of the host nation police/security forces.  The embassy in Tripoli and the consulate in Benghazi do not have a MCESG detachment.  Typically, when a new embassy is established, it takes time to grow a new MCESG detachment.  In coordination with the State Department, there was discussion about establishing a detachment in Tripoli sometime in the next five years.  Overall, the plan is to grow the number of MCESG detachments worldwide to 173.

Regarding ROE [Rules of Engagement]:

The Marine Corps does not establish ROE for MCESG detachments or other embassy security forces; that is the responsibility of the State Department and/or operational commanders depending on the command relationship.  Regardless, ROE are classified and release of that information would jeopardize the Marines and U.S. interests.  Any further inquiry should be directed to the State Department, since Marine security guards report to the ambassador not to a military commander.

Breitbart has confirmed that they have filed a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain a copy of the “State Department Rules of Engagement for Libya,” which would have to be signed by Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.

While she’s been on her final ’round the world rock-star tour, with a hip, cool persona captured earlier this year with “texts from Hillary,” her legacy may yet be determined by what happens over the course of the next several weeks.  Formal investigations by Congress into the Libya and Egypt violence, which has fired up the Middle East and Muslim communities throughout the world, may show no one was at the helm of the good ship State, when a firm, experienced hand was needed most.

For Hillary, who has publicly disavowed any future run for the Presidency, 2016 may indeed be beyond reach, a shattered dream.  Shattered like the lives, hopes and dreams of the four dead Americans at the Benghazi consulate.  Shattered for their families.  Shattered for the thousands of service members killed in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Shattered for the thousands killed throughout the Middle East because of misguided foreign policy.

The Law of Karma — what goes around, comes around; you reap what you sow — has found Hillary Clinton.

SOURCE: http://www.redstate.com/politicalwoman/2012/09/16/hillary-clinton-the-law-of-karma-and-shattered-dreams/