How could Hillary of the House Clinton, First of her Name, Queen of the Little People and the Media, Protector of the Sixty States – have not been crowned?
Answer is below the fold. [Read more…]
James O’Keefe explains how her cronies engaged in (what judges have called) prosecutorial misconduct:
They apparently mis-used an anti-terrorism statute and leaked privileged material seized from O’Keefe, in throwing the book at him (one crony literally threw a book at O’Keefe, on-camera) for his having dared to investigate
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D – LA) the Princess. O’Keefe has filed ethics complaints.
Recall how in 2003, a massive scandal erupted when Richard Armitage, a State Department official under then-Secretary Colin Powell, happened to leak Valerie Plame’s name to a journalist. Plame was a CIA Stateside employee (arguably NOT under cover). Armitage was basically gossiping, and he never underwent any prosecution because it was no big deal. Except, of course, the Left/media had a field day pushing the scandal complete with the darkest possible allegations against President Bush, lionization of Plame and her partisan-liar of a husband, a federal prosecutor and a ‘gotcha’ conviction of Scooter Libby (a Bush staffer who was not the key leaker; Armitage was).
Recently, the White House leaked the name of a top CIA officer in Kabul, Afghanistan. His name was really a secret. He does serve abroad (and in a danger zone), and he is endangered by the leak. As the Washington Post puts it:
The Post is withholding the name of the CIA officer at the request of Obama administration officials who warned that the officer and his family could be at risk if the name were published…
The CIA officer was one of 15 senior U.S. officials identified as taking part in a military briefing for Obama…Their names were included on a list…circulated by e-mail to reporters…
It is unclear whether the disclosure will force the CIA to pull the officer out of Afghanistan…The identities of at least three CIA station chiefs in Pakistan have been exposed in recent years. In one case, a CIA officer became a target of death threats after his cover was blown, forcing the agency to rush him out of the country.
Should we expect any big scandal, Left/media outrage, federal prosecutors or trumped-up convictions over this?
These items have been all over, and deserve to be noticed here at GayPatriot.
Liberal bias, in media & academia? Why, yes.
More people seeing that the Emperor Has No Clothes? Thankfully, yes.
IRS / Tea Party scandal as real as ever? Yup.
FROM THE (OTHER) COMMENTS: In the other Koch Derangement Syndrome thread, some fine comments are relevant here.
One should ask why the IRS doesn’t target all that union money? Or target, to coin a phrase, “organizations woven by the fabulously rich and hugely influential George Soros”?
AND SOME FOLLOW-UPS:
We know that the Obama administration lied to America during the 2012 election, about Benghazi. And about “If you like your plan you can keep it”, and many other matters, such as the fact that the IRS was helping to stifle Obama’s grass-roots opposition.
Now the New York Post alleges that the declining unemployment rate (announced in the last few weeks of the election) was faked.
It looks like lower-level employees did it; probably tough to blame it on Obama directly. But that touches on a classic ethical question. If the guy at the top is kept in a bubble by people who cheat and lie extensively on his behalf (and don’t usually tell him), is he culpable? At what point?
Also, how much election-year lying does it take to de-legitimize a Presidential election? (If, or since, he only won by giving people false information.) Did President Obama reach that point in 2012?
In the last week, Hillary made $400,000 from Goldman-Sachs.
I’m not certain that’s money going to her personally, but it seems likely. It would be interesting to see what she takes in campaign contributions also.
Goldman-Sachs is a top political donor. Although they favored Romney in 2012, they favored President Obama even more in 2008. And they were rewarded hugely when Obama sealed the bailouts that President Bush began; not just the money funneled to Goldman via the AIG – TARP bailouts, but also the Dodd-Frank bill that guarantees Goldman future bailouts, the Federal Reserve’s general money-printing, etc.
Goldman is also the single largest backer of Sen. Chuck Schumer (D). The corrupt Jon Corzine (D) was a former top Goldman employee, as was Bush’s Treasury secretary (Hank Paulsen).
So these guys get their way with both parties, and internationally to boot. They are near the heart of the Big Government – Big Banking nexus (that isn’t capitalism).
Rielle Hunter admits wrongdoing, in moral language for her affair with John Edwards:
“For years I was so viciously attacked by the media and the world that I felt like a victim. I now realize that the attacks are actually beside the point. The point is: I behaved badly.”
Hunter apologized for her “wrong, selfish behavior,” admitting that she did not consider the “scope” of her actions when she became involved with Edwards in 2006 and how it “could hurt so many people.” She specifically apologized for the pain she inflicted on Elizabeth Edwards, who died of breast cancer in 2010.
“I hurt Elizabeth and her kids. I hurt her family. I hurt John’s family. I hurt people that knew Elizabeth. I hurt people who didn’t know Elizabeth but loved her from afar. I hurt people who gave their hard earned dollars to a campaign — a cause they believed in,” she wrote. “I hurt people who are married and believe in marriage. Many of these people have let me know that I hurt them. Unfortunately, I was not thinking about anyone but myself. I was selfish. I fell in love with John Edwards and wanted to be with him and that desire trumped everything else. “
I’m remarking on it because the no-responsibility, no-moral language, no-admission, “I’m sorry if YOU got offended by me; what am I supposed to do?” non-apology has become such a staple of modern culture. And this appears to be the opposite.
On the cynical side: Hunter is trying to sell her book right now. But if we (as a culture) have reached the point where wrong-doers finally have to give convincing apologies if they want to make news and sell books…I don’t know, it might be positive? Should we hope it gets trendy?
I know this clip is everywhere today, but it’s everywhere for a reason: Weiner’s angry cluelessness is almost too appalling for words.
It shows one of life’s classic moral confrontations.
Hat tip, Michelle Malkin.
I’ve noticed something odd in the administration’s arguments for attacking Syria. They emphasize that chemical weapons were used, but on the crucial dispute over “who did it”, they offer almost nothing beyond mere assertions. (One example here.) It’s almost as if the administration has not wanted people to stop and think about Syria.
I am still keeping an open mind, that the administration’s version of events in Syria could be true. But, for sake of argument, here are some articles giving reason to question it:
It may be worth considering “who benefits” from Obama attacking Syria. Reports say that Saudi Arabia backs the rebels (although I am not sure why they do, unless it’s part of their complicated dance with Russia over the future of OPEC and world energy). Wouldn’t it be ironic, if the Obama administration is acting at the Saudis’ behest?
But I must admit that Obama has finally done something right, in seeking Congress’ authorization to attack Syria.
I think it would be a great mistake for Congress, and especially for the GOP, to authorize in haste – before the many serious, open questions about Syria have been answered to the public’s satisfaction. I do not agree with Speaker Boehner, yet, on supporting a U.S. attack on Syria.
FROM THE COMMENTS: mixitup reminds us that, actually, Obama himself benefits from his attacking Syria. How? “Benghazi, IRS scandal, NSA scandal, gun running scandal [ed: Fast And Furious], unemployment, sad economy…are off the front pages…”
UPDATE: Michael Synder (the Economic Collapse Blog) suggests that the Syrian crisis could really be about which powers get to build pipelines where, to sell whose natural gas to Europe.
I rejected “pipeline thinking” in debates over the wars of a decade ago (Afghanistan, Iraq) – because U.S. security interests were a good-enough explanation for those wars. Again, Syria in 2013 is different. With U.S., NATO, Israeli and even Saudi security *not* obviously at stake in Syria, one may as well start wondering about other explanations for the crisis.
Victor Davis Hanson published a memorable piece in the National Review last week entitled “America as Pill Bug.” The pill bug or the roly-poly bug is one that turns itself into a ball when it feels threatened. Hanson writes:
That roly-poly bug can serve as a fair symbol of present-day U.S. foreign policy, especially in our understandable weariness over Iraq, Afghanistan, and the scandals that are overwhelming the Obama administration.
On August 4, U.S. embassies across the Middle East simply closed on the basis of intelligence reports of planned al-Qaeda violence. The shutdown of 21 diplomatic facilities was the most extensive in recent American history.
Yet we still have over a month to go before the twelfth anniversary of the attacks on September 11, 2001, an iconic date for radical Islamists.
Such preemptive measures are no doubt sober and judicious. Yet if we shut down our entire public profile in the Middle East on the threat of terrorism, what will we do when more anti-American violence arises? Should we close more embassies for more days, or return home altogether?
Hanson makes an excellent point about the way the Obama administration’s closure of embassies is likely to be viewed in the Arab world and around the globe. Although, as Jeff pointed out in a post last week, the administration may have ulterior motives–by trying to create a distraction–by closing the embassies in this manner, the reality is that the interpretation of the administration’s actions by our international foes is likely to proceed in a manner similar to that Hanson envisions in his article.
Hanson looks at the example of Libya and Syria to illustrate that the administration’s “lead from behind” strategy is not working, and that it appears to be counterproductive:
Instead, the terrorists are getting their second wind, as they interpret our loud magnanimity as weakness — or, more likely, simple confusion. They increasingly do not seem to fear U.S. retaliation for any planned assaults. Instead, al-Qaeda franchises expect Americans to adopt their new pill-bug mode of curling up until danger passes.
Our enemies have grounds for such cockiness. President Obama promised swift punishment for those who attacked U.S. installations in Benghazi and killed four Americans. So far the killers roam free. Rumors abound that they have been seen publicly in Libya.
Instead of blaming radical Islamist killers for that attack, the Obama reelection campaign team fobbed the assault off as the reaction to a supposedly right-wing, Islamophobic videomaker. That yarn was untrue and was greeted as politically correct appeasement in the Middle East.
All these Libyan developments took place against a backdrop of “lead from behind.” Was it wise for American officials to brag that the world’s largest military had taken a subordinate role in removing Moammar Qaddafi — in a military operation contingent on approval from the United Nations and the Arab League but not the U.S. Congress?
No one knows what to do about the mess in Syria. But when you do not know what to do, it is imprudent to periodically lay down “red lines.” Yet the administration has done just that to the Bashar al-Assad regime over the last two years.
Hanson sees the Obama administration’s foreign policy as a disastrous replay of the Carter doctrine, once again illustrating Glenn Reynolds’ frequent observation that a replay of Jimmy Carter is simply the “best-case scenario” for Obama.
While I believe Hanson is right in his characterization of the big picture and the likely consequences of Obama foreign policy, I’d differ from him in seeing Obama as being as feckless and weak as Carter. I’d maintain that Carter’s foreign policy was guided by a number of naive precepts about the nature of the world. At least during the years of his presidency, I’d contend that Carter “meant well” in the way the phrase is commonly used to describe a hopelessly incompetent bumbler who seems incapable of recognizing his own shortcomings. Likewise, early in the Obama administration, Tammy Bruce started referring to Obama as Urkel, the nerdy, awkward, inept kid from the TV show “Family Matters” who had an uncanny ability to mess up almost everything he touched. That certainly is one narrative for what Obama is doing in the world of foreign policy, but I’m not sure it is the right one.
As I contemplate Obama foreign policy, though, particularly in the Middle East, I find myself thinking more and more that although incompetence might be the simplest explanation, it might not be the best or the right one. I see no good intentions in the administration’s domestic policy, so why should its foreign policy be exempt from charges that it is motivated more by malevolence to the United States and its role in history than by a supposed set of “liberal” ideals?
This is an administration that seems bent on alienating all of our historical allies as quickly as possible, while taking it easy on our geopolitical foes. Obama seems to want our allies to view us as unreliable and untrustworthy while making sure our enemies view us as weak, indecisive, and either unable or unwilling to use force to protect our interests or to enforce our stated policy goals. If there is a better explanation of the administration’s ultimate foreign policy goals, I’d sure like to know what it might be.