The changing of the Benghazi Talking Points for Political Reasons was not Political according to CIA

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 5th, 2014

Week in Review

Susan Rice said it.  Hillary Clinton said it.  And President Obama said it.  Over and over again.  The attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was due to a YouTube video that incited a spontaneous protest that resulted with an attack on the mission with assault weapons and pre-sighted mortars.  Highly improbable but that’s what they said.  Over and over again.  It wasn’t a terrorist attack.  Because President Obama killed Osama bin Laden and won the War on Terror.  The 2012 campaign slogan was Osama bin Laden is dead.  General Motors is alive.  And al Qaeda is on the ropes.  On the run.  No longer a threat to the United States.  That’s why we had to reelect President Obama.  For he sure couldn’t point to any successes when it came to the economy.

Of course beefing up security in Benghazi would have harmed that narrative.  So while the British were pulling out of Benghazi because a resurgent al Qaeda was making it too dangerous the U.S. State Department denied Ambassador Steven’s request for additional security.  Because a resurgent al Qaeda was making it very dangerous in Benghazi.  But the American people didn’t hear that.  No.  All they heard was that Osama bin Laden is dead.  General Motors is alive.  And al Qaeda is on the ropes.  On the run.  No longer a threat to the United States.  Of course the murder of four Americans in Benghazi said otherwise (see Former CIA official: No politics in Benghazi memo by DONNA CASSATA, AP, posted 4/2/2014 on Yahoo! News).

The CIA’s former deputy director said Wednesday he deleted references to terrorism warnings from widely disputed talking points on the deadly 2012 Benghazi attack to avoid the spy agency’s gloating at the expense of the State Department…

Morell, a 33-year veteran of the agency who has served six Republican and Democratic presidents, insisted that politics had no bearing on the revisions to the talking points and said he was under no pressure to protect either President Barack Obama or then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton…

The White House, wrapped up in a fierce presidential campaign, made only minor editorial changes to the talking points, according to the onetime CIA official.

The intelligence community’s talking points, compiled for members of Congress, suggested the Sept. 11 attack stemmed from protests in Cairo and elsewhere over an anti-Islamic video rather than an assault by extremists.

Republicans have accused the Obama administration of trying to mislead the American people about an act of terrorism in the final weeks before the November election.

Morell deleted references to extremist threats linked to al-Qaida in versions of the talking points that were used by Susan Rice, then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, in a series of Sunday talk show appearances. Morell said his actions were driven by the information provided by intelligence community analysts and the Defense Department.

The deleted references to terrorism in the talking points were not political?  His revisions to the talking points were not to protect either President Barack Obama or then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton?  Funny.  As that’s exactly what they did.  They protected President Obama and helped him win reelection.  And they protected Hillary Clinton.  Who is now the Democrat frontrunner for 2016.  Well, so far, at least.

The left is still trying to blame 9/11 (the first one in 2001) on President Bush and Condoleezza Rice.  For missing the signs that al Qaeda was a threat.  And that something big was coming.  Can you imagine the fury over Benghazi had it happened under President Bush’s watch?  While they were in a campaign season?  There would be no talking point revisions.  They would have lambasted President Bush and Condoleezza Rice.  The press would have torn into this story like a pack of hyenas tearing into a gazelle.  The media would have crapped all over the Bush administration.  But the Obama administration?  When the president, Hilary Clinton and Susan Rice all lied about a YouTube video?  Over and over again?  When the CIA revised the talking points so it didn’t sound like there was a problem with terrorism anymore?  All lies.  And a huge cover-up.  But we hear nothing but the sound of crickets from the media.

Sure, they can say it wasn’t political.  But the result of those revisions was very political.  It helped President Obama win reelection.  Because he had al Qaeda on the run.  Which he didn’t.  In fact, his foreign policy has made the world a more dangerous place.  For al Qaeda is resurgent everywhere.  In Egypt.  Libya.  Syria.  Iraq.  Afghanistan.  Yemen.  And elsewhere.  Oh, and Iran is working on a nuclear bomb.  And Vladimir Putin annexed Crimea to Russia.  Because he could.  This stuff is happening in part because people voted for President Obama believing the lie that al Qaeda was on the run.  When it wasn’t.  And because we reelected President Obama his failed foreign policy continues.  As the bad people of the world stand up and take notice.

The United States of America under President Obama is weak.  It may talk the talk but it sure doesn’t walk the walk.  So the bad guys are getting bolder.  Knowing the time is right to push the United States around.  For we are a sleeping bear that just can’t be wakened.  Apparently.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

It turns out that there are some Similarities between Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Putin

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 23rd, 2014

Week in Review

Hillary Clinton compared Vladimir Putin to Adolf Hitler over his excuse to enter Crimea.  To protect ethnic Russians.  Much like the excuse Hitler used to enter the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia.  To protect ethnic Germans.  Because the Czechoslovakians were oppressing them.  A trumped up charge.  Much like Vladimir Putin’s claims that the Ukrainians were oppressing the Russians in Crimea.  Clinton received some blowback for her comparison of Putin to Hitler so she walked it back a little.  But was she wrong in her comparison?

Actually, no.  For there are Crimea-Sudetenland similarities.  But it probably ends there.  For Hitler had much bigger goals.  He wanted to recover all of the Germanic lands lost in the wake of World War I.  For he felt the Germanic people were special.  Even thought of them as the master race.  And loved Germanic mythology.  Especially those featuring Germanic glory.  And the destiny of the Germanic master race.  Which is why he loved Richard Wagner.  And could listen to those 5-hour operas all day long.

He planned on taking Slavic lands (especially the breadbasket of Europe—Ukraine) for living space.  Lebensraum.  To take their food for the master race.  Leaving the Slavs to starve to death.  Expanding the borders of Greater Germany.  To fulfill the Germanic people’s destiny.  That’s what Hitler wanted.  But Putin surely doesn’t share any similar goals as these (see Vladimir Putin’s heroes: Russian president motivated by writers’ messianic view of country’s destiny by Joseph Brean posted 3/21/2014 on the National Post).

…a young mystic poet and philosopher named Vladimir Solovyov gave his first public lecture in Saint Petersburg. A “wild looking” intellectual gadfly with long hair and “fiery” eyes, he expressed a vision of Russian destiny that, a century later, has made him a philosophical hero of the man behind Russia’s latest Crimean adventure, the long-serving autocratic President Vladimir Putin.

“The lecture had a markedly conservative agenda, close to the Slavophile belief in Russia’s divinely inspired historical mission,” according to Solovyov’s biographer, Judith Deutsch Kornblatt. “In it, he criticizes the blind, monolithic power of the East as well as the fragmented power of the West; the former destroys the freedom of the individual, while the latter leads to unchecked egoism and anarchy.”

Solovyov’s argument — still so relevant that Mr. Putin reportedly assigns his political underlings to read him — was that “hope for the future resides only with a third people, the Slavs,” whose national character integrates the other two extremes…

Mr. Putin is a product of the Soviet Union and sees its collapse as the greatest disaster of the modern era, a view that is rooted in a deeper narrative about Moscow as the “Third Rome,” said Neil MacFarlane, Lester B. Pearson Professor of International Relations at the University of Oxford, focused on the politics of the former Soviet Union.

The collapse of Russia under his predecessor, Boris Yeltsin, further strengthened Mr. Putin’s resolve to restore its former glory, and writers like Solovyov — obscured during Soviet rule, he rose in prominence following the 1980s Glasnost policy of openness — had a “visceral appeal.”

Russia’s divinely inspired historical mission?  Moscow is the Third Rome?  The collapse of the Soviet Union is the greatest disaster of the modern era?  Return the former glory of Russia?  Perhaps Hillary Clinton didn’t need to walk anything back after all.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FT211: “Criticizing a woman’s policies doesn’t mean you’re a sexist or are afraid of strong women.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 28th, 2014

Fundamental Truth

You can call a Man Fatso but not a Woman because of the Double Standard when it comes to being Fat

Back when David Letterman was on NBC and the show was called Late Night with David Lettermen they had an old football player on one night.  I think he was a defensive linesman or a linebacker.  Who played football before there was money in playing football.  Back then it was just guys playing a game hard and then getting drunk afterwards.

On this episode of Late Night this football player was telling a story about one game.  It was late in the fourth quarter.  The score was already decided.  Nothing could happen to change who was going to win the game.  But the other team was still playing hard.  Trying to win.  So after one play he wandered over and entered the other team’s huddle and said something like, “Come on, guys.  Let’s just wrap this up and go get some beers already.”  At which point one of his teammates yelled over to him from the other huddle, “Hey fatso!  You’re in the wrong huddle.”

“Hey fatso!  You’re in the wrong huddle.”  It’s funny.  For that’s the way guys are.  They hurl insults at each other.  And if you were a heavy guy there was nothing wrong with calling you ‘fatso’.  It’s the way men joke around.  It doesn’t work with women, though.  If you have an overweight female coworker and you address her as fatso you’ll find yourself in sensitivity awareness training.  Or fired.  Because there is a double standard when it comes to being fat.  You can call a man fatso.  But not a woman.

Anyone espousing Keynesian Policies should be Criticized for they are doing Harm to the Economy

The political opposition and the main stream media treat President Obama with kid gloves.  They will not attack him.  Or even criticize his policies.  Because President Obama is the first black president.  And the political opposition and the mainstream media are terrified that someone will call them racist if they do.  They fear that so much they’d rather see the economy collapse from his Keynesian economic policies than risk being called a racist.

President Obama is a Keynesian.  Like most people in Washington making policy are.  Which is a shame.  As the historical record clearly shows these policies fail.  But our politicians still manipulate interest rates.  And spend money.  Believing in the fallacy of demand-side economics.  Which didn’t work to end the Great Depression.  It only made the stagflation of the Seventies worse.  It created a dot-com bubble and a dot-com recession.  And it created a housing bubble and a subprime mortgage crisis.  Giving us the Great Recession.  And further Keynesian policies on top of these past failed policies have given us the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression.

So anyone espousing Keynesian policies should be attacked and criticized.  For they are doing harm to the economy.  And the country.  Which is why the Democrats love President Obama.  (Well, at least before Obamacare threatened their reelection chances).  Because they can have him do all the things they want to do.  Manipulate interest rates.  Keep them near zero.  By printing money.  And then borrow even more money at those near-zero interest rates.  Allowing the government to go on an orgy of spending.  That’s why they love President Obama.  (Well, at least before Obamacare threatened their reelection chances).  For if anyone criticizes this reckless and irresponsible policy they can just label them a racist.  And they immediately shut up.  Just knowing this keeps people from speaking up in the first place.

It’s easier to Lie when you can Scare away Criticism with Charges of Racism or Sexism

But the political opposition and the mainstream media have no problem calling Governor Christie a fat man.  Christie is not black.  A woman.  Or a Democrat.  So he’s fair game.  They can make the most vile fat slurs with him and it’s okay.  Fatso.  Fat-ass.  Whatever.  They don’t call it hateful.  They just laugh.  And pile on.  They’ll even go so far as to call him a fat elephant on the cover of Time Magazine.  Putting a very large profile of him that takes up most of the cover and call him the elephant in the room (a GOP reference).  Because it’s okay to call him fat-ass and every other possible fat slur you can think of.  But do you know who you can’t call fat?  Hillary Clinton.

Should Hillary Clinton run for president again the political opposition and the mainstream media will treat her with kid gloves.  They won’t call her fatso.  Or fat-ass.  Because that wouldn’t be nice.  It’s okay to use those invectives against Governor Christie.  (Just take the Christie fat slurs and replace his name with hers and see the kind of reactions you get).  But if you dare use that tone with Hillary Clinton they will label you a sexist.  Accuse you of being afraid of strong women (but not so strong as to be able to put up with fat jokes like Governor Christie).  Proof that there is a Republican war on women.  And should she win the presidency there will be little criticism of her policies.  Because no one wants to be labeled a sexist.  Or be accused of being afraid of strong women.  Especially with the first female president.  So she will get a pass on most everything she does.  Like President Obama.  Despite being as deserving of attacks and criticism.  For she is a Keynesian, too.

With only 23% of the nation identifying as liberal the left has trouble passing their liberal policies.  So they lie, of course.  A lot.  And it’s easier to lie when you can scare away criticism with charges of racism.  Or sexism.  Which is why they like President Obama so much.  (Well, at least before Obamacare threatened their reelection chances).  He was the first black president.  Which made it harder for some to criticize him.  Which helped make the lying easier.  So they will most likely try to follow this strategy.  Perhaps with Hillary Clinton.  Who may be the first female president.  Following that with other ‘firsts’.  Until the opposition and the mainstream media learn that criticizing a woman’s policies doesn’t make you a sexist.  Or afraid of strong women.  It just means you’re criticizing a person with bad policies who happens to be a woman.  Just as they will be able to criticize a black president one day.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Benghazigate versus Bridgegate

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 16th, 2014

Politics 101

Even though Hillary Clinton lied about Benghazi the Press is more Interested in Bridgegate

The Senate Intelligence Committee released its report on the 2012 attacks in Benghazi.  Surprisingly, or perhaps not surprisingly, actually more of a stating of the obvious, at least for those without their heads up their backsides in blind adoration of President Obama, those who can find no fault with him or his administration no matter how many scandals and lies we catch them in, as their heads are up their aforementioned backsides, the report does not agree with the Obama administration version of what caused this tragedy (see Senate report: Attacks on U.S. compounds in Benghazi could have been prevented by Adam Goldman and Anne Gearan posted 1/15/2014 on The Washington Post).

A long-delayed Senate Intelligence Committee report released Wednesday faulted both the State Department and the intelligence community for not preventing attacks on two outposts in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador, in 2012.

The bipartisan report laid out more than a dozen findings regarding the assaults on a diplomatic compound and a CIA annex in the city. It said the State Department failed to increase security at its mission despite warnings, and blamed intelligence agencies for not sharing information about the existence of the CIA outpost with the U.S. military…

The document contains only one mention of then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton…

President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton and UN Ambassador Rice all stated publically that the attack in Benghazi was caused by a spontaneous protest over an obscure YouTube video.  They didn’t say it once.  They said it again and again.  It was the YouTube video.  Period.  Which can’t be true if the State Department could have prevented this attack.  For the only way that could have happened was if there were in fact identified security issues that were promptly ignored by the Obama administration.  Not an unknown and unexpected spontaneous protest out of nowhere one day.  So they all lied.  It was planned and coordinated.  And had nothing to do with that obscure YouTube video.

And yet they only mentioned Secretary Clinton once in their report.  Odd considering she failed to do everything she could to protect her people and then lied about it.  You’d think that would warrant more than one mention.  This is big news.  At least you’d think it would be.  But other than a few newspapers and Fox News the media isn’t talking about how Secretary Clinton lied.  Instead they are more interested if another politician lied.  A governor.  In New Jersey.  Who the polls show is the greatest threat against a Hillary Clinton presidency.  They want to know what Chris Christie knew.  When he knew it.  And if he lied about knowing it.

Hillary Clinton’s Incompetence and Indifference to Americans dying doesn’t Interest the Press

They call it Bridgegate.  A play on Watergate.  Something a young Hillary Clinton went after Richard Nixon like a hyena tearing away at the entrails of a fallen prey.  Because Nixon lied.  He knew about a rank amateur burglary after the fact.  And then used the power of the executive branch to try and cover it up.  Much like the Obama administration has done often.  Only Nixon didn’t have a complicit press that would do whatever they could for their dear leader.  But I digress.

Apparently the mayor of Fort Lee, N.J., didn’t endorse Governor Christie in his reelection campaign.  And as payback a couple of Christie’s staffers closed some traffic lanes on the George Washington Bridge to cause the mother of all traffic backups in Fort Lee.  No one died like in Benghazi.  But this is what the press and the Democrats (even the Democrats outside of the press) want to know about.  And some are even using the ‘I’ word.  Impeachment (see Subpoenas Expected for Chris Christie Aides Over Bridge Scandal by GILLIAN MOHNEY posted 1/12/2014 on ABC News).

Legislative subpoenas could be served to the aides of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie as early as Monday sources told ABC News today.

Christie has been under intense political scrutiny after it was revealed that some of his top political aides shut down key traffic lanes on the George Washington Bridge — the busiest bridge in the world — in September for what appear to be politically motivated reasons…

Some Democratic lawmakers are saying that Christie could face impeachment hearings if it turns out he knew about the lane closures and authorized them.

Wow.  Completely different from the approach in getting answers from Secretary Clinton.  Where when she finally appeared before Congress the Democrats spent more time puckering up and kissing her backside.  And when she said “what difference does it make” if it was her incompetence and indifference to Americans dying or if it was some spontaneous protest where average ordinary Muslims pulled rocket propelled grenades and mortars out of their wallets and purses to storm the American mission in a military assault they applauded her moxy.  Saying, “You go, girl.”  Figuratively, of course.

Without an Independent and Free Press you can’t keep Government Honest

It’s not so much a double standard as it is a biased press.  Much of the mainstream media today is more an extension of the Democrat Party than a free press.  Who spend more time writing propaganda for the left.  Democrats.  Elitists who think like they think.  And know as they know that they are better, wiser and more enlightened than the ignorant masses.  This is why they are foaming at the mouth over Bridgegate.  And ignore Secretary Clinton’s incompetence and indifference over the attack in Benghazi.  She who criticized candidate Barack Obama and his lack of experience.  Saying he wouldn’t know what to do if he got that 3 AM call like she would.  “There’s trouble brewing in Benghazi as we approach the anniversary of 9/11?  Well, what do you want me to do about it?”  Or, perhaps, it was something more like this.  “Tell it to someone who gives a damn.”  Of course it should be noted that this trouble did not start with a 3 AM telephone call.  It was a gradual buildup of trouble that she responded to with incompetence and indifference.

It’s sad what the American press has come to.  Even Britain with her socialist tendencies following World War II at least still has a fierce free press.  That will speak truth to power.  Put their country first instead of puckering up and kissing the backsides of those in the political party they favor.  Ignoring their lies, crimes and misdemeanors.  Such as letting Americans die so as not to spoil the campaign narrative.  Al Qaeda was reeling and in retreat.  And they couldn’t allow security concerns in Libya to upset that message.  So they abandoned the Americans in Benghazi.  And hoped the resurgence of al Qaeda in Libya wouldn’t hurt President Obama’s reelection chances.  And counted on their friends in the media not to question and disseminate the lie about the YouTube video causing a spontaneous protest that caused average Muslims to pull out rocket propelled grenades and mortars from their wallets and purses to wage war.  Now contrast the sycophant American press to the British press (see David Cameron says British Press plays ‘vital’ role in democracy by Matthew Holehouse posted 1/17/2014 on The Telegraph).

“At its best, the British Press, the political Press, have a vital role to play in our country.

“Yes: rowdy, tenacious, sceptical, uncontrollable, often uncomfortable for our politicians. But British political reporting is deservedly respected around the world, for the way it probes, it inquires, it scrutinises, and these things are linchpins of our democracy…”

Mr Cameron spoke movingly of a trip he made, accompanied by political reporters including from the Daily Telegraph, to a newspaper office in northern Sri Lanka, where journalists had been murdered after criticising the government.

“It was an incredibly powerful moment. It was a reminder of just how fortunate we are in this country to have a Press that is free, that is open, that is able to stand up to the powerful.”

Without an independent and free press how do you keep government honest?  How do you protect the American people from the lies, crimes and misdemeanors of government?  You can’t.  Instead you get propaganda that helps the powerful grow more powerful.  And it eventually gets to the point that politicians no longer debate in the arena of ideas.  They just look for opportunities to destroy their enemies.  Challengers to their power.  Like Chris Christie.  Who polls better against Hillary Clinton than any other potential Republican candidate.  So they attack Christies over Bridgegate.  To destroy him.  And they circle the wagons around Hillary Clinton to protect her from her incompetence and indifference over Benghazigate.  While never worrying what their helping the powerful to become more powerful could do one day.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Our Free Press has become an Extension of the Democrat Party instead of Safeguarding Democracy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 9th, 2014

Politics 101

Our Free Press embraced the George Washington Bridge Scandal to ignore Robert Gates’ Autobiography

“The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.”  A quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and Wendell Phillips.  To name a few.  John Philpot Curran may have said it first when he said, “The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.”

This is why the Founding Fathers gave us the First Amendment.  And freedom of the press.  Which exercises that eternal vigilance.  To safeguard democracy.  By keeping government transparent.  And making it difficult for government to hide things from the American people.  Especially when those in power use their positions of power for self interest.  Instead of the public’s interest.

So this is the free press as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.  Is it still that noble institution?  Well, you be the judge.  Recently Robert Gates just published a tell-all memoir putting the Obama administration in a very poor light.  Saying things like Vice President Joe Biden has been wrong on every important foreign policy issue.  That senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama voted against the surge in Iraq for political reasons.  What was best for them.  Not their country.  And that as much as Candidate Obama said Iraq was the wrong war while Afghanistan was the right war he never believed in the war in Afghanistan.  He didn’t have any interest in winning.  Only in getting out.  Big news.  But now you don’t hear anything about it because someone in Chris Christie’s administration caused gridlock on the roads leading to the George Washington Bridge.

President Obama sacrificed the Americans in Benghazi for the sake of a Campaign Message

The George Washington Bridge scandal has gripped the media.  It’s all they can talk about.  Unlike those ‘phony scandals’ president Obama complained about that the Republicans were creating out of nothing.  Like the ATF Fast and Furious scandal.  Gunwalking to put thousands of weapons on the street.  So the Obama administration could pick them up after they were used in a crime and say, “See?  We need to pass new gun control legislation.”  In Fast and Furious that meant new controls for multiple rifle sales or long guns.  As explained in Demand Letter 3.  One of these guns killed a U.S. border agent.  And countless people in Mexico.  But that was a phony scandal.  Not a real one like the George Washington Bridge scandal.

The Solyndra scandal funneled money to a maker of solar arrays that was bleeding money.  To delay the bankruptcy until after the 2010 midterm elections the Obama administration promised the largest private investor—and Obama donor—to restructure the loan.  To put him above the taxpayers in any bankruptcy filing.  In violation of Section 1702(d)(3) of Energy Policy Act of 2005.  The Obama administration did.  And the taxpayers’ ate the private investor’s loss.  But that was a phony scandal.  Not a real one like the George Washington Bridge scandal.

With the death of Osama bin Laden President Obama said al Qaeda was reeling.  On the ropes.  On the path to being no more.  And he was going to ride this foreign policy achievement into the 2012 presidential election.  Which is why when Ambassador Stevens requested additional security at the Benghazi mission the Obama administration denied his request.  For how would it look if they were beefing up security in the country they just liberated when the threat from al Qaeda was receding?  The problem was that al Qaeda was resurgent in Libya.  It was so dangerous the British pulled out completely after an attack on their people.  But President Obama sacrificed the Americans in Benghazi for the sake of a campaign message.  And after four Americans died President Obama, Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice blamed their deaths on a spontaneous protest that turned deadly due to an obscure anti-Muslim video no one had heard of in Benghazi.  A spontaneous protest where people had rocket propelled grenades.  And mortars that were pre-sighted on their targets.  Things few people normally carry on them.  The administration lied and they stonewalled Congress over Benghazi.  Hiding the truth.  Of how politics trumped the lives of four Americans.  But that was a phony scandal.  Not a real one like the George Washington Bridge scandal.

Our Free Press is NOT exercising that Eternal Vigilance that safeguards Democracy

CBS correspondent Sharyl Attkisson was one of the few in the media to investigate the Obama administration.  Breaking stories on Fast and Furious.  And Benghazi.  Someone hacked into her computer in late 2012.  Someone sophisticated who was searching for something on her computer.  And knew how to cover their electronic tracks.  Well, almost.  The Obama Justice Department denied any involvement.  But they did spy on reporters at the Associated Press.  And Fox News journalist James Rosen.   Attorney General Eric Holder even personally signed an affidavit naming him a potential criminal for doing his job.  And then lied under oath when asked in Congress.  Saying he didn’t get involved with the prosecution of journalists for doing their jobs.  Even though he had.  But these were phony scandals.  Not a real one like the George Washington Bridge scandal.

And then there was the IRS scandal.  Which targeted enemies of the Obama administration.  Holding up tax-exempt status for Tea Party groups.  Hindering their ability to fund raise and exercise their free speech during the 2012 presidential election.  And conservative donors faced punitive IRS audits.  Dissuading others from donating.  Further hindering fund raising and free speech.  The Obama administration said that those responsible were low-office holders in the Cincinnati office.  But when the head of the tax exempt division, Lois Lerner, appeared before Congress she pleaded the Fifth Amendment.  For the paper trail led to her.  And possibly into the White House.  For she was an active Democrat supporter.  And wasn’t above breaking the law to help her party.  Such as violating Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code.  Forbidding her to disclose income tax return information to anyone.  Even another governmental agency.  Which she did.  And now we learn that the Justice Department lead investigator for the IRS scandal is a Democrat donor.  But the IRS scandal was a phony scandal.  Not a real one like the George Washington Bridge scandal.

Of all of these scandals which one are you most familiar with?  Probably the George Washington Bridge scandal.  Because our free press is NOT exercising that eternal vigilance that safeguards democracy.  They have become an extension of the Democrat Party.  Putting politics above the wellbeing of the people.  Helping the Democrats to advance their agenda.  While hiding their scandals.  To destroy what the Founding Fathers gave us.  Liberty.  And expand one-party rule.  Putting us on the road to servitude.  Just as John Philpot Curran warned.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Is the Road to National Health Care through Incompetence or Deviousness?

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 19th, 2013

Politics 101

The American Left is always trying to Expand the Role of Government in our Lives

Hillary Clinton tried it.  When her husband was president.  Give us national health care.  But there was terrific blowback.  Because people didn’t want it.  For they were afraid it would take the best health care system in the world (it’s the United States the richest people in the world go to for their more serious health problems) and do, well, what Obamacare is doing to it now.

The American left is always trying to expand the role of government in our lives.  To make people more dependent on government.  Because once they are they will soon discover something very beneficial to the left.  They will learn that they need government.  And once they do they will keep voting for the party that promises to expand government ever more.

This is why the left so wants national health care.  For it makes people need government.  To stay alive.  And that pays big dividends at those annoying things that come around every 2 years that the left hates.  And thinks is beneath them.  Elections.

The Lesson the American Left learned from the Failure of Hillarycare was to Lie Better

Liberals are a bunch of elitists.  They think they are better and smarter than the rest of us.  Which is why they feel they have the right to tell us how to live our lives.  For in their eyes we’re just too stupid to know what’s best for us.  Much like the British nobles felt about their petulant North American colonists.  They’d have preferred we appreciated all that the Crown was doing for them.  Thank them.  And shut the hell up.  This is the mindset of the American left.

The British Crown did not like their American colonists questioning the established order of power.  Neither do liberals.  For they believe that they are a privileged class.  And should live under a different set of rules.  Like they continue to show us all the time as they implement Obamacare.  As they forced the majority of Americans to lose the health insurance, doctors and medicine they liked and wanted to keep waivers went out to those connected to the liberal ruling class.  And actual members of the ruling class.  Such as those Congressional staffers getting illegal subsidies for their gold-plated health care plans while ordinary Americans lost their bare-bones plans because the Affordable Care Act made them unaffordable.

Was this an unintended consequence of the Affordable Care Act?  Well, being that the promise that if you like your health insurance, doctors and medicine and wanted to keep them but now can’t as the year’s biggest lie, it makes one think.  If they lied why did they lie?  To do what was best for the American people?  Or was it because they learned a powerful lesson from the failure of Hillarycare?  That the people don’t want national health care.  So if that’s what you want you can’t tell the American people that.  No.  You lie to them.  Which is why President Obama and his fellow Democrats lied.  Because they knew the American people didn’t want the [deleted expletive] they were shoveling.

The American Left looks upon us with the same Contempt as the British Nobility looked upon the American Colonists

Originally the Affordable Care Act included a public option.  National health care for those who opted for national health care.  But this just didn’t pass the smell test.  For there were Democrats who had one of those nasty things they hated coming up.  An election.  And these Democrats knew that their constituents, though they voted Democrat, would not go for national health care in sheep’s clothing.  So they had to remove the public option from the bill.  For it was just too painfully obvious what their ultimate intentions were.  Which left them with Plan B.

People like their health insurance, doctors and medicine.  And you’re not going to usher in national health care when they have these things.  For they know that the VA and Medicaid (examples of national health care already in America) is second-class health care.  I mean, those rich people coming to the United States for their more serious health problems aren’t demanding to get into the VA or Medicaid programs.  So to get national health care you first have to destroy the private health insurance system.  And candidate Obama told the SEIU that it may take awhile (see The Fix Is In: From ObamaCare Set-Up To Single-Payer Solution by Larry Bell posted 11/26/2013 on Forbes).

“But I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out…”

So is the disastrous rollout of the Affordable Care Act just incompetence?  Or is it part of a devious plan to get what they always wanted?  National health care?  By first destroying the private health insurance that gave people the health insurance, doctors and medicine they liked and wanted to keep?  If it’s incompetence that isn’t good for the American people.  For these same incompetent people will now be in charge of our health care.  With our lives literally hanging in the balance.  Or are they just devious?  Which also isn’t good for the American people.  For it means they look upon us with the same contempt as the British nobility looked upon the American colonists.  Who only cared about what was best for their privileged class.  And not the American people.

The problem the left has is one of timing.  Yes they hold the American people in contempt and believe they are privileged.  But because of elections they have to be careful about letting these truths out.  Because if they lose the Senate and don’t get the House back in the next election it could throw a wrench into their plans.  They need to destroy the private health insurance industry.  But doing so will make people hate them.  And vote against them.  So on the one hand they have to get people dependent on government as soon as possible.  To get them to need government.  But if they move too fast they may anger the people so much that they may lose in the upcoming thing a privileged class hates.  And thinks is beneath them.  An election.  Which may cause them to lose their power.  This is the dilemma the left faces in the rollout of Obamacare.  The degree to which they [deleted expletive] the American people.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Invoking the Nuclear Option to Legislate more Easily from the Bench

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 21st, 2013

Politics 101

Liberals pack the Judiciary with Liberal Judges to Write Law they can’t Write in Congress

Harry Reid and the Democrats went nuclear today.  Changing the Senate rules for the first time since the Founding.  To increase the power of those in the majority.  So they can run roughshod over those in the minority.  Thanks to the poor launch of Obamacare.  And the sinking realization that because the Democrats have so angered the people in the process of implementing the Affordable Care Act (the president and Democrats lied and people are losing their health insurance and doctors) that Democrats up for election in 2014 are going to be thrown out with extreme prejudice.  Turning the Senate over to the Republicans.  Hence the need to go nuclear now.

It’s no secret the left legislates from the bench.  Using judges to write legislation that Congress won’t.  Such as making abortion legal via Roe v. Wade.  That was a law made not by the law-makers.  The legislature.  Congress.  But by liberal judges on the bench.  Who are to interpret law.  Not write it.  But in Roe v. Wade, as in so many other laws that came to be that Congress refused to write, judges wrote law in their legal rulings.  Allowing the liberal minority to make their will the law of the land.

America is a center-right country.  Which means there are more conservatives than liberals.  In fact, only about 21% of the people identify themselves as liberal while about 40% of the people identify themselves as conservative (see Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in U.S. by Lydia Saad posted 1/12/2012 on Gallup).  Yet this 21% has implemented a lot of their liberal agenda.  How?  Liberal judges.  The key to changing the country against the will of the people.  When you can’t get the people’s representatives to write your laws you turn to the judiciary.  Which is why Harry Reid went nuclear today.  So they can pack the judiciary with liberal judges.  Before they lose the Senate.  So they will be able to write law from the bench that they won’t be able to do after they lose the Senate.

The Filibuster is the Last Line of Defense for the Minority

The filibuster is a stalling tactic.  A tool the minority can use to prevent the majority from running roughshod over them.  To protect minority rights.  For majority rule can be dangerous.  The majority could write law that restricts the rights of the minority.  Don’t like the internal combustion engine?  Well, the majority could write legislation for a costly carbon tax.  Of course, the Democrats don’t have a majority in the House.  But they do have one in the Senate.  Which confirms the president’s judicial appointments.  So if the president stacks the courts with liberal judges the left can get their carbon tax.  By writing regulations for a carbon tax instead of legislation.  And having the courts make that regulation law.  With the left saying that they had that right under their environmental regulatory powers.  And if you don’t like that sue us.

This is why the left wants to stack the courts with liberals.  Who may or may not be actual judges.  For they don’t want judges to interpret law.  They want them to write law that Congress won’t.  If the right sues the government for exceeding their constitutional authority and the case ends up in a court packed with liberal judges the right will lose.  And the unconstitutional regulation will become law.  Despite the Republican-controlled House.

The right has been holding up some exceptionally liberal Obama appointees to the bench.  Frustrating the left.  Because they can’t move their liberal agenda through the Republican held House of Representatives.  While their plan B—stacking the courts—was being blocked by the Republicans because the Democrats did not have 60 Senators in the Senate.  For if they did they could invoke cloture.  End debate.  And force a vote.  Which they would, of course, win.  Making the filibuster the last line of defense for the minority.  For if the judicial appointment only appeals to the 21% of the population the minority can filibuster until they withdraw the appointment.  And appoint someone that doesn’t appeal ONLY to 21% of the population.

When the Democrats were in the Minority they said Opposition to the Republicans was Patriotic

Back when the Republicans held the Senate during the George W. Bush administration the Democrats were holding up Bush appointees.  The Republicans broached the subject of the nuclear option.  And the left attacked Republicans.  Calling it a power grab.  An affront to the Founding Fathers.  The worst thing that could happen to our republic.  Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and other Democrats spoke on the record opposing the nuclear option.  But that was then.  This is now.  After the rollout of Obamacare.  And the very likely possibility that the Democrats will lose control of the Senate in 2014.  Now Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, et al are all for the nuclear option.

Because the Republicans are so partisan the left had no choice.  They simply wouldn’t rubber-stamp the liberal agenda.  So they had no choice but to grab power.  To run roughshod over those in the minority in Congress.  So the minority in the nation can impose their rule on the majority.  When the Democrats were in the minority in Congress they said opposition to the Republicans was patriotic.  That it made the republic healthier.  Locking the Congress into gridlock because they couldn’t get their way was fulfilling the vision of the Founding Fathers.  By preventing one-party rule.

But all that changes when they are in the majority.  And those in the 21% are fine with it.  Those in the mainstream media.  Hollywood.  Late-night television.  Even the audiences of the late-night television shows.  Who are all for debate when they are out of power.  But are fine with one-party rule when they are in power.  Because they believe that their side is the only side that matters.  Which is decidedly NOT what the Founding Fathers envisioned.  The left believes everyone should think like they think.  And if they don’t there should be laws to compel people to act like they (the left) think they should act.  Even if it requires violating the Constitution.  Like Obamacare forces people to buy something against their will for the first time in the history of the republic.  But expecting people to pay for their own birth control instead of forcing others to pay for it?  Why, that’s an affront to the Founding Fathers.  Making any law-violating power grab acceptable.  As long as it’s the left doing the law-violating and the power-grabbing.  For the left believe the end justifies the means.  Just like the Nazis did.  The communists.  And other tyrannical regimes have throughout time.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Bush didn’t Lie but President Obama Did

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 31st, 2013

 Politics 101

Bill Clinton said in a 2005 Interview that the 1981 Israeli Bombing of an Iraqi Nuke Plant was a Good Thing

“Bush lied people died.”  You heard that a lot all during President Bush’s presidency.  The left was shouting it from the mountain top.  “Bush lied people died!”  Saying that the dumbest man ever to occupy the White House fooled the most brilliant people in the world—liberal Democrats—into voting for the invasion of Iraq.  Because Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

Saddam Hussein used WMDs on March 16, 1988.  It was the closing days of the Iran-Iraq War.  In the Kurdish town of Halabja in Northern Iraq.  Hussein was no friend of the Kurds.  And the Kurds had no love for Hussein.  Which is why Kurdish guerillas fought with the Iranians against Saddam Hussein.  And after the Iranians took this Kurdish town in northern Iraq Hussein had no problem with committing an act of genocide in Halabja.  Which he did on March 16, 1988.  The largest chemical attack against a civilian population in history.

On June 7, 1981, Israel carried out a surprise bombing of an Iraqi nuclear reactor under construction.  For they feared a Saddam Hussein with nuclear weapons.  During the Persian Gulf War the Americans bombed what was left of that nuclear reactor.  For they, too, feared a Saddam Hussein with nuclear weapons.  Though publicly condemned by pretty much everyone at the time of the bombing most were probably happy the Israelis did that unpleasant task for them.  Even Bill Clinton said in a 2005 interview that the bombing was a good thing.

Saddam Hussein violated the Terms of the Gulf War Cease Fire by not Documenting the Destruction of his WMDs

The Congress saw the same intelligence the Bush administration saw in the run-up to the Iraq War.  It was so convincing that Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Harry Reid voted to give George W. Bush the authority to invade Iraq.  Who all feared a Saddam Hussein with WMDs.  For as bad as 9/11 was it could have been worse if the terrorists had WMDs.  Hussein had WMDs.  And he had no moral compunction against using them.  As proven by Halabja.  Making him a very dangerous man in a world where terrorists who hate America are in the market for WMDs.

So there was a very strong case against Saddam Hussein.  Especially when you throw in his violation of the terms of the Gulf War cease fire agreement.  In particular the documentation of his destruction of his WMDs that he agreed to do.  Which was a tantamount admission of having them.  WMDs.  But he didn’t document the destruction of his WMD stockpiles.  Because he did not destroy them.  Which meant one thing.  He still had weapons of mass destruction.  Which is probably why Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Harry Reid voted to give George W. Bush the authority to invade Iraq.  For they were terrified…of being on the wrong side of history when those WMDs they knew he had were found.

Well, we found no WMDs in Iraq.  Probably because Hussein shipped them off to Syria for safekeeping.  Assuming he would remain in power after the Iraq War.  Just as he remained in power after the Gulf War.  After the invasion nonsense was done he could go to Syria and take his WMDs back.  And perhaps get them into the hands of a terrorist for use against an American city.  To retaliate for the big headache George W. Bush gave him.  Of course his subsequent capture and execution put a wrench into all future plans he may have had.

Liberals play Fast and Loose with the Truth as Telling the Truth rarely helps the Liberal Agenda

President Obama made some promises about Obamacare during the Affordable Care Act debate.  Because the people were against it.  They didn’t want anything near quasi national health care.  So he kept saying that Obamacare wasn’t a government takeover of our health care system.  And that it would actually make the private health insurance industry better.  It would cover more.  While costing less.  And the best thing about the Affordable Care Act was this (see Obama’s pledge that ‘no one will take away’ your health plan by Glenn Kessler posted 10/30/2013 on The Washington Post).

“That means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health-care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health-care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”

The Fact Checker on The Washington Post gave this statement Four Pinocchios.  Their highest level of dishonesty.   Or ‘whoppers’.  As About The Fact Checker calls Four Pinocchios.  Basically saying the president lied about Obamacare to get the Affordable Care Act passed into law.  And lied again to win reelection.  For the election results may have been different if he had told the truth.  If he had said that some will lose their doctors and some will lose their health-care plan.  If he had said that premiums and deductibles would rise.  If he had would the people who had insurance and doctors they liked vote for him?  No.  Probably not. 

So President Obama and the Democrats told lies that deceived a great many people to get what he couldn’t get by telling the truth.  Obamacare.  One of the most divisive pieces of legislation ever passed in Congress.  Passed on purely partisan lines.  No Republicans voted for the Affordable Care Act.  Unlike the legislation that gave George W. Bush the authority to invade Iraq.  Which had bipartisan support.  With both Republicans and Democrats voting for it.  Yet the left said, “Bush lied people died.”  But when it comes to President Obama’s flagrant lies about the Affordable Care Act all you hear are crickets from the left.  Because for them the truth is whatever they say it is.  And a lie is whatever they say it is.  For the only way to pass their liberal agenda is to play fast and loose with the truth.  As telling the truth rarely helps the liberal agenda.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Perception, President Obama and the Rand Paul Filibuster

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 14th, 2013

Politics 101

Sound Bites and Photo Opportunities define our Politicians Today

Perception is in the eye of the beholder.  Are you familiar with the story about a real estate broker?  He works in a small town with a main road through it connecting two larger cities.  A lot of traffic travels this road.  This broker has two properties listed for sale.  One on the road into town.  And one on the road out of town.  All of these cars driving through this town see those two signs and think, “Wow, this guy must be the biggest broker in town.  I see his signs everywhere.”

But he is not the biggest broker in town.  But because his two signs are on the busiest road in town the perception is that he is.  Because people can’t enter the town or leave the town without seeing one of what seem to be many of his signs.  If they drove on the other streets of this town they would not see any of his signs.  While they would see a great many of his competitors’ signs.  With a detailed analysis people would conclude that this real estate broker is the smallest and least successful in town.  But with only a cursory glance he is the biggest broker in town.  This is perception.

Politicians understand perception.  So they work hard to shape what people see and hear.  And less on substance.  That’s why sound bites and photo opportunities define our politicians.  Politicians get their picture taken with babies and the down trodden to show how much they care.  Their speeches will be nothing but a series of sound bites suitable for quoting by the talking heads on television and in political ads.  And they will always answer a question with a prepared talking point.  Instead of answering the question.  And when it comes to campaigning they will take everything their opponents say out of context to change everyone’s perception about them.

Our Schools teach our Kids that a Just Society uses Government to Redistribute Wealth to make Society Fairer

Democrats are masters at creating perception.  Which is easy to do when you have the mainstream media in your pocket.  As well as college professors and high school teachers.  The entertainment industry.  The music industry.  Etc.  This small sliver of people has a profound impact on the masses.  For they dominate what people hear and learn.  And with them having a far left ideology their message is far left.  So when this small sliver of people fills our airwaves, cable television, movies and our classrooms their minority viewpoint creates the perception of being the majority viewpoint.  Like that real estate broker.  Because it’s everywhere.  While the majority of people who don’t share their ideology aren’t on television or in the movies.  On the radio or teaching our kids in the classroom.

The perception our kids have of America when graduating from high school is not that good.  Our teachers teach them that America stole the land from the Indians.  And stole Spanish America from the Spanish who stole it from the Indians.  They teach that slavery is America’s original sin.  As if America invented the institution of slavery.  Despite slavery having been around as long as civilization has been around.  They teach that America grew rich because of free slave labor.  Despite the South losing the American Civil War because the institution of slavery so impoverished the South that it was no match for what the North’s paid-labor could produce.  They teach our kids that capitalism is unfair and that profits are evil.  Despite the greatest oppression of people (as well as the lowest standards of living and greatest famines) has always been in anti-capitalistic nations (the Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China, North Korea, Cuba, the countries of Eastern Europe during the cold war, etc.).  While at the same time they teach our kids the goodness of government.  And gloss over the oppression and privations of socialist/communist countries everywhere.

So our kids graduate from high school with the perception that if government doesn’t greatly regulate the free market the greed of capitalism will cause great unfairness.  And that a just society uses government to redistribute wealth to make society fairer.  And that anyone who opposes higher taxes and greater regulation to facilitate this fairer society hates kids.  They want to pollute our air and water.  They want unsafe food.  They want women to die from cancer.  They hate the planet.  Poor people.  Gay people.  Etc.  They hear this so often and so consistently that they accept it as the majority opinion.  And when they go on to college or start watching the news this perception is reinforced.  Which is why our young people vote Democrat.  Because the perception is that Democrats are for the working man.  The party that puts people before profits.  While the Republicans put rich people, and their money, before everything else.

Was it the Rand filibuster that made President Obama launch a Charm Offensive?

A big part of forming perceptions is not telling the truth. When President Obama was candidate Obama he didn’t want to nationalize health care.  He opposed same-sex marriage.  He didn’t support gun control.  He talked about transparency.  He attacked President Bush for being fiscally irresponsible.  And for running massive deficits that added to the debt.  He talked about not spending more than the government collected.  But the real President Obama was none of this.  And the real President Obama has never left campaign mode.  For he doesn’t govern.  He continues to campaign.  Against Republicans.  Blaming them for every problem exasperated by his own policies.  And, of course, he continues to blame George W. Bush.  Always attacking Republicans.  Always blaming Republicans.  To reinforce a perception of the Republican Party that will benefit him.  And his party.  So he can win the House back in 2014.  And finally govern as he always wanted to govern.  As a president with no political opposition to restrain his powers.

The president’s Middle East foreign policy has been a disaster.  He refused to support a Democracy movement in Iran.  Our enemy.  While supporting a democracy movement in Egypt.  And in Libya.  Our allies in the War on Terror.  (But not in Syria.  An ally of Iran.)  Now the Middle East is becoming Islamist.  And closer to Iran.  Our enemy.  And the enemy of peace and stability.  This disastrous policy came to a head in Benghazi.  Where four Americans died to advance the perception that President Obama had al Qaeda on the ropes.  When in fact they were resurgent in Benghazi.  Which our ambassador knew.  And tried to tell his boss.  Hillary Clinton.  Begging for more security.  Which never came.  When questioned in Congress about who edited the talking points that Secretary Rice used on the Sunday morning talk shows to advance the lie that it was not al Qaeda but a spontaneous uprising in response to a YouTube video that no one had seen she yelled with righteous indignation, “What difference did it make!?!”  An answer no one accepted in the Watergate investigation.  Which Clinton assisted with as a young attorney.  Back then a government cover-up made a big difference.  Which led to impeachment hearings.  That ended when President Nixon resigned.  But the Obama administration would escape that fate.  For the perception was that this was a Republican partisan witch hunt.  Because they were racists and hated the president.  And with all their support in entertainment, education and the news the people accepted this perception.  And apparently didn’t care about the cover-up of Benghazi.  Unlike they were about the cover-up of Watergate that resulted in no dead Americans.

And this is what made the Rand Paul filibuster so powerful.  For he dared to challenge the perception that the Obama administration was sweet and innocent and transparent unlike the ‘criminal’ administration of George W. Bush.  President Obama has expanded the use of drones.  He has killed more people with them than George W. Bush.  And a lot more innocent bystanders.  Including a few Americans.  Even appearing to want to reserve the right to use a drone strike on Americans on U.S. soil without due process even if they posed no imminent threat.  The Obama administration finally stated that they wouldn’t do that.  But not before those on the Left took notice of Rand Paul’s filibuster.  Including Jon Stewart of the Daily Show.  People who expected something like this from the Bush administration.  But not from the Obama administration.  Giving the Obama administration some rare negative press.  Just enough to get some people to ask, “They want to do what?!?”  And the fact that it took a 13-hour filibuster to get a simple ‘no’ out of the administration makes it look like, perhaps, it’s the Democrats who are not trying to cooperate with the Republicans.  Unlike the perception that it’s the Republicans that are being uncooperative.  Perhaps explaining why the president has launched a charm offensive.  To improve a tarnished perception that they never had to do before.  Thanks to the Rand Paul filibuster.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

President Nixon helped President Clinton despite what Hillary Clinton Did

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 16th, 2013

Week in Review

Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State when terrorists killed four Americans in Benghazi.  Ambassador Stevens had requested additional security as the safety of Westerners in Benghazi was tenuous.  The British had already left after an attempt on their ambassador’s life.  But Secretary Clinton denied Ambassador Stevens’ request.  For it didn’t look good politically.

All during the 2012 campaign the Democrats repeated over and over how Osama bin Laden was dead.  And General Motors was alive.  Not only that al Qaeda was on the ropes.  Because President Obama defeated them.  Making them an empty shell of what they were when President Bush was president.  This is why we needed to reelect President Obama.  Because only he could defeat al Qaeda.  And did.  After winning the War on Terror it just wouldn’t look good to be beefing up security to defend against a resurgent al Qaeda.  Because that would go against the narrative that President Obama defeated al Qaeda.  So Ambassador Stevens and the Americans in Benghazi were left to fend for themselves so they wouldn’t reflect adversely on the president’s reelection campaign.  And then came 9/11/2012.

Four Americans died so as not to be a political inconvenience to President Obama.  And Secretary Clinton let that happen.  For their safety was her responsibility.  And it was no secret that Benghazi was not a safe place.  Which is why the British left.  When Secretary Clinton finally appeared before Congress to explain how four Americans died under her watch she got indignant and simply yelled “what difference does it make” to their questions.  Refusing to answer them.  Angry and annoyed that these Republicans even dared to ask her these questions.  Why wasn’t security beefed up?  Why didn’t we send help when they were under attack?  Why did she lie about it being a spontaneous reaction to a YouTube video?  Who edited the talking points given to Ambassador Rice?  She did not like these questions.  And she made her resentment clear.  Funny when the shoe is on the other foot (see Documents show Bill Clinton’s close dealings with Richard Nixon on Russia, foreign affairs by Michael R. Blood, The Associated Press, posted 2/13/2013 on The Vancouver Sun).

Richard Nixon, in the final months of his life, quietly advised President Bill Clinton on navigating the post-Cold War world, even offering to serve as a conduit for messages to Russian President Boris Yeltsin and other government officials, newly declassified documents show.

Memos and other records show Nixon’s behind-the-scenes relations with the Clinton White House. The documents are part of an exhibit opening Friday at the Nixon Presidential Library, marking the centennial of his birth.

Clinton has talked often of his gratitude to Nixon for his advice on foreign affairs, particularly Russia. In a video that will be part of the exhibit, Clinton recalls receiving a letter from the 37th president shortly before his death on April 22, 1994, at a time when Clinton was assessing U.S. relations “in a world growing ever more interdependent and yet ungovernable.”

What really makes this remarkable and relevant to Hillary Clinton is this.

Clinton in his younger days was no fan of Nixon — as a college student in the 1960s, he opposed escalation of the Vietnam War. And his wife, former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, was a young lawyer advising a House committee when she helped draw up impeachment papers against Nixon.

Hillary Clinton helped draw up the impeachment papers against President Nixon which led to his resignation.  For Watergate.  Which amounted to a burglary.  And some wire-tapping.  There was no loss of life.  President Nixon’s crime, the cover-up, didn’t kill four Americans.  Yet Hillary Clinton helped to destroy President Nixon.  Even though he was a good president when it came to foreign policy.  At least, according to Hillary Clinton’s husband.  President Clinton.  But when she’s on the hot seat she responds with righteous indignation.  Even though her actions, or her lack of action, caused the death of four Americans.

So what can we learn from this?  President Nixon was a good president that put his country first.  Even helping the man whose wife destroyed his career.  President Clinton was not as good a president as President Nixon was.  And Hilary Clinton ruined a good president who didn’t do anything as bad as she did.  Allowing four Americans to die on her watch.  Because she put politics first.  Instead of her country.  Just as she did when she helped to destroy President Nixon.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

« Previous Entries