Hillary
Last night, having watched Hillary Clinton’s interview with Bret Baier and Greta Van Susteren on Fox News, I thought a lot about what it could be that is driving support for her candidacy. To be charitable, I found Mrs. Clinton’s demeanor to be glib- that, to the extent she of her ability, she did her level best to be charming. There is no doubt that she is articulate, as well.
Yet, I was also shocked to see that, after all of these many months, she is STILL trying to force feed us into accepting an entirely false narrative that the September 2012 attacks on the US consulate in Benghazi were (now, she says, “in part”) due to a YouTube video about Mohammed, that Muslims found offensive. The very next morning following the attack, the president of Libya insisted that the attack had nothing, NOTHING to do with a video that was not even available to Libyans, at that time. Yet, the White House kept pushing that same false narrative for weeks, when they knew all along that it was nothing more than an attempt to deceive Americans, designed to lay credence to the fiction that Al Qaida “was on the run” and that Obama’s foreign policy was a success when, in fact, the opposite was true.
Since that time it has been discovered that, on the very night of the attack, political operatives in the White House frantically started to search the internet trying to find anything, ANYTHING on which they could lay blame for the attack, in an attempt to provide cover for the President and his campaign narrative. Never mind the fact that the Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, repeatedly pleaded with the State Department to provide more security, and was repeatedly turned down by a State Department being run by Hillary Clinton. Amazingly, Hillary Clinton said, in one sentence, that she is responsible, but only to the extent that she feels the pain of their loss, and nothing more. Then, she had the audacity last night to once again plug the false narrative of a video as being partially responsible for the attack. Talk about delusional narcissism !
There can only be three explanations for her performance-
- She is suffering from complete dementia (the least likely)
- She is completely devoid of even a shred of honesty (more likely)
- She will say anything, ANYTHING, to fend off any criticism, whatsoever, and ethics be damned in the process (most likely)
Is this what we want in our next President? Haven’t we, as a nation, had our nauseous fill of narcissistic and self-serving demagogy that is so very present in the current administration? More importantly, can’t even the most partisan and sycophantic supporters of the Clintons see through her deceptions, and own up to the fact that Hillary Clinton is most definitely not what the country needs in a successor to Obama?
I leave the answers to these questions to those who would support her candidacy, with a respectful request to explain just why they would continue to support her, aside from the fact that she is a woman, and aside from the fact that she is a Democrat. I suspect that many of these same supporters also supported Barack Obama, principally because he is African-American and also a Democrat.
A REAL president needs to be much more than a member of a sex or a race, or even a member of a political party. He/she needs to be a leader who believes in the things that sets our country apart (American Exceptionalism), is willing to defend the values of freedom and individual liberty wherever they may be threatened, and defend and uphold the Constitution, in its entirety. When we elect officials based solely on their own demographics, and not on these values, we endanger our country and the world in which we live.
Barack Obama is not such a President, and Hillary Rodham Clinton most certainly would not be, either.
-Drew Nickell, 18 June 2014
© 2014 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved