No, I'm not kidding..I wish I were.
Hillary Clinton was speaking in front of an Arab audience in Abu Dhabi and was asked `why the 9/11 terror attacks, the work of a handful of men, had been allowed to color American views of a whole people.'
Her reply? After the usual fawning over America's Muslims, she didn't,of course say anything about the 9/11 attacks being done in the name of Islam, about the numerous attacks on America and Americans before or since 9/11, or the millions of Muslims America has spent blood and treasure to liberate.
No...her response was to compare the Arizona shooting to 9/11 and to blame both incidents on 'extremism'!
"We have extremists in our country," she said. "A wonderful and incredibly brave young woman congress member was just shot by extremists (RM: Note her use of the plural, extremists) in our country.
"We have the same kinds of problems, so rather than standing off of each other we should work to try and prevent the extremists wherever they are from being able to commit violence."
Ladies and gentlemen, your Secretary of State....eagerly comparing a lone nut case to the very sane gentlemen who planned and carried out 9/11, as well as a number of other operations.
Still the crazed Leftist radical deep down after all these years.
(hat tip, Elisa)
6 comments:
What was the title of that book she supposedly wrote ( actually ghost-written, a little birdie tells me ) ? It Takes A Village ... Idiot
--dragon/dinosaur
was secretary of state klebb wearing a burqa when she gave this address?
if not, why?
Either a.) she's simply pandering to certain audiences, b.)she has no idea what we're up against in the Islamic terrorist war against our country, or c.) some combination of both of a and b. I suspect the answer is c.
Regardless what it is we are in serious trouble with her in the position of Sec of State. I just pray our country survives long enough for her to either be removed from this postion or she acquires the necessary wisdom to carry out her position adequately.
As to the differences between Al Qaeda and the AZ gunman, for starters, the AZ gunman appears to be a lone operative whereas Al Qaeda is a highly organized political movement that receives substantial support from some of the world's most powerful countries.
This manifests itself in how the 911 attacks were carried out vs how the AZ gunman's operations were carried out. The actions of the AZ gunman are the actions of a lone man with a gun. The 911 attacks were much more like an organized military operation. How can we mitigate the damage from both types of attacks? The best way to do this would be to relax the restrictions on gun ownership. If one or more of the people in the crowd in AZ were armed, it is likely the AZ gunman would not have been able to kill as many people. Also, armed passengers may have been able to prevent the 911 attacks. In this case, it would have been much more difficult than stopping the AZ gunman, as this is more like a military operation than the attack of a lone gunman.
To illustrate, defeating air port security, hijacking three planes and piloting them into multiple targets with the level of success Al Qaeda had on 911 is beyond the capabilities of our CIA and our most highly trained special forces. Essentially the 911 hijackers pulled off something our best trained special forces and intellegence operatives are not currently capable of doing. The Al Qaeda operatives who carried out the 911 attacks no doubt spent many years training for this mission. This briefly summarizes what we are up against. A person in Mrs. Clinton's positon should be aware of these things. Sadly she does not seem to be. Why is she unaware? I suspect when the CIA and the military deliver their reports to the Government they tend to overstate their capabilities in order to justify more funding or even their continued existence. Any moderately competent business manager is aware of this tendency and understands the need not to just take what subordinates say at face value, as well as the need to examine outside sources to corrobate what they are being told. The fact that Mrs. Clinton is not indicates she is a poor manager and should be removed from her positon forthwith.
Now, how should Al Qaeda been handled post 911? Congress should have immediately declared war on Saudi Arabia and that government should have been liquidated. Preferably the Saudi oil fields would be siezed and would be placed under our control but I'm not willing to sacrifice alot of American or allied lives to achieve this. As such, very quickly those oil fields would be destroyed by nuking them, if necessary. Essentially this would serve as a reminder of what happens to those who attack us and it would be a warning to others not to make the same mistake.
Some people (mostly Leftists) think that Hillary would have made a better POTUS than Obama. It's stuff like this that convinces me that President Hillary's policies wouldn't have been that much different. Maybe she would have been politically smart enough to have gotten a few Rino's to work with her, but the policies would be about the same as Obama's.
Louie, I agree with you. If any woman in America should wear a Burqa, it's our own Secretary of State, Rosa Klebb.
Puzzled is NOT your middle name .....
i somewhat agree with you. the policies would basically be similar. what i believe is, as an american, klebb does not have the overt hatred of all things american/western, that was bred into hussein and nutured by his mentors. he has been, surrounded on all sides by evil sense the day of his birth. granted, there are a lot of leftists that fully embrace this hatred of all things american, (berkley) i just don't think klebb is one of them. she is too much of a political animal.
Louie writes: "She is to much of a political animal." This may be true but she sure isn't a very smart one. If she were a smart one, why is she wasting so much energy and time on the Israli/Arab cconflict?
Even if America were to somehow solve the Israli/Arab conflict it does NOTHING to solve any of our problems. Our economy would still be in the toilet, our military would still be worn down to the breaking point, our intellegence services would still be incompetent, our national debt would stil be massive, and we would still be invaded by vast hordes from south of our borders. Experential common sense would tell us that stepping into a conflict between groups of people who are on the other side of the world from you where even if you can resolve the problem it has no benefit to to you is stupid decision making.
In addtion to no benefit accruing to America from solving this problem, our involvement in it carries signifcant risks to us. For instance, stepping between warring parties runs a risk of us being pulled into direct involvement in a shooting war. We don't have the resources to be involved in yet another military conflict. Also, our involvment in trying to resolve this conflict diverts resources and money away from things that might actually solve the problems mentioned above.
Americans ultimately select politicians based upon what they do to address the issues facing the nation. Involvment in trying to resolve the Israeli/Arab conflict carries significant risks as there is real possiblity for America to get hurt here, however, even in the event of a resolution no real benefit accrues to America.
In other words, there is nothing for the "political animal" to gain and a great deal that the "political animal" can lose. With all due respect she looks like either a.) a very stupid political animal, or b.)she has been blinded by her ideology. I suspect it is b.
In any event, this is not the smart political operative the media has led us to believe she is. A smart political operative would want to put as much distance between themselves and the Israli/Arab conflict as they possibly could. After all one who is smart does not spend time on endeavors that could cause them significant harm with no accruing benefit to them should they be successful. This scenario perfectly describes the Israeli/Arab conflict and our effort to mediate it, solve it, or whatever we are trying to accomplish.
The best possible outcome for us in the Israeli/Arab conflict would be for Israel to destroy Hamas, Fatah, and the PA. Israel should sieze control of Gaza, Judea, and Samraia, as they call it or the "West Bank" as others call it. By doing this Israel who is an ally of America will have defensible borders and Hamas, Fatah, and the PA who are enemies of America are destroyed. Also, an important buffer between us and Islamic terrorists would be strengthened. Israel can best accomplish this with America not involved. Even if Israel should fail in this endeavor, we can mitigate the damage to our interests by securing our borders, closely monitoring the mosques here in America, and placing an indefinite moratorium on immigration from Islamic nations.
Post a Comment