[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
International News Title: Gates shares the murderous reality of President Obama and Mrs. Clinton In 1799, George Washington wrote that the “views of men can only be known, or guessed at, by their words or actions.” Well, in recent weeks I have learned that to express a view that damns either a U.S. foreign policy that is defeating the United States or the makers of that policy is to be a racist, an extremist, a bigot, an anti-Semite, an assassin, an ultra-conservative, and any other number of things described by the slurs and epithet that are the products of the ever-adolescent minds always plentiful among Democrats, the Israel-First gang of war-mongering Neoconservatives, and the budding young journalism students at Georgetown University. The latter seem to think journalism is quoting what other journalists say without ever reading the material over which they are having an effeminate, David-Frum-like hissy-fit. Let me be clear, I am not upset, angered, or cowed by this criticism. I should say, rather, that I welcome their ignorance-based hatred and urge them to keep it coming. I promise to keep up my end of things. Having had my say, now let us take a look at the excerpts that have been published from a new book called Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War, written by former Defense Secretary Robert Gates. In his memoir, Mr. Gates gives his readers telling confirmation of what has been plain but ignored or distorted by most of the media and many Americans since Barack Obama became president; namely, that Obama and Hillary Clinton are the knowing murderers — for personal and party political purposes — of the young men and women who serve America in its military forces. On this issue, Gates’ work is a welcome first-hand complement to Bob Woodward’s earlier, leak-based Obama’s Wars. Both authors have done Americans a service by underscoring how obvious it was that Obama did not care what happened in Afghanistan — or to the men and women fighting there — as long as he could time the U.S. military defeat he apparently wanted America to suffer there to provide the Democratic Party with as much political advantage as possible. Gates’ book also refines with specifics the general impression that is left by Woodward’s book; namely, that Joe Biden, in regard to foreign policy, really is the egregious twit we have all seen in the Internet video of him dancing and singing in what appears to be a drunken stupor. For readers of my writings and books, the foregoing is no surprise. Since resigning from the CIA in late 2004, I have argued that both Democratic and Republican leaders start unconstitutional wars which they do not intend to win and so get our soldiers and Marines killed and crippled for nothing. These leaders likewise waste the lives of our young on “enlightened causes” that are not only absolutely irrelevant to U.S. national security — such as human rights, spreading democracy, and, most especially, women’s rights — but the pursuit of which clearly damages our security and amounts to the waging a civilizational war against Islam, one that is identical to that Obama, Clinton, and their party are waging on Christianity. Both Democratic and Republic leaders are profligate with the blood of our young; regarding the latter, think of Senators McCain and Graham, and other Israel- Firsters like John Bolton, Bill Kristol, and Eric Cantor. It is a continuing surprise that American parents do not universally and aggressively advise their sons and daughters to refrain from joining the U.S. military until the country‘s leaders show that they (a) will revert to constitutional war-making; (b) will allow our forces to win the wars they start; and (c) will not get our kids killed and maimed so that Ms. Mohammad can vote, sleep-around, and abort. While there is plenty of bipartisan blame to go around, Mr. Gates’ book — and earlier Mr. Woodward’s — adds a new dimension to the emerging portrait of America’s two most prominent tyrants, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton. Both addressed the issue of the Afghan and Iraq surges from purely selfish and elitist political perspectives, obviously caring not a bit about how many service personnel were required to die or be fitted for prosthetic devices to further their political careers and benefit their political cronies and campaign contributors. Like monarchs of old, they cavalierly decided which and how many young Americans needed to die to promote their pursuit of power and personal glory. And American parents must never question them about the murderous behavior that kills their children in wars not meant to be won. It is none of their business; they must just shut up and grieve. Mrs. Clinton demonstrated this monarchical attitude when she exploded in dismissive rage after a legislator dared to ask why she deliberately left America’s representatives in Libya unprotected and ripe for murder. Mrs. Clinton’s reaction in that incident is reminiscent of the estimable actress Flora Robson. Playing England’s Elizabeth I in the fine 1940 film called The Sea Hawk, Robson’s conduct of English foreign policy is questioned by the Spanish Ambassador and she, in turn, explodes, reminding the Spaniard that, “The Queen need justify nothing!” What the then-Secretary of State told Congress about her murderous role in the Benghazi attack was that “I’m Hillary, I need justify nothing.” Obama supported the 2011 Afghan surge because he needed the Afghan war to continue into 2014 so that he could end it in time to benefit Democratic candidates in the mid-term congressional elections. Mrs. Clinton opposed the Iraq surge in 2007 because she was about to run against Obama for the presidency. She was more than willing to deny U.S. forces in Iraq the reinforcements they desperately needed — thanks to the idiocy of that war and the small-footprint theory of Secretary Rumsfeld — and so she was cruelly ready to abet her candidacy by allowing U.S. casualties to mount. The same clear logic applies to Mrs. Clinton’s American-killing performance in Libya. She was content to let — and probably watch on video — Americans die in Benghazi because if she and Obama had fielded sufficient force to protect those Americans they would have highlighted the fact that both have lied consistently about the growing Islamist threat to the United States. The men who died unnecessarily in Benghazi, quite simply, died to get Obama reelected and to protect Mrs. Clinton’s political future. For both Obama and Clinton, after all, the bottom line is that few of those dieing in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya went to the Ivy League, and so they are not among that self-designated coterie of elitists who believe they are born to rule rather than govern Americans, a group that regards the Constitution as antiquated and optional. For Obama and Clinton, America‘s soldiers and Marines are simply riff-raff who do not share their righteous aspiration to dictate how Americans should their lives with less and less liberty and have their hard-won earnings redirected to slackers, addicts, deranged socialists, and illegal aliens; in other words, those who the Democrats eagerly bus to the polls on election day. And, of course, no child of theirs would be allowed to risk his or her life to defend America, they will instead be educated — as were their parents — by the American professorate on the proper methods of destroying the republic. What Mr. Gates has described and what Mr. Woodward saw, but a little less clearly, is that Obama, Clinton, most of the Democratic Party, and those who vote for them regard U.S. service personnel as pawns in their political game, pawns who really deserve little more in life than to be the cannon fodder that helps to advance the “enlightened” reign of such tyrannical elitists. And do not buy for a minute the tripe being spun by the Democrats’ media flacks who are claiming that it was only the generals that Obama and Clinton distrusted, and that they really loved and cared for the troops sent to fight America’s most lethal enemies. That is a transparent lie. Both Obama and Clinton had the number of America’s myriad of yes-men generals and had no reason to distrust or fear those time-servers. After all, these be-starred men and women never are going to die on the battlefield nor ever have enough courage to resign and speak out against the feckless, often illegal war-making of such wretches as Obama, Clinton, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Bill Clinton, war-makers who never intend to win the wars they start but are content with getting get tens of thousands of America’s young killed and maimed before they decide to lose the war and retreat. In the case of the present administration, Obama and Clinton neither feared the generals nor cared about the troops, ambassadors, and intelligence officers on the ground in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. Because of that reality they are responsible for getting our soldiers, Marines, diplomats, and intelligence officers killed and crippled. If Obama and Clinton were not themselves the killers of these Americans, they clearly were the callous, political-advantage seeking facilitators of the killers. If Ernest Hemingway was still alive and saw this performance, he would surely have had the materials to write a history of the Obama-Clinton era entitled The Scum Also Rises, Volume II. (NB: Volume I would have covered the career and impact of the Neoconservatives.) And so what is the remedy for this lethal elitism, selfishness and, deliberate, clear-eyed murder? One sure answer, of course, is that the remedy is never, ever the national government, which always thirsts for more power and is eternally the enemy of liberty. It must at all times be watched and hemmed in closely by the electorate. The only truthful answer is that the remedy lies in an educated and vigilant electorate, in voters who are always ready to throw out, in the manner they deem appropriate, the members of either party who refuse to enforce the law, who refuse to obey the Constitution, and who refuse to avoid unnecessary wars and the useless murder of their soldier-children. “The only real security of liberty in any country,” wrote James Iredell, a too-little appreciated Founder from North Carolina, in July 1788, “is the jealousy and circumspection of the people themselves. Let them be watchful over their rulers. Should they find a combination against their liberties, and all other methods appear insufficient to preserve them, they have, thank God, an ultimate remedy. The power which created the government can destroy it.” So the remedy lies in you and I and all those Americans who refuse to watch silently as the likes of Obama and Clinton knowingly bring Americans defeat, death, and more war abroad, while institutionalizing bankruptcy, tyranny, and minority-rule at home. It is, after all, much better to speak out, agitate, organize, and vote now for the preservation of America and its liberties, then to be cowed into silence by those who know little and care nothing about America, and then be forced to act only when it is too late to rely on the ballot box.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|