Posts Tagged Hillary Rodham Clinton
Ed Klein: Obama-Clinton rift re-opens after Benghazi, debate fiascoes
Report: Clintons prepare for Benghazi blame … Obama won’t call Bill back …
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/#ixzz297aZ9zOs
But, to be fair, neither can the New York Times.
UPDATE: Prof. Stephen Clark writes: “While the responsibility for our lack of credibility in the greater middle east rests with Obama, let’s not forget that our middle east foreign policy is the product of Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, Samantha Power and others who share their views. These past four years do not reflect well upon their judgment: something to bear in mind when talk of a Hillary Clinton presidency arises.”
Rep. Michele Bachmann‘s concerns about Sec. of State Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin have been openly criticized by many, yet disproved by none. Far from it in fact, as the alleged ties between Huma’s family and the Muslim Brotherhood have been broadly substantiated. And now Walid Shoebat claims he is about to release the most damning news about Huma Abedin and Islamists to date.
Michael Calderone / The Huffington Post:
Terrific News. If the below happens, our nation will have TWO Alinsky’ites from Chicago, roaming around the D.C.
By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 25, 2007
CHICAGO — The job offer to “Miss Hillary Rodham, Wellesley College” was dated Oct. 25, 1968, and signed by Saul D. Alinsky, the charismatic community organizer who believed that the urban poor could become their own best advocates in a world that largely ignored them.
Alinsky thought highly of 21-year-old Rodham, a student government president who grew up in the Chicago suburbs. She was in the midst of a year-long analysis of Alinsky’s aggressive mobilizing tactics, and he was searching for “competent political literates” to move to Chicago to build grass-roots organizations.
Seventeen years later, another young honor student was offered a job as an organizer in Chicago. By then, Alinsky had died, but a group of his disciples hired Barack Obama, a 23-year-old Columbia University graduate, to organize black residents on the South Side, while learning and applying Alinsky’s philosophy of street-level democracy. The recruiter called the $13,000-a-year job “very romantic, until you do it.”
Out of extremely thin air, the Obama administration is now conjuring the narrative that Congress actually did approve a Libyan no-fly zone before President Barack Obama signed onto the project with the United Nations. Speaking last Sunday on ABC’s This Week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton mentioned (though she wasn’t quite sure of the date): “The United States Senate called for a no-fly zone in the resolution that it passed, um, I think on March the first.”
ABC News, under the headline “Fact Check: Senate Did Favor No-Fly Zone,” is now reporting:
Some lawmakers are grousing loudly that President Barack Obama sent the nation’s military to Libya without Congress’ blessing. They’re ignoring a key fact: The Senate a month ago voted to support imposing a no-fly zone to protect civilians from attacks by Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s forces.
With no objections, the Senate on March 1 backed a resolution strongly condemning “the gross and systematic violations of human rights in Libya” and urging the U.N. Security Council to take action, “including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory.”
And of course, the Obama media comes to the rescue..
“Those who expected his election to mark a new “post-racial” era may be the most disappointed. He has appointed people with a track record of promoting race resentment and bias, like Attorney General Eric Holder and Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor“.
“Disappointing? No. Disgusting? Yes. The only disappointment is with voters who voted their hopes and ignored his realities.”
A “howler,” the Wall Street Journal called it in an editorial yesterday. That certainly is a fitting description of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s latest mindboggling foray into Middle East analysis. It makes sense, she maintains, for American armed forces to get “kinetic” in Libya but not in Syria because Moammar Qaddafi is a brutal dictator while brutal dictator Bashar Assad is really a “reformer.” Perhaps she has been watching too much al-Jazeera, this former first lady who was so instrumental in her husband’s airbrushing of the terrorist kleptocrat Yasser Arafat — a peace-seeking statesman . . . at least between intifadas.