Articles

Sunday, September 13, 2015

Only a Clinton

The phrase “Only a Clinton” entered our lexicon in the nineties. Ever since then the unsinkable Clintons have continued spewing outrageous lies and ridiculous ploys that only a Clinton could get away with.

Hillary Clinton tried campaigning for the White House without actually taking positions on anything. Iran was a particularly touchy subject because the Democratic Party has two constituencies that are sharply divided on the issue. Jewish voters oppose the deal while left-wing voters back it.

Hillary Clinton couldn’t pander to both at the same time. Or could she?

Hillary Clinton endorsed the deal while in true “Only a Clinton” style running against it. She endorsed the deal using militant rhetoric that threatened Iran with war. Her message is that she endorses a deal that gives Iran near zero breakout time to the bomb and lets it self-inspect and fund terrorists, but that she’ll be the toughest terror deal supporter you ever saw. No one will be tougher on that deal than her.

Only a Clinton.

This isn’t the first time that Hillary Clinton pulled that particular scam. Trying to get Americans to forget about her infamous “Reset Button” photo, she compared Putin to Hitler. (But if Putin was Hitler, that would have made her Neville Chamberlain or, considering her politics, Vyacheslav Molotov.) It was over the top and even the media took her to task for it.

Her Iran speech is equally over the top. It tries and fails to cloak her support for a deal that lets a terrorist regime get the bomb by sounding like she’s about to drop the bomb. Like Dukakis trying to channel Patton, it’s an awkward fit. But “Tough Foreign Policy” Hillary is her brand. It’s how her associates have been positioning her.

When Hillary Clinton mocks Putin, you’re supposed to believe that she would be tougher on him than Obama. In her Brookings session, she explicitly drove that point home, in her usual lawyerly style, by contending, "I am in the category of people who wanted us to do more in response to the annexation of Crimea and the continuing destabilization of Ukraine."

Why couldn’t Hillary Clinton actually stand up to Putin? The unspoken suggestion is that it was Obama’s fault. The only thing keeping Hillary from marching the Russians out of Ukraine was Obama.

But the “Reset Button” was Hillary Clinton’s idea. When asked about it, she had said, “I thought it was a brilliant stroke, which in retrospect appears even more so.”

If you can follow Hillary’s reasoning, her appeasement of the man she compared to Hitler was a “brilliant stroke” of genius, but the only thing keeping her from getting tough on “Hitler” was Barack Obama.

The only person who could possibly believe that is either a deluded idiot or a compulsive liar.

Comparisons to Chamberlain and even Molotov appear unfair. A more accurate analogy might be to Petain who at his trial insisted that his collaboration with the Nazis had helped the Allies win the war.

Hillary’s Iran deal speech offers more of the same schizophrenic worldview in which she promises to get tough on her own appeasement.

She began back-channel talks with Iran, even though she had opposed it while running for office. But her opposition was just another Clinton lie. It was Hillary who agreed to let Iran enrich its uranium, formerly one of those red lines that her administration would discard like confetti at a ticker tape parade.

Now she is once again trying to distance herself from her own foreign policy by pretending that she would take a harder line on Iran as President Hillary Clinton than she did as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeased Moscow and Tehran, but President Hillary Clinton will really crack the whip by disavowing all her own policies during the campaign.

Just like she did the last time she ran for office.

Hillary Clinton is trying to have her uranium yellowcake and eat it too by pulling a bait and switch. The foreign policy basis for the deal is reapproachment and alliance with Iran. Hillary Clinton is selling the deal as a means of fighting Iran. Before Hillary’s speech, former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, a Clinton loyalist, defended the deal in the same terms as a means of putting pressure on Iran.

Panetta’s description of the deal had no relationship to reality. It was just prep work for Hillary’s brand.

The deal is not about pressuring Iran or building a coalition against it. You don’t pressure an enemy regime by giving it billions of dollars and you don’t build a coalition against it by acting as its lawyer.

When you remove sanctions from a terror state, that isn’t a way of stopping its terrorism.

But in “Only a Clinton” style, Hillary Clinton has decided to invent her own imaginary Iran Deal and campaign on it. It’s a better choice than trying to campaign on the real deal which only 1 in 5 Americans supports. It won’t fool Iran, but it might fool some of her dumber Jewish donors.

And that’s what it’s really all about.

Hillary Clinton wants to break from Obama in style rather than substance. Her occasional criticisms infuriate Obama, whose skin is even thinner than hers, but they are never more than stylistic. She doesn’t differ with specific actions. Instead she talks about attitudes and organizing principles.

The real message that she’s trying to send is that with her experience, she can make Obama’s terrible foreign policy work. But his terrible foreign policy is really her terrible foreign policy.

Instead of getting a better foreign policy, Hillary ‘butches’ up the bad foreign policy of her old boss.

“Yeah, if I were the prime minister of Israel, you’re damn right I would expect to have control over security,” she barks to Jeffrey Goldberg. But then she rushes off to apologize to Obama at a ‘hugging summit’. That theatrical “damn right” comes from the same woman took Abbas’ side over Netanyahu and whose husband had taken Arafat’s side over Netanyahu. Their backing for the PLO destroyed Israel’s security and took the lives of many Israelis and Americans.

But it’s not hard to see where Hillary gets it.

Bill Clinton told a Jewish audience at a charity dinner that if Israel were invaded, “I would grab a rifle and get in the trench and fight and die.” Then he claimed that there was no military solution to terrorism. Only a Clinton.

Hillary’s Iran speech just borrows Bill’s “rifle” by vowing that she "will not hesitate to take military action if Iran attempts to obtain a nuclear weapon.”

Iran has been trying to obtain a nuclear weapon for a long time now. That’s been the entire purpose of its nuclear program. Hillary Clinton’s hesitation on Iran’s nukes has lasted for decades.

It’s not just that Hillary Clinton is lying. We expect to be lied to be politicians, especially if their last name is Clinton. It’s that she’s trying to sell a third Obama term by dressing it up in combat boots.

Americans hate Obama’s foreign policy. They hate the Iran Deal. They hate that the world is melting down and that their government can’t seem to do anything about it. Instead of offering real change, Hillary Clinton is promising a tougher foreign policy that is the same old policy, but tougher.

Hillary Clinton will still let Putin walk all over her, but she’ll also compare him to Hitler and do mocking imitations of him. She’ll still pressure Israel to open checkpoints and make infinite concessions, but she’ll occasionally offer a “damn right” when addressing a Jewish audience. And she’ll hold on to the Iran Deal, but make more empty threats of military intervention… at least during her elections.

"We should anticipate that Iran will test the next president. That won't work if I am in the White House," she boasts. But Iran has already tested Hillary and found her wanting. When she gave up on uranium enrichment, the race to pile up American concessions to the terrorists was on. Everything else was anticlimactic.

Hillary Clinton has already been discredited. So she’s running against her own foreign policy. Only President Hillary Clinton can make Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s discredited policies work again.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

Criminals and liars like Hillary have been around forever; it is nothing new.
What is truly terrifying is that roughly 35% to 50% of ALL voters support this lying fraud, this charlatan, this phony.

This country cannot and will not survive when a significant percentage of the electorate are literally too stupid, too dumb, too confused, to ignorant to recognize they are supporting a fraud, a liar, a fake.

The last time states tried to secede, a Civil War broke out. This time, there will be no war, no one will start a shooting war.
Some states will simply declare independence and leave our once former Constitutional Republic.

SabaShimon said...

Bingo.
Shana Tova Daniel.

Anonymous said...

All true (as usual); I would add that Ace's insight that Leftist politicians treat policy like movie MacGuffins and their disciples focus on the "Hero's Journey" rather than any of that boring old policy stuff, or what's good for America (how corny; how "jingoistic," how "nativist"!). So how their heroes deal with the various policy MacGuffins matters not at all: it only matters that they are in there fighting the Villains, which is anyone holding to the old patriotism and love of America and liberty. Though of course they don't express it that way, even in the deepest recesses of their alleged minds.

Just a common 'tater said...

Unfortunately Daniel, you are right on. Unfortunately, it does not seem to make one bit of difference what the voters want. We screamed and yelled at GWB when he, McCain, and the DC crowd insisted they were going to solve the illegal immigration crisis by amnesty. We demanded closing the border and building a fence. Well, we are still in the same predicament years later. Same crowd in DC.

Now here comes Hillary, riding in on her broom. Despite certain MSM polls showing her to be the leading DNC candidate, other polls show she would not make dog catcher. Anyone in Vegas taking bets that even if she gets only 1% in all the run up polls to the DNC she gets the nod? Anyone in Vegas taking bets that regardless of what the polls show prior to election night she wins? Ever wonder why many of us are so cynical about the current election process?

I am not Jewish, but after reading quite a bit about the Warsaw ghetto and resistance, it makes me wonder what is going on with Jewish voters. Maybe you can answer that question. Do these people not see the connection between these lying leftwing politicians and the erosion of Jewish security in Europe and the Middle East?

The once vibrant communities of the Middle East, both Christian and Jewish, are resembling what happened to the Jews of Poland. Yet our brainless politicos want to import not the oppressed Christian, Yazidi, and Jewish refugees, but the fake ones that are actually the Muslim Jihad warriors.

Just who's payroll are the Clintons on besides the Chinese? Do these guys own the voting machines? Oh wait, current rumor is that Soros owns the voting machines.

Well, if you have not figured it out by reading my rambling frustrations, I have become one of those skeptical, cynical, frustrated voter-taxpayers. Regardless of who I vote for, I almost always get the same results. Vote R, you get a RINO. Vote R, you still end up with a D. Vote I, you still end up with a D

The only good news about Hillary getting elected is that they won't need Air Force One very often. She can just hop on her broom and take off. Unfortunately, like a dog that digs up a dead skunk, she keeps coming back, stink and all.

Now I know why so many stay away from the voting booth. They gave up. Is that how Hitler got in, by the way?

Edward Cline said...

Your illustration of Hillary Clinton is spot-on. It's the Clinton version of Wilde's "The Picture of Dorian Gray" -- the real portrait of corruption and decrepitude as a career and profession. It's the reality beneath the gesso and varnish and the air-brushing. It's irredeemable evil.

Keli Ata said...

That top picture makes Clinton look like Golda's evil doppleganger. You should compare and contrast these two female leaders.A Woman Called Golda versus A Woman Called Hilary.

bar_kochba132 said...

This reminds me of when Bush I said, at the time of Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait that "Saddam is worse than Hitler"...in others words, Hitler had some good side that was lacking in Saddam. Had any intrepid reporter asked what they were what Bush I would have said. No doubt he would have said "I am glad you asked that question", then mumbled something inaudible and then said "next question!". When Bush I stopped the Coalition offensive in such a way that Saddam was able to massacre the Shi'ites who rose up against him, after Bush I said something to the effect that they should do so and then refused to move on Baghdad and remove Saddam once and for all, a commentator pointed out that since Hitler was pursued all the way to his bunker in Berlin, a comment like that of Bush's should have had policy implications. Of course, Bush had no such intentions, he merely said that in order to get political support for his proposed military action.
Hillary's statements are equally as meaningless. They are meant to get her elected, nothing more. To be honest, I never pay ANY attention to any statements leaders make. I am not saying they are all corrupt, but words are not meant by them to convey information, they are simply weapons to get people to do what they want.
At one time, up to a half-century ago, people paid attention to what leaders said. That was the origin of the "credibility gap" that LBJ suffered from during the Vietnam War. He said one thing, and the reality on the ground was different, yet the media and others didn't have the nerve to say he was lying. Today, all restraints are off in what politicans say. Thus, I don't believe most of the Republicans when they say they are against the Iranian agreement. They are saying that because they want to oppose Obama for political reasons Had they really felt the agreement was dangerous, they would be much more militant about Obama's suppressing any discussion of the agreement in the Senate by use of the filibuster. Similarly, many Democrats who are supporting it know it is dangerous, but will say how wonderful it is in order to save their political careers.
Thus, I recommend people tune out what these politicians are saying.

topshot said...

I really hope you'll remove the caricature at the top of your post. I'm no lover of Hillary but making a mockery of the aging process, especially when people equate aging women with being ugly and diminshed and ultimately invisible, is just wrong.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

it's not about women in general, it's about a specific corrupt politician

topshot said...

You are dreaming. No state will secede. Americans love to complain but are rarely proactive. There is no state with an overwhelming majority big enough or courageous enough to do anything but talk. And that includes Texas.

Y. Ben-David said...

I find what the first comment says to be very troubling. It does seem he is right..that a large percentage of the electorate falls for demagogues and phony policies. Does this call into question the belief, dating back to the 1830's that ALL people have the right to vote. At the time, many questioned this and felt there should be a qualified franchise....that only property-owners should vote because they had a stake in the system. However, as I said, by the 1830's this was dismissed as elitist.
I know someone who, although quite intelligent is a big B. Hussein supporter. I asked why and he replied "because he picks 'experts' to run everything". This is essentially a reversion to the pre-universal franchise period.....people are too stupid to know what is good for them so we need to take power away from the elected officials and give it to "experts" who , of course, adhere to the "liberal/progressive" agenda (no real conservative could be an "expert" as they see it). Another version is "never waste a good crisis" which means scare the electorate with some supposed threat and they will agree to give up their freedoms in order to counter that threat. Again..a way to take power away from the people.
However, if it is true that many people are "too stupid' to vote, what should be done? Go back to a powerful monarchy? Totalitarian dictatorship? What?

Anonymous said...

Love your image of the Hildabeast. It shows the sins that fester in this woman/creature/ogre. I always wonder how as a nation we have sinned to deserve leaders such as this and parties that would support such people.

I think we deserve better.

Anonymous said...

Anon, many Americans do 'deserve better', even more do not. Those who do not voted for this aberration in large numbers.
Right now, we are experiencing a bloodless coup d'etat called Trump. This may continue until the elitist of both parties make sure he finds a horse's head in his bed.
They don't like anyone who rocks the boat, or in their case, the yacht.
sophie

RAM said...

Hillary won't bite any of the many hands that feed her.

Keli Ata said...

I guess this will be another abstain election year

Post a Comment