“Innocent Hillary” – Now there’s a world class oxymoron.
Among the many reasons to be disgusted by Hillary Clinton’s “innocent” act is that she is trying to make herself the victim of Benghazi. We, the nasty, mean, “vast right wing conspiratorial” conservatives are expecting her to tell the truth, take responsibility, and bring closure to the devastated parents and other relatives of those murdered under her watch; we’re calling her out as a liar, prevaricator and deceiver and yet, in this era of the manufactured “war on women” we’re expected by the leftists to leave their women alone – especially elitist Democrat entitlement women awaiting their chance on the presidential “merry-go-round.” Even a despotic woman who has been lying all of her political life. Even “innocent Hillary.”
Another reason to be disgusted with “Innocent Hillary” is that she is trying to use her womanhood to defend herself. Not overtly, but subtly. Quoting from the transcript of the attached video, Hillary can’t read those blueprints; that’s a man’s job. Hillary can’t make sure the construction of a consulate meets State Department codes; that’s a man’s job. Hillary can’t make good decisions about hiring security; that’s a man’s job. Hillary can’t handle the job of being the president; that’s a man’s job. (Ooops!) Hillary shouldn’t be expected to control her emotions and not shout “what difference does it make?” After all, men are the ones who are expected to control their emotions.
The truth is that “Innocent Hillary” inwardly, doesn’t think she is qualified to be president. Not in an open, fair-and-square competitive debate, that is. She intends to be an affirmative action president, just like we have in the lawless Obama. She gets a handicap because she’s just a woman. If she can’t function effectively as the president, she can blame the men before her (which means GWB still). If she’s incapable of making good military decisions, it is the result of previous failures by those vast, dastardly, conspiratorial (again) right wingnut men (are there any other kind?). If she can’t throw out the opening day pitch without looking like an old woman, so what? Neither could the current panty-waisted-Metro-girly-man-Obama; limp-wristed as well.
The older and aged and raggedy she gets, “Innocent Hillary” feels deeply entitled to power. As the first woman to run for president, she thinks she can do no wrong because women are entitled to power. Her problem is that unlike a Margaret Thatcher, she has shown no capacity to handle power effectively. If elected, she will be just as corrupt, incompetent, dogmatic, inept and dishonest as Obama, but if she gets in trouble, she knows she can always have her husband run the country(!) “Innocent Hillary” brought to you by the aged rapacious, predator-lecher himself. And Atlas Shrugged.
Now an opener to the Daniel Greenfield video …
When the father of Tyrone Woods finally got a moment with the Secretary of State of the United States, she assured him that justice would be done for his murdered son. “We’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video,” Hillary Clinton told Charles Woods.
The video that the Secretary of State and past and future presidential candidate was referring to was a YouTube trailer for “The Innocence of Muslims.”
At Andrews Air Force Base, Hillary told the families, “We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with.”
Even in the presence of the families of the murdered Americans who died because of her, Hillary Clinton was still making lying about Islamic terrorism and apologizing to Muslims into her two major priorities.
Two days earlier, Hillary Clinton’s Assistant Secretary of State had told the Libyan ambassador that Ansar Al-Sharia, a group linked to Al Qaeda, was responsible. The morning of the receiving ceremony AFRICOM had sent the State Department a list of suspects, including Al Qaeda members, responsible for the Benghazi attack.
In January, Hillary had blamed “imperfect information.” As she makes her rounds promoting her book, she’s fighting to keep the video lie alive.
In “Hard Choices,” Hillary claims that there were “scores of attackers that night, almost certainly with differing motives. It is inaccurate to state that every single one of them was influenced by this hateful video. It is equally inaccurate to state that none of them were.
”Since it’s impossible to disprove a negative, it would be equally inaccurate to state that none of the attackers were influenced by a frustrated passion for Hillary Clinton. Since there’s no way to disprove the possibility that at least one of the attackers was motivated by the video, by love for Hillary or by hallucinations induced by bath salts, it’s inaccurate to state that none of the attackers carried a torch for Hillary, were angry at a YouTube video or were tripping on bath salts.