Hillary Clinton tweeted “A person seeking to be the President of the United States should not suggest violence in any way.” Except for Hillary Clinton? Except for when she brings about the attack on Libya? Except when she advocates arming fanatics in Syria?
“Hillary Clinton favoured arming Syria’s rebels early in the country’s civil war [2011] but was overruled by Barack Obama, the former secretary of state said in her new memoir, according to CBS News.” (Emphasis added. Source article is here.)
In 2015, Clinton reiterated her position on Syria: “I wouldn’t give up on train and equip, but I sure would push the Pentagon to take a hard look at why what has been done has been such a failure and what more we can do to support Kurdish fighters who are on the front line.” See here.
Libya in 2011: “A few hours later, after consultations with British and Arab allies and a leader of the Libyan opposition all demanding action, Clinton joined a White House meeting of President Obama’s National Security Council by phone and forcefully urged the president to take military action.”
Wasn’t that Hillary Clinton chortling over the brutal killing of Gaddafi, happy to hear of it?
I am taking her comment out of context. Hillary’s intent as usual was to turn Trump’s words into slogans against him. Her intent as usual is to stake out the appearance of moral high ground, which her own character and actions contradict. So what if it’s out of context? It’s not that far out of context! After all, Hillary is saying that Trump has suggested the assassination of a high official or a person running for high office; while Hillary herself has done everything in her power and exercised considerable violence to bring down Gaddafi and Assad!
Trump’s statement is vague. It does not suggest that anyone assassinate Hillary. It doesn’t encourage such an act.
I’ll be more specific. If Hillary Clinton wins and then implements policies that are highly unpopular among significant numbers of Americans in the minority, and if these are not thwarted or watered down by Congress; or if her Supreme Court appointments threaten to usher in such unpopular measures, then she greatly increases the chances of some person taking up arms against her and attempting her assassination. This has happened throughout the world’s history and throughout American history. It is one of those checks and balances that people don’t want to accept as real. They’d prefer to look upon assassins as crazed nutcases, rather than people who have an agenda that opposes that of their intended targets. In 1952 I saw Ike pass by standing erectly in an open car in a motorcade with no massive protection present, this through great crowds of people who hadn’t been vetted for their political views or for the possession of firearms. Will Hillary be able to do the same?
Addendum: Michael Morell, a former CIA potentate who was acting director in 2012-2013 and a man who knows Hillary well said that of all of the people in the White House situation room, she was “…toughest in terms of understanding that for diplomacy to be effective, that there had to be a belief on the part of the adversary that you were willing and able to use force if necessary, right? She understands that. She understands that diplomacy without that cannot be effective.” This places the best face on Hillary, inasmuch as she is Morell’s favored candidate. This statement ignores her taste for actually utilizing violence when diplomacy is not even an issue and when using such violence doesn’t further American interests. But even as it is a biased assessment, it still tells us that Hillary’s tweet is a ruse.
6:24 pm on August 9, 2016 Email Michael S. Rozeff
