Hillary Clinton loves to smear people so as to gain favorable publicity by appearing to take the moral high ground. She loves to appear to be morally right. Case in point: In 2011 Hillary Clinton smeared Gaddafi as a hair-trigger genocidal maniac. She then led the U.S. into war against Libya, resulting in Gaddafi’s murder, thousands of civilian deaths, hundreds of thousands of displaced persons and refugees, a state of civil conflict and open ground for jihadist movements.
But while Hillary knows what she’s doing to gain favorable publicity for herself, these predictable negative consequences show that she has no idea what she’s doing in foreign policy and interventions. Why should she? She has no background or experience in foreign affairs. Her vagina gives her no expertise or qualification in these matters; neither do other attributes that distinguish females from males. Being First Lady is not a training ground for developing the kinds of knowledge and maturity that a real statesman, an imaginary but useful ideal, might theoretically have. Lacking sound intuition and experience, she looks at foreign matters in naive and ignorant ways. She has no feel for or understanding of the politics and societies of other nations. Neither does she have genuine concern and empathy for their suffering, or else she would not consistently have supported policies that have brought great suffering to a number of peoples.
Hillary speaks and thinks in terms of one-sided and abstract ideals, such as her allegiance and loyalty toward Israel. The high-sounding phrases come easily to her, such as “Americans honor Israel as a homeland dreamed of for generations and finally achieved by pioneering men and women in my lifetime. We share bedrock beliefs in freedom, equality, democracy, and the right to live without fear. What threatens Israel threatens America, and what strengthens Israel strengthens us.” It’s so easy to be against genocide, for freedom, for equality, and for the currently popular but often corrupted ideas of rights. But when this is accompanied by heartless concern for Palestinian suffering or insensible anti-Iranian actions, the abstractions are countered by her foul deeds.
In 2011 Hillary compared Gaddafi to Milosevic. This is pertinent because in 1999, she was on the similar anti-Milosevic bandwagon too. She likes to benefit from such condemnations. It’s a cheap way to score political points with the public and appear to be on the side of the angels. Clinton (in 2011) was pleased that “…there had been a dynamic put into motion that eventually led to his [Milosevic’s] being in The Hague,” where he went on trial, accused of crimes against humanity.
Milosevic, who died before the trial ended, has recently been cleared of all charges: “The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague has determined that the late Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic was not responsible for war crimes committed during the 1992-95 Bosnian war.”
Hillary was wrong about Milosevic. As with Gaddafi, she leaped to conclusions that were false but were politically beneficial to her at the time. She is behaving the same way with Syria’s leader, Assad. If she’s elected, it now looks as if Syria will immediately become an important focal point for her. I expect that she would also escalate warfare against ISIS in Libya and Iraq, as Obama is already doing.
Hillary is skillful at smears, even if she’s incompetent at so much else, apart from her other skills at shaking down donors for large wads of money and hitting the delete button. Never having been called to account for her lies and incompetence, by Congress or the FBI or any prosecutor, she now aspires to the highest elective office in the land. Hillary understands that a colorful smear, if well-timed and well-designed, grabs headlines for a time, thereby bloodying an opponent and deflecting attention from her own troubles. The response to a smear, including the ultimate vindication of innocence, is weaker than the initial blow that has landed. It’s easy to accuse Trump of being in league with nameless Russian hackers because hackers are mini-versions of Milosevic and Gaddafi. She sows guilt by association with people that the public regards as bad guys, such as hackers.
On July 24, 2015, Hillary wrote “I am not asking people to vote for me simply because I am a woman. I am asking for people to vote for me on the merits. And I think one of the merits is I am a woman, and I can bring those views and perspectives to the White House.” —Hillary
In other words, don’t vote for me because I am a woman but because as a woman I have ideas, viewpoints and knowledge that the male occupants of the White House do not have or have not had. Well then, why not explain how being a woman has influenced these ideas, views and perspectives? Why not explain how these ideas, views and perspectives have come to differ from those of male politicians? Why not explain how these differences can be expected to influence your decisions if you become president? Why not explain why these different ideas, views and perspectives are both right and good for everyone, and why they should be imposed on everyone through the powers of government?
7:18 pm on August 1, 2016 Email Michael S. Rozeff
