CNS News reports:
“In an interview on National Public Radio’s Morning Edition...NPR’s Renee Montagne asked, ‘Is there a single issue that in your time as secretary of state you feel you owned, just owned it?’
“Clinton said, ‘Oh absolutely, but the most important thing I did was to help restore America’s leadership around the world.’
“‘I think that was a very important accomplishment,’ Clinton said. ‘We were flat on our back when I walked in there the first time. We were viewed as being untrustworthy, as violating our moral rules and values....’”
She went on to resurrect the Obama talking-point tactic of blaming Bush.
To borrow a phrase from Mrs. Clinton herself, accepting her words as truth “requires a willing suspension of disbelief.”
During the Bush years, two coalitions of countries banded together to face-off with Islamic jihadists in Afghanistan and Iraq – not to mention the feeder countries in the region, Israel knew the United States had its back, and Vladimir Putin and the ChiComs were effectively held in check. The United States was revered by friends and allies (ask any Eastern Bloc country or the people with purple stained fingers in Iraq) and feared and respected by our enemies.
Today, as we reap the benefits from Mrs. Clinton’s unaccomplished and ineffective tenure as Secretary of State, we have an emboldened Vladimir Putin who sees nothing of ignoring State sovereignty to “acquire” mineral rich lands, China is bulking up its military to unprecedented levels, the Taliban is issuing victory statements, Socialism is on the march in South America and Europe’s people are using their influences at the ballot box to run – not walk – from the Progressive ideology of which both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton emanate.
If it is true that our allies – nay the total of the countries of the world – deemed the United States as an “untrustworthy” country during the Bush Administration, why did so many countries (59 in Operation Enduring Freedom and 14 in Operation Iraqi Freedom) enjoin their sons to battle with US forces in the War on Terror?
How is it morally corrupt for an American administration to steadfastly stand by its allies? Or, perhaps a better question to ask: What kind of “morally superior” American administration tosses valued foreign alliances (just ask Israel, Egypt, Poland and myriad pro-Western countries around the world) under the bus for a failed political ideology (Socialist Democracy and global government)?
How is it an abdication of American “values” to attempt – albeit ham-handedly – to spread democracy, and through it individual freedom and determination, to oppressed areas of the world? Or, again, perhaps a better question to ask: What kind of “values” abandons freedom protesters in Iran under the guise of “not wanting to meddle” in sovereign issues and at the same time irresponsibly facilitates the advancement of Islamofascist entities throughout the Middle East during the so-called “Arab Spring”?
The notion that Mrs. Clinton believes the Obama Administration – and with it the US State Department under Mrs. Clinton, continuing under Mr. Kerry – has “restored American leadership in the world” is so far from the reality of the situation that one has to question her intellectual wherewithal. Only the delusional could possibly see the efforts of the Obama Administration in the international arena as being restorative of leadership. “Leading from behind,” a ridiculous meme advanced by the word-twisters of the Progressive Movement, is an oxymoron in world politics and, in fact, a position only an intellectual coward would champion.
When asked about her culpability in the Benghazi attacks – the assassination of an American Ambassador and those who came to his aid; essentially an act of war, Mrs. Clinton ducked and dodged, deflecting blame onto anyone and everyone in order to save her sorry reputation for a possible run at the Oval Office in 2016.
ABC News reported:
“Asked by ABC’s Diane Sawyer if she had missed ‘the moment to prevent this from happening,’ Mrs. Clinton said: ‘No.’
“Could she have personally done anything to make conditions safer in Benghazi for the U.S. personnel stationed there? Ms. Sawyer asked.
“Ms. Clinton said that she had given ‘very direct instructions’ to security professionals, adding, ‘I’m not equipped to sit and look at blueprints to determine where the blast walls need to be or where the reinforcements need to be...that’s why we hire people who have that expertise,’ she said.”
Then, when asked about those questioning her “leadership” she had the audacity to say:
“‘It's more of a reason to run, because I do not believe our great country should be playing minor league ball. We ought to be in the majors...I view this as really apart from – even a diversion from – the hard work that the Congress should be doing about the problems facing our country and the world.’”
If the grotesque spinning of Mrs. Clinton is what passes for “leadership” in the Progressive Movement and the Democrat Party, then, it would appear, they have found their candidate for the 2016 General Elections. But it also means that their leadership is only interested in deflecting blame, shirking responsibility and enriching themselves at the expense of the American people.
If Olympic-Class political spin is the mark of “leadership” for Progressives and Democrats then it is time that we in the non-elitist classes of American society realize that people like Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton and the rest of the elitist, oligarchical privileged class do not – do not – care about executing good government or protecting opportunity for all Americans, especially the Middle Class and those in poverty.
At a time when our country is so close to having the light of liberty, the promise of opportunity, extinguished through the Progressive Movement’s bureaucratic “fundamental transformation” of our nation, do we really want to elect a “leader” whose entire political existence has been self-serving and completely devoid of responsibility for her actions? Do we really want a delusional elitist who believes – at this very point in time – that American leadership has been restored around the world; that we are loved and respected globally?
Mrs. Clinton is not a leader. She is a product of the Progressive Movement; a caricature of royalty through the Progressive lens who hasn’t a single legitimately attained accomplishment to her name. We would be masochistic to employ this type of “leadership” as our Republic hangs in the balance.
Entertaining the thought of another Clinton in the White House? Well, it’s a far cry from “restoring America’s leadership around the world.”