Spread this video, please: Hillary Clinton on the Taliban Five and American security
If and when Hillary Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee for president in 2016, her Republican opponent had better show part of this clip.
I’m surprised it isn’t being talked about more, because it is positively Obaman in its stupidity and offensiveness, and its contempt for the listener (it also comes across as insincere and unconvincing, but that never stopped Obama either):
Let’s contemplate that in print:
These five guys are not a threat to the United States. They are a threat to the safety and security of Afghanistan and Pakistan. It’s up to those two countries to make the decision once and for all that these are threats to them. So I think we may be kind of missing the bigger picture here. We want to get an American home, whether they fell off the ship because they were drunk or they were pushed or they jumped, we try to rescue everybody.
Hillary must think the American people have forgotten why we went into Afghanistan in the first place. Maybe they have; after all, what difference does it make? And it happened so long ago—twelve and a half years, and even longer ago by the time the 2016 election rolls around. A great many of the voters Hillary expects to appeal to would have been little children back then.
But just as a refresher, the now-ironically-named “Operation Enduring Freedom” was launched in Afghanistan after 9/11 because the Taliban who controlled the country had provided a safe haven for al Qaeda, from which the terrorist group trained and equipped jihadis to wreak havoc around the world, including the US—and including the 9/11 attacks. The masterminds resided in Afghanistan with the Taliban’s cooperation, approval, and protection, and the Afghan war with the US would not have occurred had the Taliban agreed to turn the culprits over and close down al Qaeda operations in their country.
The war was very widely supported because that rationale was well understood at the time. The Taliban Five were imprisoned twelve years ago in relation to that war, because they were among the Afghan Taliban leaders.
So Hillary Clinton’s statement is, to put it bluntly, so much horse manure. She was in the US Senate when this all occurred, and she voted for the war:
Clinton strongly supported the 2001 U.S. military action in Afghanistan, saying it was a chance to combat terrorism while improving the lives of Afghan women who suffered under the Taliban government.
I’m sure the release of the Taliban Five won’t hurt those women, right? And the Five won’t host and support al Qaeda any more? And their release wasn’t a PR coup for both the Taliban and al Qaeda? And none of this could possibly end up affecting the US—any more than it did on 9/11/2001?
Compared to that utterance, it almost seems minor that Clinton uses a ridiculous analogy for Bergdahl’s act of desertion: a sailor falling off a ship. Lame, duplicitous, absurd—and yet Hillary must think Americans will buy that.
I suppose what she really thinks is that it doesn’t matter, because she’s famous and beloved and a women and a liberal, and the Democrats really don’t have many better alternatives. So what difference does it make what claptrap she spouts?
So how many dead baby seals did it take to give her that movie like glow, that H Roddam C?
Public Law 107—40
107th Congress
Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible
for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were
committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that
the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect
United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign
policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence;
and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary
threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United
States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to
take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism
against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Authorization for
Use of Military Force’’.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL.–That the President is authorized to use all
necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations,
or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed,
or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,
or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent
any future acts of international terrorism against the United States
by such nations, organizations or persons.
Oops, should have cleaned up the formatting better. Sorry about that.
Neo…
Have you been scanning the Long War Journal?
ISIS/ ISIL is, de facto, a wing of AQ… and is now pretty much in control of the Sunni faction in Iraq.
How can the Press continue to pitch the idea (Barry’s) that the war on AQ has been won?
At this time, AQ, de facto, has its own turf. Further, the Europeans have given themselves permission to buy oil from this area. (shipped by pipe up and out through Turkey)
Then, throw in Libya…
Iran with atomics…
And Qatar as jihadi central…
What could go wrong?
They were planning on adding Egypt too.
HRC, what difference would it make if Chelsea was at the embassy when the attack happened and US forces were ordered to “stand down, let them die”?
Don’t hit HRC with a shoe, she might melt into a puddle.
Neo, since when are you Ms. Sunshine and Smiles. The American people will joyously accept anything that makes them feel good and provides an excuse for not confronting painful truths. Hillary could have maintained the Gitmo 5 are returning to Afghanistan to start a health foods franchise and few would bother to dispute her equally sagacious insights.
What the F*** difference do it make,’Yo, Neo??
As an Irish lady friend of sassy persuasion says about HRC: “She gives the letter ‘C’ to the word: Woman.” Yep, minimum.
Alternative Return of the Five Taliban: Tie each to a gutted, bleeding pig and push them out of the belly of a plane-in-flight over the Afghan-Pakistan border region. Eat a hardy meal. Sleep soundly.
Questions?? Didn’t think so. Thank You, General Pershing in the Philippino Insurgency. My inspiration for “deployment” of Islamist Butchers of Taliban, al Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, Persian, Palestinian, Egyptian, Libyan, etc, etc, persuasion.
Yes, spread the video, wherever you can.
How does this excerpt fit in with the “What does it matter?” video (and referred to by Neo).
HRH must be pretty damn certain that this country will not be attacked again from forces in Afghanistan.
I realize that BO would welcome the chickens coming home to roost once again and doesn’t care.
But HRH does not strike me as being that demented, because she wants actual admiration and fame, totally different from the admiration and fame BO contemplates.
I do not believe we are in a hubris situation, but we could be.
Totally off topic and selfish. I loathe both the “c” word and the “n” word, do not and cannot use them non-academically.
But if a person is going to discuss them, have the “b” word to say them.
Don’t roll up like a potato bug.
And I do use the word “fuck” more often than I would like (in non-computer life), but I would be embarrassed to say f*** if I want to say fuck.
If something requires asterisks, it requires not saying.
If it requires saying (and it might) then step up to the plate.
Being crotchety means never having to say you are sorry.
“she really thinks is that it doesn’t matter, because she’s famous and beloved and a women and a liberal, and the Democrats really don’t have many better alternatives. So what difference does it make what claptrap she spouts?” neo
She doesn’t think, she knows that it doesn’t matter with the low info voter, because she’s famous and beloved and a woman and voting for “The First Woman President” is the only thing that matters with the indoctrinated low info voter, which is the only demographic she must woo.
What does it matter that, Hillary Can’t Name Top Accomplishment As Secretary of State
Or that her media supporters can’t name a single accomplishment by her as Secretary of State? NY Times’ Confessore: Hillary’s Supporters Can’t Name A Single Accomplishment as Secretary of State So they’ll invent something.
None of this matters because all that counts is who wins the Presidential popularity contest;
PJTV — Young Hillary Clinton Supporters Struggle to Name Her Achievements
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams
From Robert Gates, former defense secretary, offers harsh critique of Obama’s leadership in ‘Duty’, by Bob Woodward, in the Washington Post:
On these admissions alone of their rank self-interest and parochial partisanship trumping the grave stakes in Iraq, Secretary Clinton and President Obama should be pilloried and disqualified from Commander in Chief.
Amen sister!
Hillary would be Obama’s third term.
Tonywandy: It is obviously ALL about you, Tiny Dude. This ‘old school’ neocon is always amused by life’s little finger wagging hall monitors. Your VTG* is on hilarious display.
(*Vast Testicular Concavity*)
With apologies to our classy Landlady.
The Taliban five were imprisoned twelve years ago but after no more than 2 years in Gitmo under aggressive interrogation they should have received a bullet to the brain in accordance with the Geneva Convention. We are not serious, we lack the will to go balls to the wall. Jihad laughs all the way to the grave, knowing we will not do what it takes to convince them to surrender unconditionally.
The West is full of weakling pukes that can’t even kill mass murderers in California.
There’s no way their “leaders” will be much better, having snorted up the crack cocaine of DC’s toxicity.
I can’t decide if Hillary’s making the best argument she can, or if she’s on autopilot.
Her election is entirely evitable.
As far as LIVs go, they aren’t going to let “historic” trump the fact that they don’t like her.
Sooner rather than later it will come to dust. Check stored ammo and learn to reload as you buy powder, primers, cases, and bullets. Begin by buying a basic press and all accessories. Hand loading is not expensive beyond the initial cost. Q0 if you wish to be an assest or liability.
From what I hear it’s hard to find the supplies you need to reload. Just managed to find a box of 22LR last week, first in 2 years.
Interesting both Hillary and Barry talk about bringing Americans home. In case you missed it here is an interview by Bret Baier last with an air force pilot on Benghazi last night.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/11/cia-heard-benghazi-attackers-using-state-dept-cell-phones-to-call-terrorist/
Kind of puts the lie to all that happy talk about bringing Americans home.
Also notice that he says the first people to grab the survivors at Ramstein was the state dept. They haven’t been heard from since. Of course Hillary and Barry had nothing to do with that either.
Prunt. Pure Prunt.