Saturday, October 24, 2015

“Calm” and “commanding” won’t bring back Benghazi martyrs of Clinton’s bungling

Do Hillary Clinton’s fawning (or desperate) supporters in the media really take us for imbeciles and empty vessels to be “filled” by their propaganda? “Commanding” has been a term frequently used to describe Clinton by the media of late, most usually to either neuter any positive impression voters might have of Bernie Sanders and his positions—and ignore her lack of standing for anything other than her own ego—or off-set any negative impression that voters might have about her disingenuousness and deception about, say, the Benghazi tragedy in which Libyan Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed by local insurgents, likely inspired by Al-Qaeda operatives. 

During the new congressional hearings on the event, the media reported that Clinton was “calm” and “commanding,” but failed to mention that she illuminated almost nothing. She claimed to take “responsibility” for the tragedy; yet while she implied that she personally did not deny the requested extra security for the Benghazi mission, this allows one to speculate that her devoted disciples did it for her, since the needed security never happened, despite the fact it was Clinton’s personal “responsibility.” 

Clinton spent much of the hearing burnishing her limpid diplomatic record, higher on calories than protein. One thing Clinton is good at is talking (and sounding “commanding”), but as famous line in that Wendy’s commercial from years back went, “Where’s the beef?” Clinton can’t point to one single positive thing that can be credited to her during her four years as Secretary of State, save some personal gender-related projects. In the meantime, Clinton’s many supporters in the media characterized her interrogators as engaging in juvenile nitpicking and bullying, in contrast to Clinton’s “calm” and “commanding” demeanor. Uh-huh. I suppose on one level it can be said that the Republicans on the committee were allowing their frustrations to show from Clinton’s stolid front of non-accountability and obfuscation. Is she a pathological fibber? Is she well versed in the art of disingenuousness and deception? Is she in self-denial, perhaps because she sees herself as a “victim”? Or is she actually telling the truth, that she was out of touch with the reality on the ground as we are then forced to believe? 

Let me leave you with this thought: When Barack Obama was first elected president, the country was in its worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. His election brought an expectation of “change,” and if you count health care reform, that was “change” of high magnitude, and many people who oppose it now will eventually grudgingly concede the need for it. Before the Democrats were knocked out of the House, a jobs bill, an auto industry bailout and an admittedly watered-down financial industry regulation bill was passed. While the Republicans now only promise to roll back the country to chaos, what is Clinton offering as an alternative, other than impressing her supporters in the media by appearing “presidential”? That she will be the first female president? Will we be “entertained” by the tit-for-tat between a sarcastic Clinton and indignant Republicans? That Clinton will show her true “colors” like her husband did and “compromise” with Republicans on policies that hurt the most vulnerable people in this country? At least Sanders stands for something other than himself.

No comments:

Post a Comment