Friday, January 30, 2015

Did Secretary of State Hillary Clinton take America into her own personal civil war in a Muslim country ?


The tale of the tape    Now it’s Tripoli AND Benghazi AND the Libyan Desert AND....  The real Libya story is a growing problem for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton  —  and it’s much bigger than the 9/11/12 Benghazi fiasco


I promised more about an aborted coup by some of America's generals and admirals  —  here’s a small part of the lead-up to it

BTW  —   Just how many unnecessary wars did Hillary help drag the U.S.A. into ?   —   And was the disclosure of these “Libya Tapes” the real reason that Hillary pushed back her presidential campaign roll-out ?



Yesterday, Fox News reported that “Pentagon officials were so concerned with then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's push in 2011 to back Libyan rebels against Muammar Qaddafi that they opened their own back-channels with Qaddafi to try and prevent the U.S. from entering the civil war, according to a report that cited newly uncovered audio tapes....”  ( See  “Report: Pentagon officials opened back-channels with Qaddafi regime to slow Clinton push into war” by Fox News Staff, 1/29/15, Fox News/ Pentagon [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/29/report-pentagon-officials-opened-secret-talks-with-qaddafi-regime-to-slow/]).

SOME IN  THE U.S. MILITARY WERE WORRIED THAT SOS HILLARY CLINTON WAS PUSHING US INTO AN UNNECESSARY WAR IN LIBYA

According to that report, “Pentagon officials used an intelligence "liaison" to communicate with Qaddafi's son and a top Libyan leader outside of White House or State Department knowledge. A senior Democratic congressman also reportedly was involved....  That unnamed intermediary, who is referred to as an intelligence ‘asset’ working for the Pentagon, not only conducted the conversations with Qaddafi's son, but reportedly shared his concern that Clinton was unnecessarily hyping the danger of a potential genocide by the regime as a way to drag Congress into and shift public opinion in favor of an invasion....”

Fox News gives credit to “The Washington Times” for breaking the story.

LIBYANS COMPARED HILLARY’S FALSE JUSTIFICATION TO LAUNCH A WAR AGAINST LIBYA TO  WHAT GEORGE W. BUSH DID IN IRAQ

According to the WT report, there were tapes, which were reviewed by that paper and authenticated by the participants in the conversations recorded.  And those tapes  chronicled some U.S. officials’ unfiltered conversations with Colonel Moammar Qaddafi’s son and a top Libyan leader, including criticisms by all involved,  that Secretary Clinton had developed tunnel vision and led the U.S. into an unnecessary war without adequately weighing the intelligence community’s concerns (See “Exclusive: Secret tapes undermine Hillary Clinton on Libyan war –  Joint Chiefs, key lawmaker held own talks with Moammar [Qaddafi]regime” by Jeffrey Scott Shapiro &  Kelly Riddell, 1/28/15,  The Washington Times [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/28/hillary-clinton-undercut-on-libya-war-by-pentagon-/][@washtimes on Twitter]).  Seif Qaddafi, told American officials in the secret conversations that he was worried Mrs. Clinton was using false pretenses to justify unseating his father and insisted that the regime had no intention of harming a mass of civilians. He compared Mrs. Clinton’s campaign for war to that of the George W. Bush administration’s now debunked weapons of mass destruction accusations, which were used to lobby Congress to invade Iraq, the tapes show.

According to the Washington Times, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton declined to provide any comment about the recordings; and the State Department also declined to answer questions about separate contacts from the Pentagon and a senior Democratic Party Congressman with the Qaddafi regime, but did say that the goal of Secretary Clinton and President Obama was regime change in Libya

PENTAGON’S BACK-CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS WITH LIBYAN REGIME WAS “AN EXTRAORDINARY DEPARTURE FROM TRADITIONAL POLICY"

The secretly recorded conversations reveal an extraordinary departure from traditional policy, in which the U.S. government speaks with one voice to foreign governments with all communications coordinated by the State Department.  Instead, these tapes show that the Pentagon’s senior uniformed leadership and a congressman from Mrs. Clinton’s own party conveyed sentiments to the Libyan regime that undercut or conflicted with the Secretary of State’s own message at the time.

DEMOCRAT CONGRESSMAN HAD BACK-CHANNEL TALKS WITH LIBYANS TO GET ACCURATE INFORMATION  —  HIS FINDINGS WERE IGNORED BY BOTH THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND THE WHITE HOUSE

A senior Democratic congressman said that he did back-channel communications with the Libyan regime, because he wanted to get all the information he could to share with his congressional colleagues. He said that he feared Secretary of State Clinton was using an emotional argument to sell a war against Libya that wasn’t warranted by the actual facts on the ground.

That congressman also said that he had sent formal letters to both the State Department and the White House about his efforts to communicate with the Qaddafi  regime and the results of those communications.  Neither the State Department nor the White House ever responded to the congressman or his letters.

MILITARY SET UP ITS OWN COMMUNICATIONS WITH QADDAFI

Both inside and outside the Obama administration, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was among the most vocal early proponents of using U.S. military force to unseat Colonel Muammar Qaddafi Joining her in making the case were French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, and her successor as secretary of state, John F. Kerry.

Secretary Clinton’s main argument in the summer of 2011 was that Muammar Qaddafi was about to engage in a genocide against civilians in Benghazi, which the rebels held as their center of power. But defense intelligence officials could not corroborate those concerns; and in fact, their assessment was that Qaddafi was unlikely to risk world outrage by inflicting mass casualties, Pentagon officials told The Washington Times. As a result, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, strongly opposed Hillary Clinton’s recommendation to use U.S. military might against Qaddafi's forces. 

Because of the refusal of the White House and State Department to heed intelligence and military input into its regime change strategy for Libya, the Pentagon went its own way and established communications with Seif Qaddafi through one of his friends, a U.S. businessman, who acted as the intermediary. The goal was to identify a clear path and strategy forward in Libya — something that wasn’t articulated by the White House or State Department at the time, according to Pentagon officials.

As the intelligence asset working with the Joint Chiefs kept his contacts going, one U.S. general made an attempt to negotiate directly with his Libyan military counterparts, according to interviews conducted by The Washington Times with officials directly familiar with the overture. And even after the conflict began, U.S. military leaders kept looking for a way out and a way to avoid the power vacuum that would be left in the region if the government of Colonel Qaddafi fell.

HILLARY HAS A LOT TO ANSWER FOR  —   WHAT HAPPENED BECAUSE OF HILLARY CLINTON’S  “ LEADERSHIP ” IN 2011 NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT AND QUESTIONED IF SHE RUNS FOR PRESIDENT IN 2016

If Clinton runs for president between now and 2016, her style of leadership as it relates to foreign policy must be viewed through the one war that she personally championed during her tenure as Secretary of State. Among the key questions every candidate must answer is how they will react when faced with serious security incidents around he world; part and parcel of that is how they assess U.S. intelligence and solicit the advice of the military leadership.  —   America’s 2011-2012 Libyan experience with Hillary Clinton at the helm at the State Department clearly answers a lot of those questions.

Numerous U.S. officials interviewed by The Washington Times confirmed that it was Secretary of State Clinton, and not President Obama, who led the charge to use NATO military force to unseat Qaddafi as Libya’s leader.  They specifically noted that Clinton repeatedly dismissed the warnings offered by career military and intelligence officials.  In the tapes, a U.S. intelligence liaison working for the Pentagon told a Qaddafi aide that President Obama had privately informed members of Congress that Libya “is all Secretary Clinton’s matter” and that the nation’s highest-ranking generals were concerned that President Obama had been misinformed by Secretary Clinton.

Some of the criticism of the U.S. Libya policy at the time came from important quarters. Sergey Ivanovich Kislyak, Russia’s ambassador to the U.S., told The Washington Times the following: “The U.N. Security Council resolution on Libya was meant to create a no-fly zone to prevent bombing of civilians....  NATO countries that participated in this intervention were supposed to patrol the area. However, in a short amount of time the NATO flights — initially meant to stop violence on the ground — went far beyond the scope of the Security Council-mandated task and created even more violence in Libya.”

On March 19, 2011, the U.S. military, supported by France and Britain, fired off more than 110 Tomahawk missiles, hitting about 20 Libyan air and missile defense targets. Within weeks, a NATO airstrike killed one of Qaddafi’s sons and three grandsons at their the family’s Tripoli compound, sparking debate about whether the colonel and his family were legitimate targets under the U.N. resolution. Secretary of Defense Gates said the compound was targeted because it included command-and-control facilities.

In August, 2011, Muammar Qaddafi’s compound in Tripoli was overrun, signaling the end of his 42-year reign and forcing him into hiding. Two months later, Qaddafi, 69, was killed in his hometown of Sirte. His son Seif was captured by the Zintan tribe and remains in solitary confinement in a Zintan prison cell.

Since Colonel Qaddafi was removed from power, Libya has been in a constant state of chaos, with factional infighting, terrorist cells inside and outside the major cities and no uniting leader.  For Americans, the worst exhibition of that chaos and terrorist activity occurred on 9/11/2012, when the U.S. Mission in Benghazi was attacked by Al Queda-affiliated terrorists resulting in the deaths of four Americans, including our ambassador to Libya.

Last week, an attack on a luxury hotel in Tripoli killed nine people, including one American. A group calling itself the Islamic State-Tripoli Province took responsibility for the attack, indicating a growing presence of anti-American terrorist groups within the country.

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hillary flew around the world dispensing US Troops like a 911 dispatcher.
Her foreign policy & record as Senator went along with all of Bush invasion & occupations.
The only difference betweeen George W & Hillary is 100 pounds.

Anonymous said...

The Clinton Doctrine: Bombing from the air doesn't count...

That means it doesn't count as going "...around the world dispensing U.S. Troops...."

Anonymous said...

Hillary has been the most effective and influential Secretary of State our Nation has ever experienced. She actually has brought pride back to being a United States citizen. Further, our Nation has in the past been thrust into two unneccesary wars: Republican Dwight Eisenhower dragged us into Vietnam and disgraced our Nation and then Republican George Bush brought us into Iraq - another disgrace.

Anonymous said...

I am confused are you a nitwit or a dimwit?

Anonymous said...

Eisenhower dragged us into Vietnam? Thats news.

Truman dragged us in, Kennedy escalated it, and Johnson blew it into a mess.

Anonymous said...

eisenhower kept us out of vietnam.

Galewyn Massey said...

RESPONSE: THE " 'VIETNAM ERA' FOLKS" EDITION

Except for the person who impliedly asked about the "nitwit" - "dimwit" distinction, to all of the comment makers above after "Anonymous... 5:10 AM..."; as to the genesis of the Vietnam War, as in who "...dragged us into Vietnam..." -- the record is clear -- it's all quite debatable.

Anonymous said...

Hillary Clinton when she was Hillary Rodham was an active Vietnam War protester. During her last year of college she went to many anti-war protests. That's impressive. And adds to her credibility as our next commander in chief.

Anonymous said...

Was that before or after Miss Hillary Rodham was a "Goldwater Girl"?

Anonymous said...

Hillary went to anti war demonstrations in the 60's.

isnt that nice.

I think its slightly more relevant that as Secretary of State she killed more people than Kissinger.

Anonymous said...

You, sir, are playing fast and loose.

If you count his time as National Security Adviser and your body count includes both the Middle East and South East Asia, I think Kissinger might edge out Hillary.

Anonymous said...

The only human being Hillary Clinton is responsible for killing is Osama Bin Laden. That is all. And that is enough. The rest of your claims are jibberish.

Anonymous said...

In a November 19, 2006 appearance on “Meet the Press,” possible 2016 Democratic presidential contender James Webb told host Tim Russert, "I’m one of these people who – there aren’t many of us – who can still justify for you the reasons that we went into Vietnam, however screwed up the strategy got."

Webb was a much-decorated Lieutenant of Marines while in Vietnam. For just one event, he received a Navy Cross for his actions in the face of the enemy (with probably other parts of them on him, as well; since he hit a bunch of them with grenades and a satchel charge) on June 10, 1969.

When I knew him, in 1970, I called him by his first name, “Captain.”

In a 1990 New York Times opinion piece, Webb opposed further U.S. military escalation in Saudi Arabia during Operation Desert Shield citing lack of a coherent strategy and consent from the United States Congress. He also warned against a permanent military presence in the Middle East. Seven months before the beginning of the 2003 Iraq War, Webb wrote an essay for the Washington Post in which he “...questioned whether an overthrow of Saddam would “actually increase our ability to win the war against international terrorism” and pointed out that the measure of military success can be preventing wars and well as fighting them. He charged, “those who are pushing for a unilateral war in Iraq know full well that there is no exit strategy if we invade.” He concluded, “the Iraqis are a multiethnic people filled with competing factions who in many cases would view a U.S. occupation as infidels invading the cradle of Islam. … In Japan, American occupation forces quickly became 50,000 friends. In Iraq, they would quickly become 50,000 terrorist targets.”

On January 23, 2007, Webb delivered the Democratic response to the President Bush's State of the Union address, focusing on the economy and Iraq. Webb's speech drew positive reviews, and was regarded as one of the stronger State of the Union responses up to that time. Webb, a decorated war veteran spoke of his family’s military past, his own passionate attachment to the military, and the way in which previous presidents had always attempted to ensure that all precautions had been taken when sending young Americans into harm's way.

On March 5, 2007, Webb introduced a piece of legislation, S. 759, intended to prohibit the use of funds for military operations in Iran without the prior approval of Congress. In a statement on the floor of the Senate, Webb said, "The major function of this legislation is to prevent this Administration from commencing unprovoked military activities against Iran without the approval of the Congress. The legislation accomplishes this goal through the proper constitutional process of prohibiting all funding for such an endeavor."

For those arguing back and forth above, that sort of shows that Jim Webb is very much the opposite of Hillary Clinton.

Galewyn Massey said...

RESPONSE: THE “MORE IMPORTANT MEMORIES AND REFLECTIONS” EDITION

UNLIKE THE BSI ABOVE, GALEWYN MASSEY DOESN’T HAVE MEMORIES THAT GO BACK TO 1970, BUT THERE IS A VERY RELEVANT ITEM DURING GM’S TENURE ON THIS BLOG THAT JAMES WEBB DID WRITE

In a 2013 issue of “The National Interest,” former Secretary of the Navy, former U.S. Senator and much-published author Jim Webb said, “IN MATTERS of foreign policy, Congress, and especially the Senate, was designed as a hedge against the abuses exhibited by overeager European monarchs who for centuries had whimsically entangled their countries in misguided adventures. America would not be such a place. The Constitution would protect our governmental process from the overreach of a single executive who might otherwise succumb to the impulsive temptation to unilaterally risk our country’s blood, treasure and international prestige. Congress was given the power to declare war and appropriate funds, thus eliminating any resemblance to European-style monarchies when it came to the presidential war power....” (See “Congressional Abdication – Congress has been abandoning its traditional role in foreign policy to the executive branch” by Jim Webb, 2/25/13 [March-April 2013 Issue], The National Interest [http://nationalinterest.org/article/congressional-abdication-8138]).

ISSUES RAISED BY AMERICA’S LIBYA EXPERIENCE

In part, the lengthy and detailed article dealt with matters related to Libya, as follows:
“...The issue in play in Libya was not simply whether the president should ask Congress for a declaration of war. Nor was it wholly about whether Obama violated the edicts of the War Powers Act, which in this writer’s view he clearly did. The issue that remains to be resolved is whether a president can unilaterally begin, and continue, a military campaign for reasons that he alone defines as meeting the demanding standards of a vital national interest worthy of risking American lives and expending billions of dollars of taxpayer money....”

WHAT WAS THE STANDARD IN THE CASE OF LIBYA

“The initial justification was that a dictator might retaliate against people who rebelled against him. No thinking person would make light of the potential tragedy involved in such a possibility in Libya (or, at present, in Syria). But it should be pointed out that there are a lot of dictators in the world and very few democracies in that particular region. This gives the Obama standard a pretty broad base if he or any future president should decide to use it again. And then, predictably, once military operations began, the operative phrase became “human suffering” and the stated goal became regime change, with combat dragging on for months. *** In a world filled with cruelty, the question is not only how but whether a president should be allowed to pick and choose when and where to use military force on the basis of such a vague standard. Given our system of government, the fundamental question is: Who should decide? And even if a president should decide unilaterally on the basis of an overwhelming, vital national interest that requires immediate action, how long should that decision be honored, and to what lengths should our military go, before the matter comes under the proper scrutiny—and boundaries—of Congress? *** As a measure for evaluating future crises, it is useful to review the bidding that led to our actions in Libya. What did it look like when President Obama ordered our military into action in that country, and what has happened since?”

WEBB’S EXPERIENCE AND OPINION

“... [D]uring my time in the Senate as a member of both the Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees, I repeatedly raised concerns about the growing assertion of executive power during the presidencies of both Bush and Obama as well as the lack of full accountability on a wide variety of fronts in the Department of Defense. These issues remain and still call for resolution....”

In almost all ways, Jim Webb is a striking contrast to Hillary Clinton.

Anonymous said...

There is no clearer evidence that this is truly a Republican blog than the nonsense your are spewing forth about Webb as a viable candidate to challenge Hillary. It ain't happening. And if you had any sense of the values of the national Democratic Party you would know that. Hillary will be the Democratic nominee and she will trounce whatever loser the GOP finally finds to challenge her. Get used to it. The Presidency will be going to Hillary as surely as the 11th CD will be going to Donovan. It is as good as done.

Anonymous said...

Both Webb and Clinton are old.

Webb still thinks about why the French lost at Dien Bien Phu as much as he does why the North Vietnamese defeated America's allies in the South, and he still believes that most of the honor and glory of America was achieved by Scots-Irish Protestants.

Hillary still gets juicy draws thinking of Herbert Marcuse.

Did I mention that both of them are old?

Anonymous said...

Seventy is the new fifty - at least for female political candidates and women in the workplace. Not sure if it is for men also. So Hillary's age will be a NON-issue during the presidential campaign although I am sure this blog and other GOP's will feebly attempt to make it one. Also any attempts by the GOP to make an issue of Hillary's age will surely backfire on them and make her even more endearing to the Nation - if that is even possible as she continues to be the most admired woman in America.

Anonymous said...

There's nothing endearing about Hillary, and being the most admired WOMAN in America counts for next to nothing about being the real Leader that America needs.

Galewyn Massey said...

BACKFILL: THE “SOMEBODY AT ‘ESQUIRE’ THINKS THAT JIM WEBB COULD AND SHOULD RUN A ‘HALF RIGHT’ CAMPAIGN ” EDITION

WEBB SEES THE NEED OF A DEMOCRATIC PARTY THAT’S FOR WHITE WORKING GUYS ’N’ GALS

ONLY TWO DAYS AGO, ACCORDING TO ESQUIRE/ POLITICS — IF JIM WEBB CAN TIE HIS WHITE WORKING GUY’S MESSAGE TO A GENERAL PITCH THAT INCLUDES MINORITIES AND “POOR” VOTERS — THEN WEBB WOULD HAVE HIS POPULIST BASE INSIDE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

According to the Esquire political blog, “Prospective presidential candidate Jim Webb has said something that has made some people very angry, some other people a little angry, and some people simply disturbed at the way he said something that's more than half-true, but not a lot more than half-true....” (See “Jim Webb and the Merits of Being Half Right” by Charles P. Pierce, 1/30/15, Esquire/ The Politics Blog [http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Jim_Webb_Is_Almost_Making_Sense]).

Here’s some of what Jim Webb said:
"I think [the Democrats] could do better with white, working people and I think this last election showed that," Webb said, referencing the 2014 midterms where Republicans took control of the Senate and added more power in the House.

Then the former war hero, Ronald Reagan Navy Secretary and Democratic Senator from Virginia got really dicey (as in like Andrew Dice Clay?) — "The Democratic Party could do very well to return to its Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Andrew Jackson roots where the focus of the party was making sure that all people who lack a voice in the corridors of power could have one through the elected represented.... You are not going to have a situation again where you have 96% of the African American vote turning out for one presidential candidate. ... We need to get back to the principles of the Democratic Party that we are going to give everyone who needs access to the corridors of power that access regardless of any of your antecedents. I think that is a fair concept."

OK, SO WHAT’S HALF-TRUE ABOUT WHAT WEBB SAID ?

According to the Esquire politics blog, there is no question that the Democrat Party has done a terrible job of explaining to white working people who's been screwing them and why. Most of the people who have tried that have found themselves marginalized, and not always by the Republicans, either. For example, Massachusetts Senator-Professor Warren is one of the few Democrats who has managed to explain these matters in a way that is both easily understood, and that doesn't sound like she's talking down to anybody. Nonetheless, she still has a long hard push uphill before she moves the political dialogue to the point where white working class voters actually act on what she's telling them.

Webb is onto the fact that sooner or later, it's up to the white working-class voters to decide to stop being stupid about their own self-interest, and to stop falling for the GOP scams about how poor people and people of color are the ones stealing all their money.

Esquire’s Charles Pierce says that “The [Democratic] party has to do better at this. Webb's right about that, although I think he's more right [about it] at the local and state level than he is at the national level, at least for the moment, since the Republicans seem hellbent on torching any appeal they had to minority and women voters. If [Webb] runs for president as a "Reagan Democrat," he won't be worth listening to. If he runs as a guy who can convince poor and middle-class voters of all races that they share a common adversary, then Jim Webb could make this a very interesting campaign. I'm inclined to give him half-a-shot.”

Galewyn Massey said...

UPDATE & BACKFILL: THE “SOMETHING OLD... SOMETHING BORROWED... AND NOT RED, WHITE AND BLUE — THAT’S HILLARY’S REAL STORY” EDITION

CONSERVATIVE BLOG BELLS HILLARY’S [CAT] GALORE OVER “HER” LIBYAN POLICY

SECRETARY OF STATE CLINTON’S LIBYA POLICY(IES) WERE TAKEN FROM THE POSITION(S) OF “THE CLINTON GLOBAL INITIATIVE” AND “THE RIVKIN PROJECT”

According to somebody called “Sundance” writing a self-proclaimed conservative blog, The Washington Times article cited in my main post above did detail many of the issues and present the contrast between the Pentagon position on the Libyan uprising against Colonel Qaddafi and that of the State Department before and during the overthrow of Quddafi. However, “Sundance” also notes that there is one substantive factual flaw when the Washington Times described Hillary’s motive for regime change in Libya. According to this “Sundance,” the WT author writes about the motive from the position of the known visible narrative chosen by Secretary Hillary Clinton to remove Qaddafi, which was to avoid a “humanitarian crisis,” similar to the Rwanda massacre that hung over the Clinton White House as a great moral short coming ( See ““Washington Times: Secret tapes undermine Hillary Clinton on Libyan war…” by Sundance, 2/1/15, The Conservative Treehouse/ The Last Refuge
[http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/02/01/washington-times-secret-tapes-undermine-hillary-clinton-on-libyan-war/]).

THE WT ARTICLE ACCEPTED ‘R2P’ AS CLINTON’S MOTIVE FOR THE LIBYAN INTERVENTION, IT WASN’T

“Sundance went on to say that “...[t]he R2P (Responsibility to Protect) doctrine was indeed advanced by Hillary Clinton, Samantha Power and Susan Rice [as the justification for the air war against Quddafi’s forces]; however, that visible motive was a cover for the real impetus which can be found by looking much further back into the Hillary Clinton ideology at [something called] the Rivkin Project. *** Indeed, if you think about it in larger context, R2P could never factually form the basis for intervention and regime change because Team Hillary themselves admitted -at the time- they didn’t know the actual players within the opposition forces who would fall under such a protective doctrine. *** How could you genuinely call for a protection doctrine without a substantive understanding of the people who you would assign a need of protection for? You cannot. *** However, no-one in the Western media ever challenged this false premise. The R2P doctrine was the visible reason given for selling the interventionist path, but it was not the actual motive to explain why Hillary wanted to remove Qaddafi against the recommendations of the Pentagon and national security apparatus. *** The larger Rivkin Project, and the Clinton globalist initiative demand for advancement of multicultural open EU borders was the agenda behind the decision to intervene.” .

Anonymous said...

Sundance?! Is that one of your more authoritative sources for all things Hillary, Gale? Sundance said it so it must be true. Sundance sounds about as credible as those comments at The Brooklyn Paper . . .

Galewyn Massey said...

RESPONSE: THE “‘NEW RIGHT’ AND THE OLD RIGHT HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY ABOUT HILLARY — AND SO DO THE FAR LEFT” EDITION

HILLARY’S FOLKS HAVE TO PLAY "WHAC-A-MOLE”* ABOUT LIBYA... AND FRANCE... AND PAKISTAN (OOPS, NOT PAKISTAN TODAY)... — IT GOES ON AND ON ABOUT HILLARY’S TIME AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT

One day it’s “Sundance” another it’s “Butch”... One day it’s “Cassidy” another day it’s “Cavendish”... One day it’s “Infowars” another day it’s Wikileaks... One day it’s conservatives another day it’s “Occupiers,” and Red- and Black-flaggers... — from various sources and various mediums of information distribution.

This is just one of their collective messages:
Hillary Clinton has a Charles Rivkin problem that involves Islam, Libya, France, Nicolas Sarkozy...
Hillary Clinton has a Nicolas Sarkozy problem that involves Charles Rivkin, Islam, Libya, France...
Hillary Clinton has an Islam problem that involves Nicolas Sarkozy, Libya, France, Charles Rivkin...
Hillary Clinton has a France problem that involves Nicolas Sarkozy, Libya, France, Charles Rivkin, Islam...
Hillary Clinton has a Libya problem that involves Nicolas Sarkozy, Charles Rivkin, Islam, France ...

It's a good thing that I didn't add more items to my search !
_____________________

* OR "Whack-a-mole" or “Whacky mole” or whack a mole...