Hard Choices: Part 2

In my first essay on Hillary Clinton’s new book Hard Choices, I analyzed some of her content, saying I would analyze more at a later date. Today is that later date so here goes, though first I want to provide this link to that earlier essay:

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2014/07/hillary-clintons-book-hard-choices.html

Analysis of parts of Hard Choices

The following introduces quoted material from HRC's book, followed by my comments. Remember to ask yourself, as you read these words, “Is this the kind of person I want as my next President?”

Sources: Page x and Page 33: Compare these two sentences:

Page x: "I worked to reorient American foreign policy around what I call 'smart power.'"

Page 33: "This analysis led me to embrace a concept known as smart power, which had been kicking around Washington for a few years."

Comment:

The quote on page x makes it look like Hillary invented smart power, when she says "around what I call 'smart power.'" But the quote on page 33 makes it clear that she didn't.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard some lazy and indecisive supervisor tell me over the years, "work smarter, not harder." That's practically a mantra in every workplace in this country. So I don't see how Hillary gets any special credit for her claim to have "worked to reorient American foreign policy around...'smart power.'" Unless she's admitting that our national policy of appointing Secretaries of State based on political considerations (which includes her own appointment) somehow meant "smart power" wasn't a priority under her non-professional predecessors.

Source: Page 31:

Lawrence Eagleburger, the first and only career Foreign Service officer to serve as Secretary of State, joined me for the fiftieth anniversary of the Department's Operations Center...

Comment:

All Secretaries of State should be "career Foreign Service officer[s]." As I read Hillary's Hard Choices, I couldn't get over how many State professionals Hillary had at her disposal to make her look good. This whole charade reminded me of Dancing with the Stars in its early days. The star was paired up with a professional dancer whose sole job was to make the star look good. We are way past the point when we can afford to appoint Secretaries of State in order to make them look good enough to get elected President some day. We need professionalism at the top. And it's not good enough to appoint someone like Hillary Clinton who had a brief stint in the Senate and, as First Lady, got to know a lot of foreign leaders socially.

Source: Page xii:

Everything that I have done and seen has convinced me that America remains the “indispensable nation.”

Comment:

Two comments here:

(1) There is no such nation on earth called "America," though I have proposed that we formally change the name from the United States of America to America since the USA no longer consists of states that have any vestige of sovereignty or any rights.

(2) The USA should step back from its presumed role of most indispensable nation, since such an attitude is nothing less than sheer hubris. Unless we ratchet down our insistence on micromanaging everything, we'll only end up overtaxing ourselves and denying to others the chance to more fully participate in running their own affairs on the world stage.

Source: page 458-9:

The transitional governing body [the subject of private negotiations, closed to the public] would include members of both the government [of Syria] and the opposition chosen “on the basis of mutual consent.”

[AND]

"I [HRC] offered "mutual consent" as a way out because, in practice, there was no way Assad would pass such a test; the opposition would never consent to him."

[AND]

"The press missed the intent and plain meaning of 'mutual consent' and read it as an admission that Assad could stay in power."

Comment:

Hillary's attempt to keep Assad out of the transitional governing body by means of her "mutual consent" device wouldn't have worked. While it's true the "opposition would never consent to him," it's also true that the Syrian government could have decided to withhold its consent from all members of the opposition - unless they would consent (which they wouldn't) to the inclusion of Assad. If all members of the opposition would have been excluded, then of course a transitional governing body could not have been set up.

So Hillary bombed by offering "mutual consent," which she thought was so clever.

As for "the press missed the intent and plain meaning of 'mutual consent,'" that was Hillary's fault. Since this was her idea and much hinged on its acceptance, it was up to her or her agents to have briefed the press in advance on its "plain meaning." It's not entirely a novel idea that governments have "friendly and reliable" members of the press they can count on educate the public as to meanings of terms supporting their negotiations with other parties.

Source: Page 492:

But the Chinese were avoiding us. Worse, we learned that Wen had called a "secret" meeting with the Indians, Brazilians, and South Africans to stop, or at least dilute, the kind of agreement the United States was seeking. When we couldn't find any of the leaders of those countries, we knew something was amiss and sent out members of our team to canvass the conference center. Eventually they discovered the meeting's location.

Comment:

The next few paragraphs describe how Obama and Hillary crashed this meeting, with Hillary triumphantly concluding with:

"Are you ready?" said President Obama, flashing a big grin. Now the real negotiations could begin.

The "real negotiations?" Sometimes certain parties decide to caucus privately before deciding to resume participation with the larger group. Those private caucuses are just as important as the other negotiations leading to the final agreement. And yet we decided to act in a high-handed and arrogant manner by butting in where we had not been invited.

The participants in this secret meeting included Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, and South African President Jacob Zuma. I would have loved for the Chinese Premier to have yelled at Obama and Hillary:

"How dare you violate the privacy of our caucus. Get the fucking hell out of here, both of you clowns!"

Source: Page 334:

The unrest had begun with a single heartbreaking incident on December 17, 2010. A twenty-six-year-old Tunisian man name Mohamed Bouazizi was selling fruit from a small cart in Sidi Bouzid... Bouazizi did not have an official permit to sell his produce, and on that day he had an altercation with a female police officer that left him humiliated and desperate. Later that day he set himself on fire in front of the local government offices.

Comment:

You know, if Hillary Clinton was going to bother to cite this incident, she should have had the decency to get her facts straight. There's a decent summary on Wikipedia at this link (see the section entitled "Confiscation of wares and self-immolation"):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Bouazizi

Hillary doesn't bother to tell us that Bouazizi had gone into debt to buy $200 worth of produce which the cops then confiscated. So that left him with nothing to sell, his family to feed, and a $200 debt to repay. But, no, Hillary couldn't be bothered to share that much with us - which is a matter of widely-available general knowledge. She wanted to make it seem that he killed himself because "he had an altercation with a female police officer that left him humiliated and desperate."

This is from the linked Wikipedia article, which paints a more complete picture:

QUOTE:

Bouazizi, angered by the confrontation,[25] ran to the governor's office to complain[19] and to ask for his scales back.[26] The governor refused to see or listen to him, even after Bouazizi was quoted as saying "If you don't see me, I'll burn myself."[19] Bouazizi acquired a can of gasoline from a nearby gas station and returned to the governor's office. While standing in the middle of traffic, he shouted, "How do you expect me to make a living?"[26] He then doused and set himself alight with a match at 11:30 a.m. local time, less than an hour after the altercation.[19]

:UNQUOTE.

Source: Pages 352:

When I became Secretary I developed personal relationships with Gulf leaders both individually and as a group through the Gulf Cooperation Council...

Comment:

You can't develop "personal relationships" with anyone "as [part of] a group." And you can't do so within the context of a four-year stint as Secretary of State during which you're attending to other affairs of state.

Source: Page 529: After the earthquake that leveled much of Haiti on January 12, 2010:

But two days after the earthquake Cheryl spoke with Haiti's President Rene Preval, and he told her that the only outsider that he trusted was me. "I need Hillary," he said. "I need her. And no one else." It was a reminder of how important personal relationships can be, even at the highest levels of diplomacy and government.

Comment:

I don't know if President Preval had really said those things. But Hillary's inclusion of these remarks seems too self-serving for my taste. And also, not a very good example of the "smart power" she had touted earlier in her book. When one person becomes so indispensable, then that person runs the risk of being too much in demand and not able to get much done as a result.

Hillary's last sentence is a laugher. Of course everybody would love to have a direct connection to people like HRC who are in a position to galvanize tremendous support. But, tell me, how does having such "important personal relationships" help the United States of America, except to cost us a lot of money (as if that's of any help to the USA)? I'll be the first to admit that such an "important personal relationship" in the final analysis helped President Preval and his people. But...

Source: Page 597 (which begins a section called “Acknowledgements”):

I'm indebted to everyone who helped me through four years at the State Department and more than a year of writing and editing. And the easiest choice I made was to ask Dan Schwerin, Ethan Gelber, and Ted Widmer to become my book team. I could not have been more fortunate as we labored day and night.

Comment:

Uh, huh. And did you share with these people any of the royalties you earned from this book? Or are they counting on you to appoint them to some higher post within your administration should you get elected as President? You know, one hand washes the other. But…that’s the old politics, isn’t it? And not really very smart power at all.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle, just another member of the
Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
former candidate for US President (in 2008 & 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Reflections on Gay Marriage

Opening Statement

I don't have anything against gay people, since my basic philosophy in life has always been "live and let live." However much I might want to wish gays all the happiness in the world, though, that sentiment doesn't blind me to the fact that there is no constitutional basis for granting them the right to get married. In fact I'm amazed that our federal courts seem to be lending their support to our gay brothers and sisters in their quest for marriage equality. I'm going to offer some Constitutional arguments that I hope will turn this tide.



Once upon a time

Let's go back in time to when the US Constitution was first adopted - and there were only 13 states in the union. Could two men (or two women) have been married in any of those states? Would anyone have claimed they had a constitutional right to marry their same-sex partner? If one of those 13 states had decided to allow same-sex marriage, does anyone really think the Constitution would have allowed those couples who moved to one of the 12 other states to be afforded the same rights and status as heterosexual couples living there?

I can see it now: "Excuse me, President Washington. I served under your command when you were leading the fight for independence. My name is Robert and this is Fred, and we'd like to get married to each other. Do you see any Constitutional objection to this? There must be, since no one will issue us a marriage license."

What I'm driving at: The general temper and opinion of We-the-People back in Washington's time didn't even consider same-sex marriage. So why should anyone pretend that the Constitution (surely a reflection of that long ago "general temper and opinion") supports such a notion today?



Let's start with the Tenth Amendment

The Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Who can or cannot get married is not a power "delegated to the United States by the Constitution." I'll even go out on a limb here by claiming that the early state constitutions (say, before the United States consisted of 30 states, just to pick a number) didn't specificially list the power to grant marriage licences as a state power. That task was considered a state function and was routinely listed as such, without any debate or thought going into it. That is, people wanted to get married (so there was demand), which is why local laws and procedures were set up to allow this.

Concerning the Tenth Amendment, the "power...reserved...to the people" has to do with their power concerning their expectations that social contracts be enforceable. The broad-based and unquestioned assumption of We-the-People was that men and women married each other - and not partners of the same-sex. This was an assumption not even open to the kind of debates reserved for far-fetched, way-out senarios. Same-sex marriage didn't even cross the mind, let alone qualify as a remote possibility.

Much is made out of the fact that the Defense of Marriage Act tried to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. My contention is: DOMA didn't have to define anything, since the pre-existing (though unwritten) social contract had already taken care of that.



Article 1, Section 10:

This is from Article 1, section 10:

"No state shall...pass any... law impairing the obligation of contracts..."

This is universally understood to apply to business contracts. But I maintain that social contracts should also be covered. The Ninth Amendment helps us out here: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The non-enumerated right I'm referring is the right of reasonable expectation - a term of my own coinage. Under the social contract I cited above, we have a reasonable expectation that the status quo regarding marriage (and the status quo, generally speaking) be considered binding unless otherwise voided by constitutional provision at the federal level.

In other words, if proponents of same-sex marriage wish to realize their goal, then let them say so in terms of a proposed constitutional amendment. That, of course, will require ratification by at least three-fourths of states. But...no one said this would be easy. Same-sex marriage is too radical a violation of our social contract to allow it to become an established institution by means of twisting an interpretation out of our Constitution that our Founding Fathers never even foresaw.



A clarifying court case

QUOTE:

[source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/09/usa-gaymarriage-colorado-idUSL2N0PK2LW20140709 ]

Adams County District Judge C. Scott Crabtree said in his decision that Colorado’s prohibition [against same-sex marriage], approved by voters in 2006, conflicted with the fundamental right to marry.

:UNQUOTE.

Judge Crabtree overlooks the fact that the "fundamental right to marry" is so basic and fundamental, it was never stated in the Constitution - it never had to be. And this "fundamental right" was always meant to apply only to opposite-sex couples. It should be regarded as part of that social contract favoring the status quo (or, if you prefer, the built-in prejudices/assumptions of the people). Prejudices exist, long-standing outlooks exist. They should be considered as having as much weight as any written laws. If enough people end up not liking some of these outlooks, then they should attempt to amend the Constitution with wording specific to their new outlook.



United States v. Windsor

This wikipedia link succinctly provides the back story behind this quote (also from this link):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Windsor

QUOTE:

Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which federally defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, is unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause's guarantee of equal protection. The federal government must recognize same-sex marriages that have been approved by the states. The judgment of the Second Circuit is affirmed.

:UNQUOTE.

What I highlighted in yellow above is the flaw in the Supreme Court's analysis. The states don't have a right to approve same-sex marriages, since marriage is defined in that social contract I mentioned above that We-the-People have a right to expect shall be enforced. This is a power that the Tenth Amendment assigns to the people (that is, to all the people of the United States), not to the states.

As for states deciding to pass laws banning same-sex marriage, that would be redundant and totally unnecessary. Again, I cite that pre-existing social contract and the reasonable expectation of We-the-People that it be either enforced or amended as concerns its marriage concepts.



Article IV, Section 2

Article IV, Section 2 states, in part:

"The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states."

Heterosexual couples should have a right to expect such "privileges and immunities" when moving to another state, such as are enjoyed by heterosexual couples within that new home state. Section 2 should not be construed to mean that a same-sex couple from out of state has the right to expect the "privileges and immunities" granted to hetero-couples within their new state. Those "privileges and immunities" were not created with same-sex couples in mind.



The Full Faith and Credit Clause

Article IV, Section 1: "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

Some argue that this clause should force states (with bans) to accept the same-sex marriages performed in permissive states. This is not a power that the states should have, not at the expense of violating the social contract cherished by the entire body of people within this country. Any attempt to allow individual states to have a say in this matter, is an usurpation of that social contract which should only be "violated" by means of constitutional amendment at the federal level.

There is a saying: "A House divided against itself cannot stand." Though used as an anti-slavery argument, it would serve well to refute the idea that what defines marriage should be left to the individual states. Allowing the states to allow same-sex marriage would be too divisive and would allow for economic and cultural degradation within disallowing states and within the country as a whole. We still don't know the impact that same-sex marriage will have, especially on the children in such families - or the social costs that might be incurred should that impact be negative.

I'm going to quote from an article without making any comments, just to provide a status report. The heading within this article is "Application to Family Law," from which I quote only selected sentences. I make no use of ellipsis marks or other devices that would indicate omitted text.

QUOTE:

[Heading: Application to Family Law]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause

Until the Supreme Court struck down all laws banning interracial marriage in 1967, a number of states banned interracial marriage and did not recognize marriage certificates issued in other states for interracial couples. The full faith and credit clause was never used to force a state to recognize a marriage it did not wish to recognize.[17]

The clause's application to state-sanctioned same-sex marriages, civil unions, and domestic partnerships is unresolved. Between 1996 and 2004, 39 states passed laws and constitutional amendments that defined marriage as consisting solely of different-sex couples. Most explicitly prohibit the state from honoring same-sex marriages performed in other states and countries.

Though the rulings have been temporarily stayed, prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying has been declared unconstitutional by United States District Courts in Utah, Oklahoma, and Virginia.[18] In Kentucky a District Court has held that marriages of same-sex couples from other states must be recognized.[19]

In August 2007, a federal appeals court held that the clause did require Oklahoma to issue a revised birth certificate showing both adoptive parents of a child born in Oklahoma who had been adopted by a same-sex couple married in another state.[20] Another federal appeals court held differently in April 2011 in a Louisiana case, Adar v. Smith.[21]

In 2013, two gay men successfully sued to get their out-of-state marriage recognized in Ohio despite a state ban...[22]

:UNQUOTE.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Much of the world, certainly much of the Islamic world, consider many of the life styles that flourish within the United States to be not only degenerate but in opposition to the will of God. And there are conservative factions within this country which share those same sentiments. If we're going to make changes as fundamental as what defines marriage and family, we should have a national dialogue on this. We should make a decision as a nation, instead of as a disjointed collection of states. This is too important for such a haphazard approach.

People like Hillary Clinton are trying to claim to be on the right side of history in their support of same-sex marriage. Fine, but any change should come to pass by means of a broad-based national approach, which should include constitutional amendment.

Personally? I think Mrs. Clinton is making an error in judgment of the first magnitude, which could cost her the presidency. Especially if any sober Republican opponent digs in, not with religious arguments but with the constitutional arguments I've cited here. I understand the sentiments of the conservative communities which are striving for their version of a pure and righteous land. If they start using non-religious, commonsense, nuts-and-bolts arguments, they might cause a lot of voters to stop in their tracks and exclaim: "What on earth have we allowed to happen here right under our noses?"

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle, just another member of the
Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
former candidate for US President (in 2008 & 2012)


NOTE: The highlights in yellow which I've added above do not appear in any of the originals.

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Hillary Clinton's book, "Hard Choices"

Introduction

I just finished reading all 600 pages of Hillary Rodhan Clinton's latest book – Hard Choices. This essay concerns itself with my impressions of its content, though is not meant to be comprehensive.

Let's get these out of the way

There are a few points I'd like to address, front and center:

• President Obama was ordered to select HRC as his first Secretary of State – in fact, he had no input whatsoever concerning the rest of his cabinet nominees;

• HRC was aware, from the moment she'd lost the nomination, that she would be slated (due to strenuous, behind-the-scenes efforts by our Shadow Government) to become the Democratic presidential nominee after Obama had served two terms;

• The only way a Republican will be beat HRC in 2016 will be if that party makes such a great offer to the Shadow Government that they will allow for that possibility;

• HRC also knew, well before Obama spoke to her about this, that she would be picked as his Secretary of State with the specific goal of enhancing her chances of winning the presidency in 2016;

• Even though Hard Choices says that President Obama offered HRC another four years as Secretary of State, that was never in the cards; had she accepted, the risk was too great that another Benghazi type episode (or worse) might occur too close to the election for the public to easily forget it; also, HRC would need to devote her undivided attention to campaigning for the nomination;

• Hillary has been mentally preparing herself to become our next President and to do the bidding of our Shadow Government which is promoting her ascendency, ever since resigning as Secretary of State;

• Hillary Rodham Clinton will prove to be a useful tool to the secretive cabal which will so enthusiastically work to elect her;

• HRC will end up surpassing Bill Clinton in terms of one who has no moral compass or scruples when it comes to selfish self-promotion;

• How do I know all this? Deep mediation is the only answer I'll give.

What Hillary Rodham Clinton didn't say

Nowhere within Hard Choice's 600 pages were these two huge issues addressed:

• The U.S. Senate's filibuster rule;

• Article X of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as it might apply to Iran.

The filibuster: The filibuster rule is, in plain English, unconstitutional*. And for that reason alone, the US President should move against it. Hard Choices might not have been the most ideal venue in which to come down against the filibuster. But I really hope Hillary Clinton decides to immediately make this odious Senate rule a target, once she actually declares her candidacy for the presidency. I would like to see her go so far as to add her name to any lawsuit challenging this rule.

Hillary Clinton could have a lot of fun forcing her Republican opponents to defend this clearly unconstitutional bit of nonsense. But, truth be told, I suspect she is one of those who truly believes in maintaining the status quo as regards institutions. HRC just doesn't have it in her to challenge another branch of government over something which members of both parties have defended over the years, some of them even calling it “the soul of the Senate.”

Which says a lot about Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Article X of the NPT: Article X of the NPT allows any country that signed that treaty to withdraw from it and to build its own nuclear weapons if it should come to feel its own security warranted such a move. It's important to note that only the country in question gets to make such a security claim, not needing corroboration or permission from some higher authority. North Korea invoked Article X and so could Iran. I find it amazing that this Article X loophole isn't mentioned at all in either Hillary's book or by any of our pundits.

However, once Iran invokes Article X, we would be in violation of international law should we attack Iran's nuke facilities. And so would Israel if they would decide to go it alone with such an attack. And what would we do in that case, bomb Israel or move against them via a UN resolution authorizing the use of force?

Hillary had written, on page 420:

I also caused a bit of a stir in April 2008 when I warned Iran's leaders that if they launched a nuclear attack on Israel on my watch, the United States would retaliate and “we would be able to totally obliterate them.”

Actually, Hillary Clinton wasn't the only candidate to use such forceful language against Iran. But she and the other candidates apparently failed to realize that Iran could have used their words as evidence that their national security was being threatened, and then proceeded to invoke Article X in order to start building their own nuclear arsenal.

I found HRC's wording to be kind of wishy-washy. Of course, “we would be able to totally obliterate them.” Why bother to state what we would be “able” to do? Ronald Reagan would never have put it that way. She could have said, “The United States would retaliate and we would totally obliterate them.” This might seem like a small point, but there are analysts out there working for the other side(s) who would conclude her leadership style would be tentative and decidedly “feminine,” but not in a Golda Meir kind of way.

I find it sad that Hillary would threaten (even if only by implication) to “totally obliterate” an entire nation for the folly of its leaders. A better approach would be to say, “We would demand the arrest of key Iranian leaders, including the Supreme Ayatollah, and their extradition to the custody of the appropriate international court. We would also insist on internationally-supervised elections within Iran in order to completely replace its elected government, barring any who currently hold office from running in that election. Any resistance to our conditions would trigger an ever-escalating military campaign by the United States to degrade Iran's military facilities.”

I wonder if President Hillary Clinton would decide to throw nukes at Iran if Iran were to throw one at Israel (say, at their Dimona nuclear facility) in retaliation for an Israeli preemptive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. Iran would be justified in responding militarily to such a strike, but lacks the ability to do so using conventional weapons. Using a nuke might be the only option Iran would have. What then, madam President?

Maybe Israel itself would be tempted to blow up Dimona and try to blame Iran, thereby triggering HRC's total obliteration option. Who knows?

Analysis of Hard Choices

The following introduces quoted material from HRC's book, followed by my comments. I will only handle certain quotes today; others will be the subject of future blog posts.

Source: page 3:

“...[Barack Obama and I] believed deeply in the basic bargain at the heart of the American Dream: No matter who you are or where you come from, if you work hard and play by the rules, you should have the opportunity to build a good life for yourself and your family.”

Comments:

I wish Hillary had written this instead:

“...[Barack Obama and I] believed deeply in the American Dream: No matter who you are or where you come from, if you work hard and play by the rules, you will be able to build a good life for yourself and your family unless cruel fate intervenes (for example, in the form of a crippling auto accident).”

Hillary's version is very lawyerly – well, that's what she is by profession - and downright disturbing. Her words are too circumspect – for instance, what does she mean by “you should have the opportunity?” “Play[ing] by the rules,” as HRC puts it, is supposed to automatically generate that “opportunity.” So “should have” really has nothing to do with it.

Also, there is no such thing as “the rules.” There are different rules depending on, in HRC's words, “who you are or where you come from.” In her own case, she played by a set of rules as Bill Clinton's wife that are quite different from the set of rules which a black single mom who dropped out of high school and lives in Detroit has to play by.

Source: page 15:

“[President Obama] went straight to the point...by asking me to serve as his Secretary of State. He...believed I was the best person – in his words, the only person – who could serve in that role at this moment in time...”

Comments:

Of course Obama thought HRC was “the only person” for this job, since that's exactly what the Shadow Government told him. HRC wasn't surprised by Obama's offer, since that same Shadow had already alerted her as to what was to come.

The very idea that HRC is “the only person” out of a population of 300 million Americans who could serve is ridiculous on its face.

Source: page 52:

“[Indonesian President] Yudhoyono had met twice with Burma's top general, the reclusive Than Shwe, and he told me that the junta might be willing to inch toward democracy if America and the international community helped them along.”

Comments:

What was meant by "might" and “helped them along?” Those questions were never answered in Hard Choices. Was the Burmese general fishing for American financial incentives? And what does “inch toward democracy” mean?

And even more profound: Why would Than Shwe be whispering in Yudhoyono's ear about reaching out to the world concerning democracy? Shwe is from a Buddhist nation that persecutes its Muslim minority and Yudhoyono is president of the world's most populous Muslim nation. That hardly seems to invite such whisperings in the ear.

If it's true that Yudhoyono "told me" what Than Shwe had said, maybe Hillary had violated a confidence by mentioning this in her book. If I was Yudhoyono, I don't think I'd want it widely known what this Muslim persecutor whispered in my ear.

 

Source: page 102:

“For years our government maintained a strict official policy of using only the name Burma, but eventually some began using the two names interchangeably. In this book, I use Burma, as I did at the time.”

Comments:

The official name of the country is Myanmar, as stated in that country's constitution. What's wrong with us that we have to insist otherwise? What's wrong with Hillary Clinton in this regard? How would we like it if foreign dignitaries started referring to us as The Great White Man's Paradise?

Source: page 316:

“A senior Israeli official once explained to me that for Israelis, the worst thing in the world is to be a freier, the Hebrew slang word for “sucker.” Israeli drivers would rather end up in the hospital than let someone cut them off on the highway, he told me.

Comments:

Why does Hillary speak of a senior “Israeli” official or “Israeli” drivers, when she means “Jewish?” There are citizens of Israel who are not Jewish, who should also be called “Israeli.” But this fine point seems to evade HRC.

Another fine point: HRC should have challenged this “senior Israeli official” by saying, “You can't possibly mean that being a freier is the 'worst thing in the world.' Wouldn't breaking the Lord's commandments be far worse? As for Jewish drivers being willing to end up in the hospital rather than being cut off in traffic, would they also be willing to risk the lives of innocent passengers in both vehicles rather than be cut off? Where does it stop, this fear of being a freier?”

Source: page 316 (compare these two sets of quotes):

“Bibi himself was once quoted as saying, “We are not freiers. We don't give without receiving.” I feared that in this light, our demands for a settlement freeze would not be well-received.”

and

“The strongest voice in favor of [making a demand for a settlement freeze] was Rahm Emanuel's...”

Comments:

What HRC failed to understand (at least publicly) was, Rahm Emanuel's job was to do what he could to scuttle any attempt by our government to advance a two-state solution to the Palestinian stalemate in the West Bank. Rahm was in favor of making a demand for a settlement freeze precisely because he knew how badly Netanyahu would react, which in turn would throw a monkey wrench into the peace process.

Source: page 150:

“If the Taliban could be persuaded or pressured to drop their ties to al Qaeda and reconcile with the government in Kabul, then peace would be possible and U.S. troops could safely come home.”

Comments:

Why should the Taliban wish to “reconcile with the government in Kabul?” That government is from the Northern Alliance which the Taliban had defeated in order to itself become the government of Afghanistan. The only reason the Northern Alliance is in charge today is due to the intervention of U.S. forces. So why would the Taliban wish to partner with those whom they'd defeated well over a decade ago? Why would the Taliban, which is winning this war, care to enter into a coalition for the sole purpose of allowing the United States to save face by claiming they prevented the Taliban from reclaiming its right to govern?

Source: page 151:

“There was good reason to believe that many low-level Taliban fighters were not particularly ideological. They were farmers or villagers who joined the insurgency because it offered a steady income and respect in a country wracked by poverty and corruption.”

Comments:

Those low-level Taliban fighters might not be “particularly ideological,” but they are painfully aware of the great damage wrought by the United States on their country and of the corrupt administration in Kabul (propped up by the Americans) which has not won the hearts and minds of the general population.

I find it offensive that Hillary and others are so dismissive of those “farmers and villagers who joined the insurgency,” claiming they did so in order to obtain a paycheck. All armies pay their soldiers, so why should the Taliban be disrespected because they accept pay for their services? America's soldiers accept pay and yet no one calls them mercenaries even though some of them truly are mercenaries.

Source: page 370:

“But Qaddafi's troops were now a hundred miles from [the rebel stronghold of] Benghazi and closing fast. We were looking at a humanitarian catastrophe, with untold thousands at risk of being killed.” [NOTE: Those “untold thousands” were rebels who had taken up arms against Qaddafi, so they weren't exactly innocent civilians caught in a cross-fire.]

Comments:

We made much of the so-called threats against civilians, going so far as to seek UN backing for “the authority to use 'all necessary measures' to protect civilians.” But as Qaddafi himself put it: “He [Qaddafi] pledged to go house by house looking for 'traitors'...” That doesn't sound like a blanket threat to go after all of Benghazi's citizens. In fact, it sounds like a reasonable dragnet. However, I can see a desperate rebel force resisting this dragnet by using those innocent civilians as a human shield to ward off Qaddafi's forces.

Now, who's sounding like the bad guy here – Qaddafi or the US-backed rebels? By the way, those rebels were US-backed for at least a decade in terms of them being in sleeper cells organized and armed by the CIA. When the CIA gave the signal to rise up against Qaddafi, they were surprised at how well his military responded. Same thing occurred in Syria, with the sleeper cells we had operating there. The CIA gave the word to rise up, thinking Assad would be quickly defeated. We guessed wrong on that one, as well as in Libya.

But you will never hear anything like this from Hillary Rodham Clinton, who much prefers to toe the party line concerning threats to civilians.

Source: page 417:

“The country's monarch, the Shah [of Iran], owed his throne to a 1953 coup supported by the Eisenhower Administration against a democratically elected government thought to be sympathetic to Communism.”

Comments:

Let's clarify two things right away: Our “support” involved active participation by the CIA. And Communism had nothing to do with our decision – it was the Iranian move to nationalize British petroleum facilities that was decisive.

In fact, this is the first time I've read any hint from any source that we feared Iran was sliding into the Communist camp. As is well known by now, Communism didn't have a chance in any country with a strong Islamic background – these two worldviews were simply incompatible. Besides, there was no way that a proud country like Iran, with its strong and long-standing history of sovereignty and empire, would have decided to become a vassal state within the USSR's orbit.

If Hillary really believes that Communism had anything to do with our coup in 1953, I'm forced to ask, “What else is she woefully unaware of?”

Source: page 580:

“...I should deliver the speech in Geneva, at the headquarters of the UN Human Rights Council. If my goal was to firmly place LGBT rights within the international community's framework of human rights, there was no better place to do it.”

Comments:

I read Hillary's speech on-line in its entirety – and nowhere within it was the issue of religious taboo addressed. I've read claims that the Jewish and Christian theologies could perhaps be flexible (maybe, just maybe, God didn't really think of gays as an abomination). But the Islamic prohibitions are many and emphatic. Many Muslims look upon American lifestyles as decadent, and will see our attempt to support LGBT rights as being against God's will. And that will only win more supporters who are willing to militarily oppose us.

Some people might think Hillary had innocently bitten off more than she could chew. She had already made major efforts on behalf of women's rights. Maybe throwing down the gauntlet on behalf of the LGBT community was an example of overreach. However, I think her real goal was to antagonize the Muslims, especially in Africa, so they'd become more radicalized against us. As they become more extreme and active against their local governments, President Hillary Rodham Clinton would be poised to put boots on the ground in order to help them maintain law and order.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle, just another member of the

Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and

former candidate for US President (in 2008 & 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Footnote:

unconstitutional* : This link shows how the filibuster rule violates Article V and Amendments V and XVII of the Constitution:

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-filibuster-rule-revisited-part-1.html