Originally posted at American Thinker. blog
Last year, Mrs. Clinton was inspired by the revolution in Libya and praised the rebels for “taking back their country.” This year, when US Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens’ murdered corpse was desecrated in a manner reminiscent of how rebels treated the body of “we came, we saw, he died” Muammar Gaddafi, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton seemed shocked and confused.
Hillary Clinton, who must have been asking herself a similar “How can this happen” question when Bill was caught with his pants down in the Oval Office, responded to the crisis by asking “How can this happen in a country we help liberate, in a city (Benghazi) we helped save from destruction?” One would think that Mrs. Clinton would have learned by now that in certain situations, trust is not prudent and appreciation for loyalty, especially from those who’ve proved untrustworthy, is often not expressed with good behavior.
Much like her complicated and confounding pseudo-marriage, Clinton said that her question about Libya “reflects just how complicated, and at times, how confounding the world can be.”
Wasn’t it just last year that in a triumphant statement in response to the “liberation” of Libya, Clinton called the revolution that the US proudly assisted in “the work of ordinary, brave Libyans who demanded their freedoms and dignity.” Clinton said, “The United States is proud to have supported them in those efforts, and we are committed to their future.” Now we see that supporting those efforts have resulted in the murdering of benevolent ambassadors, the burning down of US embassies, and the threatening of American citizens?
Maybe Hillary refuses to censure the guilt-ridden out of concern for her own culpability. Reacting to the attacks at the State Department, Mrs. Clinton explained that “This was an attack by a small and savage group. Not the people or government of Libya.” In other words, what went on in Libya was not the fault of the larger Islamist community who did nothing to stop it, but rather a small “right wing conspiracy”-type group of religious zealots who savaged, defiled and snapped pictures of a murdered American diplomat.
After his murder, Hillary commended the late U.S. Ambassador to Libya, saying “Everywhere that Chris and his team went in Libya — in a country scarred by war and tyranny, they were hailed as friends and partners.” What Hillary Clinton and most liberals have yet to grasp is a lesson learned long ago by “Lebanese American journalist, author, and activist” Brigitte Gabriel: that tolerance and multicultural acceptance of Islam oftentimes leads to fair-minded Christians and Jews being shot at traffic lights by Muslims merely for being a Christian or a Jew.
Yet, much as she defended Bill when he was caught in blatant adultery, Hillary insists on only seeing what she wants to see and refuses to be wooed by verifiable facts. Even though Ambassador Stevens’ disheveled body was missing for five hours, dragged through the streets of Benghazi by a man with a cell phone in his mouth and photographed while crowds of smiling rebels tossed his body around like a rag doll, Hillary the Defender of the Guilty insisted that “[w]hen the attack came yesterday, Libyans stood and fought to defend our post. Some were wounded. Libyans carried Chris’ body to the hospital and they helped rescue and lead other Americans to safety.” More like dragged.
Hillary believing that the crowd was reverently transporting the Ambassador’s body to the hospital is on par with believing Bill Clinton when he said “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never.”
In a written statement on Wednesday, Clinton noted that U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens “was one of the first Americans on the ground in Benghazi.” A lot of good that did him. Mrs. Clinton commended the Berkeley-educated Peace Corps volunteer and humanitarian because he “risked his life” to help the Libyan people build a better future — a self-sacrificial endeavor that ultimately, at 52 years of age, cost the man his life.
Despite the brutality of what is now believed to be a coordinated 9-11 anniversary attack, Mrs. Clinton said at the State Department that she believes that “The friendship between our countries, borne out of shared struggle, will not be another casualty of this attack.” Because much like staying married to a serial womanizer and recognizing the political necessity of putting his victims last, Hillary Clinton believes that “A free and stable Libya is still in America’s interest and security, and we will not turn our back on that, nor will we rest until those responsible for these attacks are found and brought to justice.” Yeah, right.
After all, it was Hillary Clinton who said: “We need to stop worrying about the rights of the individual and start worrying about what is best for society!” Clearly, based on her response to the Libya attack, that kind of twisted philosophy applies as much to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s failed Middle East strategy as it did to Bill and Hillary Clinton’s strategy to feign marital bliss for the high-minded goal of bettering America with their self-perceived political greatness.
In the midst of all the upheaval, a Scripture in the Gospel of Luke comes to mind where Jesus said, “Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much.” If, for political gain, Hillary Clinton continues to be dishonest about the reality of her own sham of a marriage, it’s highly unlikely, if political reputations and careers were jeopardized, that she or Barack Obama would admit that their handling of the Libya situation is yet another example of abysmal failure.