Our illustrious Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, is busy making nice-nice with our Muslim brethren by comparing violence and bigotry in the United States and in the Muslim world. They're identical, you see. And to make her point, she made the statements on their turf. All that was missing was her burqa.
It's always a good idea when overseas to bad-mouth your own country and find ways of seeing commonality with nations that oppress their people, ban or murder anyone who isn't a Muslim, oppress women, and support mass slaughter of those with whom they disagree. Hillary is no slacker in that regard. She hasn't yet bowed low enough to the Saudi king to be able to kiss his toe the way her boss did, but what she lacks in quality she makes up for in quantity.
Hillary has worked tirelessly to convince Israel to feed the Arab beast with more Israeli land to gain peace. Israel would actually like to have peace. The surrounding Muslim lands, particularly in Gaza, just want the territory. Peace isn't even in the formula. But that doesn't deter Hillary or Prince of Peace Obama. She's at it again on this trip. Her big mouth is running way ahead of her small brain, and she gives encouragement to terrorists and Muslim supremacists wherever she goes.
Nobody can accuse Hillary of being unaware of current events. On January 10 in Abu Dhabi, she compared a nutcase murderer in Arizona to the rare (?!?!) extremists in the Arab world. See? We both have our problems. To slam home her moral and numerical equivalence, she added "the extremists and their voices, the crazy voices that sometimes get on the TV, that's not who we are and that's not who you are." She didn't bother to note that the Arizona crazy "got on TV" because of the horrendous crime he committed. In the Muslim lands, the crazies run TV. Al Jazeera is the least violent of the bunch, and then only when it is being broadcast in English. The Arabic versions often make the current celebrity nutcase murderer in Arizona sound downright sane. In America, a terrorist is the subject of a newscast. In Arab lands, the terrorists are the people doing the talking.
In order to sound fair, she went on to compare misogynists who attacked her (metaphorically) and Sarah Palin for being strong women to those in Muslim lands who don't treat women equally. Well, in America, radical feminists did most of the attacking rather than woman-hating men. But one struggles to understand how that in any way compares to the way Middle Easterners treat women. It isn't only Muslim men who participate in Islamic "honor killings," which are not a rarity at all. Mothers and female relatives are just as likely to participate actively in the killings.
While pointing out harsh American women who criticized her (solely because of her sex, you know), Hlllary failed to take note of the large number of Muslim women who happily become suicide bombers, blowing up fellow Muslims, Jews, and Christians, often while standing next to unknowing women with their own children. The favorite current place for these charming women to set off their explosives is at large gatherings of fellow Muslims on pilgrimage. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there have been a lot of similar suicide bombings at the shrine of St. Bernadette in Lourdes. Yet in Hillary's mind, "we all have our problem people."
We need a Secretary of State who understands America's unique position in world history and who is not living in the dreamworld of moral equivalencies. The Arizona murderer had no political or religious agenda beyond the voices in his head that told him to kill somebody. In the Middle East, those voices are real, they are present in every mosque, and there are millions upon millions of adherents of the religion of peace who take those words to heart. Lying about an equivalence between one Arizona madman and "a few radical extremists" in Muslim lands is immoral, duplicitous and dangerous. Hillary Clinton is harming America's position in the world, a position she was sworn to protect. And worst of all, she's doing it inside the Muslim lands she's lying about.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Hillary Holds Forth On Moral Equivalence--Overseas
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
LawHawk, just to play devil's advocate for a moment (a very literal term where Hillary Clinton is concerned), couldn't you say that she's saying these things for PR purposes, in order to keep some of these nations on our side as much as possible? We all know there's no comparison between those countries and our own, but sometimes in public you can't tell the entire truth, so maybe she was being diplomatic. (Note: I don't believe that to be the case at all--I'm convinced as well that she really does see America as morally equivalent to the Middle East--but it is a possibility, right?)
T_Rav: I think that Hillary would say those were her reasons privately, but I don't believe it either. I'm not sure that she actually believes there is a complete moral equivalence, but unable to take a strong moral stance on much of anything, she has convinced herself that there are similarities.
The real problem here is that diplomacy is the fine art of persuasion and finding common ground. It is not about drawing outrageous false parallels and stroking the sensibilities of vicious thugs. And it's certainly not about doing so on their turf. I thought we learned with Hitler that it doesn't work. Saying "I see your point" is one thing. Saying "let me make your point for you" is quite another.
I should also add that in diplomacy, politics stops at the water's edge. Neither Clinton nor B. Hussein Obama have figured that out yet. Keep your very public opinion of America's flaws at home. It's never, never acceptable to offer apologies for America's behavior on foreign soil.
Hawk
You have provided us with another learning lesson complete with detailed illustrations to support the lesson.
It is a real shame Hillary and bo are beyond learning. They will do us more harm than the idiot in Tuscon caused with his efforts.
You should be sharing your views with our schools. they evidently do not care much about the political world.
A quote fits here; "Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you!"
Pericles (430 B.C..)
Tehachapi Tom: Jimmy Carter didn't create the concept of "moral equivalence," but he musta learnt it in school. He brought the moron version of it to the public's attention, and the left has been using it ever since. Mostly, it's cynical, but occasionally they actually believe what they're saying. So a twit like Hillary Clinton can compare a crude American male calling a woman a "bitch," and make that morally equivalent to a Middle Eastern gang rape of an "impure woman," followed by stoning of the victim for adultery.
Hawk - Hillary seems to have tried hard to make herself relevant recently, but the moral equivalence and bad mouthing are becoming tiresome. My eyes are getting old and at first the bifocals made me think you had written "hilarious" instead of illustrious. Between her pastel pant suits and tripping, it's hard to take her seriously anymore.
Tennessee: I'm beginning to think the former dragon lady is toothless. She mouths whatever Obama and the left of the Democratic Party tell her to say. She knows full well not to bad-mouth the country she represents overseas, and yet she does it anyway. If she wants to challenge the Boy Wonder, she had better resign soon, get her political house in order, and start repeating the mantra "the President made me do it."
Good points Lawhawk.
I concur. Hillary has shown herself to be nothing but a shill for Obama and other than her observation that Mexico having major problems with the drug cartels and losing (which she quickly retracted because Obama won't tolerate saying anything negative about Mexico even if it is true, but he has no problem committing real insults against Great Britain so go figure).
I note also that Obama doesn't get upset when Clinton trashes the US (like he does) in countries where liberty, indeed the very concept of liberty is blasphemy.
There simply isn't any moral equivalence between what happens in countries ruled by sharia and the US.
Just as all cultures aren't equally good.
Rather than be diplomatic from a position of strength, Hillary and Obama revel in diplomacy from weakness, as if apologizing for being exceptional (and reasons the US is exceptional) can ever be a good thing.
As we have seen throughout history this particular (pathetic) tactic never works, unless Cinton/Obama's goal is to weaken the US.
If that's the case they are doing a remarkable job.
If they are trying to get these thugocracies to like us they have failed...remarkably.
I would also add that it's better that these countries at least have some respoect for our strength, since it's highly unlikely they will ever like us or ever be allies like NATO countries are.
This type of diplomacy gives a green light to more aggressiveness from islamic countries.
Libya behaved and stopped their pursuit of nukes because they feared what we would do to them after 9/11 (especially considering their past transgressions towards us).
If Clinton or Obama had been in charge instead of Bush I doubt Libya would've done anything other than laugh at us like the Palestinians did and continue dancing in the streets.
I blame it on the ‘60s again, “everything is relative man.” This was the BS we heard as kids and young adults. That was the dawning of the age of Aquarius, and now we’re in full regalia, the promised land of the ‘60s radical if you will, and it sucks, spectacularly. I believe Hillary knows exactly what she’s doing, they finally have the opportunity to put the USA in it’s place, and expose this great land for the racist, misogynist, greedy, nation that they believe it is. The thing that these narrow minded idiots haven’t considered, if we’re not number one, who will be? …and exactly how that will make the world a better place. We are in heap big trouble until these idiots are gone.
Stan: Obama had the nerve on several occasions to call America arrogant--in that notoriously arrogant manner of his. Either he hasn't considered who would fill that vacuum, or he has, and has decided that it should be the King of Saudi Arabia. That would at least explain the bowing bit.
i find it bizarre that a feminist such as hil can tolerate a faith that oppresses women with such violent force. but that's a libbie for ya: tolerance, even of evil.
Post a Comment