Mom of Slain Son Bids Hillary Clinton a Happy Mother’s Day

Pat Smith’s son, Sean, was murdered by terrorists in Benghazi, Libya (9/11/12) thanks to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s negligence. On Sunday, she has a message for Obama and Hillary.

“I want to wish Hillary a Happy Mother’s Day,” Smith said. “She has her child. I don’t have mine because of her.”

Mrs. Smith appeared on the Mike Huckabee show on Sunday, May 12, to deliver her message.

Huckabee asked Smith if she was comforted at all by the Congressional hearings about the attacks.

“Absolutely not. I am still waiting to answers to just about everything,” she said.

Happy Mother’s Day, indeed.

(H/T Charlie Spiering.)

Shortlink:

Posted by on May 12, 2013.
Filed under Asshats, Barack Obama, corruption, Culture Of Corruption, Evil, Liberals, Libya, Libya, Media, Middle East.
Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago-based freelance writer, has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and is featured on many websites such as Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com and BigJournalism.com, RightWingNews.com, CanadaFreePress.com, RightPundits.com, StoptheACLU.com, Human Events Magazine, among many, many others. Additionally, he has been a frequent guest on talk-radio programs to discuss his opinion editorials and current events.He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the new book "Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture" which can be purchased on amazon.com. He is also the owner and operator of PubliusForum.com. Feel free to contact him with any comments or questions, EMAIL Warner Todd Huston: igcolonel .at. hotmail.com"The only end of writing is to enable the reader better to enjoy life, or better to endure it." --Samuel Johnson

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • Commander_Chico

    Like it or not, exactly like Cindy Sheehan.

    • jim_m

      There is a difference between this remark and the hysterical abasement of one’s self that Cindy Sheehan undertook. There is also a difference between criticizing members of the government and siding with our enemies as Sheehan did. Of course you seem to have a problem making that distinction yourself so I can understand your confusion.

    • LiberalNightmare

      There a couple of key differences

      1. Cindy Sheehan was assumed to have absolute moral authority by the left. She was kinda like all of the Sandy Hook parents rolled into one angry mom with a media bull horn.

      2. Cindy served the purpose of the left, so she was gifted with media access and heavy support from the celebrity wing of the left.
      Its very unlikely that Pat Smith will find Nancy Pelosi or representatives of code pink introducing her at the next “Bush is bad” rally.

      • Commander_Chico

        I guess one other difference is that nobody is still getting killed in Benghazi, while many were being killed in Iraq for a long time after Cindy’s son was killed.

        • The_Weege_99

          Well, one was a war, and Libya wasn’t. Wars to have higher casualty levels.
          Also, Iraq was a conflict that was bipartisanly decided to be in the national interest (until the 2004 election campaign). I am unaware of any national interest we had traipsing our ambassador down to Benghazi with poor security in an area of known jihadist activity.
          Finally, there was the lies, obfuscation and cover-ups.
          Bottom line: to say your post is irrelevant is to give it higher praise than it merits.

          • Commander_Chico

            Can you tell me the national interest that was vindicated by the invasion of Iraq?

            I can. Iran’s.

            Other than that, CIA people and diplomats are regularly “traipsing around” dangerous areas with no resolution of Congress in effect.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            I understand these are getting very stylish among some people. Perhaps your wardrobe needs one to complete that special look?

            http://www.ravelry.com/patterns/library/reversible-tin-foil-hat

          • Commander_Chico

            Yes, I suggest you put one on. Mine is the prevailing view of the Iraq war among foreign policy experts and historians nowadays.

            Almost nobody thinks it was other than a disaster for the USA.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            Ah, an appeal to authority. How sweet… haven’t seen one of those in simply *ages*!

            The ground war went okay. Where we lost was in the aftermath, with a State department which (from my ever less lofty perch than thou’s) seemed determined to ignore any feedback on what was and wasn’t working. Rumors at the time indicated that there was a lot of partisan feeling – they were pissed about the 2000 election, and not above some tacit sabotage of the efforts to maintain a peace.

            Glad to see the Historians and foreign policy wonks have decided that it was all done for Iran’s benefit.

          • Commander_Chico

            State Department had almost nothing to do with running post invasion Iraq. It was a Rumsfeld show. There were very very few State people in Iraq in 2003-04. There were a lot more DOD contractors like Bob Stein.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Stein,_Jr.

            I don’t have to appeal to authority – I just open my eyes.

            But maybe you can tell me all the benefits we’re getting from our strong alliance with the strategic partner, Iraq,

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            Ask the State Department, lol. They’re the ‘experts’, after all.

          • Brucehenry

            Sorry, that’s revisionist history, and nonsense conspiracy theory.

            Where we lost was in the NON-planning for the aftermath. Like, there WAS no planning for the aftermath. NO Plan B if things went south. And things went south damn quick after 1. Bremer disbanded the Iraqi army, and 2. Bremer implemented “de-Ba’athification” or whatever they called it.

            Of course, Bush awarded Bremer a Medal of Freedom for his incompetence, along with one for Tenet and one for Franks, who ALSO were too stupid to plan. And then he went to bed by 10 pm.

          • jim_m

            Funny how you argue against JLawson’s comment saying that it was revisionist history (although you both agree that the problem was in the post war planning), yet you say nothing about Chico’s hysterical rantings about this being done solely for the benefit of the Iranians. Such tacit agreement with a mental case does no good for your credibility.

          • Brucehenry

            As usual you try to put words in somebody else’s mouth.

            Chico said the Iraq adventure wound up benefiting Iran and not ourselves, and that is true. WHY it was undertaken is a different story.

            You’ll have more productive discussions if you talk about what commenters actually, you know, SAY and not some “implicit claim” that only you can see.

            Edit: And no, Lawson was claiming that unnamed State Dept officials were guilty of “tacit sabotage” and THAT’S why the aftermath of the invasion was fucked. He said nothing about post-invasion planning.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            “Oh, there’s no hurry about planning for this – that dickhead Bush is going to fuck up the war effort, and it’ll take probably three times as long as he thinks it will. Dumbass couldn’t find his ass with both hands. There’s PLENTY of time to get our shit together.”

            Except – it wasn’t fucked up much, despite Turkey not letting our forces through (though it might have been better for the whole region if it had been, nothing like a lot of tanks rolling through to make you feel like you’re conquered) – so … well, it’s not THEIR fault, you know, that things weren’t ready. Who could have anticipated that Saddam’s forces wouldn’t hold longer than they did?

            And it’s not like anyone had ever done this before (Cough-cough – Japan and Germany post WW2 – cough-cough) – so they had absolutely NOTHING to go on to even give them any ideas about how to manage a country that’d been conquered!

            Shit. You probably believe that, too.

            The folks in the Department of State were PAID to be ready for the aftermath. They were PAID to be the folks with plans A, B, AND C. They were supposed to be ready when needed. And what did we end up with?

            Something that to all effect seemd to have been thrown together over a drunken weekend, that required the lead diplomat to be quickly replaced. Reports of reconstruction funds ‘delayed’ or ‘cancelled’ from the commanders in the field who were supposed to (a) be in contact with the locals and (b) make sure that projects were completed and corruption was held in check. Yeah, the locals are going to trust the Americans after they’ve promised all sorts of help – and then, oh what a shame! – that help gets cancelled by the diplomatic corps.

            But of course, it’s BUSH’S fault! Because HE trusted them to actually have their shit together and ready, with competent people ready to actually work, instead of stuck-up fools who’d long-ago hit their Peter-Principle limits and were hanging on instead of getting out of the way so competent people could handle the preparations.

            They saw this as their big chance to make a name for themselves in the history books – because it was going to be easy, since they were the smartest fellows in the room, always.

            Didn’t they do a WONDERFUL job?

          • Brucehenry

            Where do you get this stuff, Harry Turtledove’s “History of Iraq”?

            The military is in charge of an occupation. Paul Bremer, Bush’s personal appointee — his “Iraq czar” if you will — was in charge of civil government. It was Bremer who disbanded the Iraqi army and left a few hundred thousand armed young Iraqi men without an income or a purpose in life. It was Bremer who ordered “de-Ba’athification” and embittered a couple of million MORE Sunni men who were left with nothing to do but build IEDs from the munitions Franks had failed to secure. It was Franks who assured us that his forces had the situation in hand. And it was Rumsfeld who discarded the Powell Doctrine that had worked so well in 1991 in favor of a “lean” occupying force. To the extent State fucked things up, some of that might have been due to the Bush State Dept hiring a bunch of Liberty University grads, based on ideology, to implement policy in a country they knew nothing about.

            This theory of yours, based on “rumors at the time” of “tacit sabotage” because of unnamed State employees being “pissed about the 2000 election” is Jim-worthy conspiracy theory nonsense, dude. Sorry.

            It’s pretty well-documented what went wrong, man, among many other places in Thomas Ricks’ book:http://www.amazon.com/Fiasco-American-Military-Adventure-Iraq/dp/0143038915

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            It will nicely set off his face “art.”

          • Commander_Chico

            Proud to be Pinoy.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Proud to be Pinoy a dick face.

            FIFY

          • Jwb10001

            The comment was that there was bi partisan consensus (you know like the global warming science) that military intervention was in our national interest. If you have issues with that take it up with your new best friend Hillary, or Kerry (he’s even still part of the government)

    • herddog505

      Call us back when you can demonstrate that Bush had specific warnings that Casey Sheehan’s unit was in mortal danger and not only did nothing about it but, when the unit was under attack, went back to bed so he could be fresh for a campaign stop the next day. Then, you can oblige us by demonstrating that Bush blamed a YouTube video for Sheehan’s death and, instead of getting the villains who killed him, arrested the goob who made the video.

      Yep, TOTALLY the same.

      • Brucehenry

        Haha Bush sent thousands into mortal danger in his war of choice every day, and famously went to bed by 10 pm every night, after spending 2 hours a day staying in great physical shape on his bike.

        Do you need specific warnings that combat soldiers are in mortal danger to know that that is so?

        We DO know that Bush, instead of killing bin Laden, invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. So, instead of getting the villain who killed 2900 Americans, he went after a dictator who was long a target of his neocon buddies.

        So, yep, kinda the same. Now, watch this drive…

        • Commander_Chico

          Bush sent the country into the biggest foreign and military policy fuck-up since Vietnam, maybe ever.

          Think of it this way: for every ONE American killed in Benghazi, more than a THOUSAND were killed in Iraq.

          Not to mention the other countries’ losses, including tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis.

          But hey, it only cost a trillion dollars.

          • Jwb10001

            Bush and the congress including your hero Hillary Clinton.

        • Hank_M

          C’mon. War of choice?

          Maybe W should have listened to, oh I dunno, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Al Gore, Joey Biden, Ted Kennedy, Bob Byrd, John Kerry, Schumer and other democrats.

          Maybe he should have listened more closely to the 77 dems who voted for the war.

          If it was Bush’s war of choice, it was their war of choice also.

          But then, hindsight makes it easy to condemn their decisions.

          And while I’m writing, what exactly is the correct bed time for the President? Be nice to know.

          And maybe you can expand further and tell me how many rounds of golf are also appropriate.

          • Brucehenry

            Kennedy voted against the war.

            And if Democrats jumped on the war bandwagon after 9/11 for fear of being called cowardly by Republicans and FOX “News” pundits that’s on them. They’re just as guilty as Bush and Cheney.

            Democrats in Congress who bought into the smoking gun/mushroom cloud argument should have listened to ME and the millions of people who marched in the streets worldwide BEFORE the invasion. We warned it would be no cakewalk, that it would be a quagmire, that it would cost hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars. We were sneered at as “appeasers” and traitors, terrorist sympathizers, yada yada. But we were, you know, right.

            And Bush and Cheney were wrong. and so were the Democrats in Congress who enabled them.

            Don’t ask me what the President’s bedtime should be, ask Herddog. I simply pointed out that Bush was in bed EVERY night by 10 while Americans died. Obama just the once, as far as we know — or have heard rumors to that effect.

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      Having sown the wind, I wish the dhimmocrats the joy of the whirldwind.

    • http://www.traveLightgame.com/ ljcarolyne

      NO it’s nottttttttt. . . Hitlery is to blame – so is Obummer. . .both a POS along with being greedy LIARS.

      • Brucehenry

        Your debate skills are only exceeded by your cleverness in coming up with cute names for your bogeymen, genius.

  • herddog505

    It would be of some interest to see how many times “Cindy Sheehan” pops up in a Lexus-Nexus search vs. how many times “Pat Smith” shows up.

  • Jwb10001

    I love all the Iraq this and Bush that. No matter how badly Obama screws up it’s always the same old crap. What about some current events fellas. Your guy is having a terrible week. He’s being shown for what he is a THUG. He’s sending the IRS after people that disagree with him, he’s completely screwed the pouch on Bengazi and now we hear that he’s gathering phone data on reporters. The economy has been so bad for so long we basically have a new norm, Obama care is stepping on the throat of job creation and still the defense is BUSH! What does this guy have to do before you actually start talking about him instead of the continual history lesson on how bad Bush was. There is so much wrong that’s all this guys doing I can hardly believe what I’m hearing and all our liberal buddies have to say is BUSH. I haven’t seen so much bad crap going on since Nixon was in office. Oh I don’t really think Bush was such a great president but seriously he’s been gone for nearly 5 years now and lost control of the congress 2 years before that. Isn’t it time to start holding the people who CURRENTLY hold power accountable (all of them not just the republicans?)

    • Brucehenry

      Try to follow along. The conversation started with how this lady’s situation may or may not resemble Cindy Sheehan’s. There was some disagreement on this point. The discussion kind of flowed into a discussion of the two presidencies, the one in Sheehan’s time and the one now.

      It’s not that hard.

      • Jwb10001

        The conversation kinda flowed, wonder how that happened. Oh I know Chico as he always does gave us another history lesson on the evils of GWB, then you jumped in. But thanks for schooling me again I do always appreciate it.

        • Brucehenry

          I guess you didn’t notice the little time signatures next to each comment. The discussion was about Smith, Sheehan, and how the Iraq War compares to the Benghazi “scandal.” The first one to mention Bush specifically was Herddog — not a liberal, amirite?

          Yes, I responded to his specious sarcasm about Obama “going back to bed to be fresh for a fundraiser” by pointing out that Bush retired early practically every night of his presidency. Including in 2003 and 2004, when, I presume, he was attending lots of fundraisers while Americans were dying.

          I’m sorry you guys are still so sensitive about anyone mentioning Bush’s fuckups, but they had lingering consequences, ya know? I mean, aren’t you still pissed about LBJ’s War on Poverty and how it ruined America’s work ethic and killed the Black Family, or whatever?

          Saying this guy was a screwup is entirely justified. And will be next year and next decade and next century.

          • Jwb10001

            Oh I’m sorry Bruce did my comment not fit the Bruce guidelines for engaging in this conversation? Gee I thought it was appropriate to point out that some people here go to some effort to avoid discussing Obama’s failures. And since the conversation sorta flowed to Bush v Obama and I noticed that some just like to focus on Bush, I only meant to point out that Obama has a few issues too. I mean if current events is off the table I’m sorry I didn’t know.

          • Brucehenry

            You can say whatever you want. No one is telling you there are rules or guidelines. WTF are you talking about?

            I get it. You think some people, including me, give Obama a pass and tend to blame Bush. Okay, I can see where you might get that. But don’t act all butthurt about it. I think there’s good reason to blame Bush for a lot of the mess this country is in today. Not all, but a lot.

            It’s an honest disagreement, dude. And my side’s not the only one to engage in this blame-the-last-guy behavior. I’ve seen Clinton, and even CARTER, blamed for 9/11, fer chrissake. Right here in this very comment section!

          • Jwb10001

            Geez Bruce get over yourself did I mention your name in my comment? Not everything is about you. You continually tell me and others how we should be replying and commenting saying asinine things like “It’s really not that hard” like were some sort of school children and you’re the big teacher. You don’t distress me or I imagine anyone else here so really save the butt hurt crap (yes it’s 2 words professor) You’re the one that sounds all butt hurt. I couldn’t care less if you want to live in the past.

          • Jwb10001

            Oh and I forgot your biggest hit “try to follow along” love that one by the way.

          • Brucehenry

            I kind of like that one myself. But “get over yourself” is pretty good too. Have a good night.

          • Jwb10001

            C U later have a good night.