Hillary Clinton had reasserted her experience in recent days by mocking Barack Obama's naive approach to foreign policy. When Benazir Bhutto was murdered in Pakistan, she was able to note she had personally met the former Prime Minister, underscoring the argument that we need "adults in charge" in a dangerous world.
Then she goes out and blows it completely with an idiotic and destructive comment like this, via Breitbart.com:
"I'm calling for a full, independent, international investigation," Clinton said in an interview with CNN."I think it's critically important that we get answers and really those are due first and foremost to the people of Pakistan," Clinton said.
The former first lady suggested the probe could be along the lines of the international investigation that followed the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri in 2005.
"I don't think the Pakistani government at this time under President (Pervez) Musharraf has any credibility at all. They have disbanded an independent judiciary, they oppressed a free press."
The rest is at the link above. Such a ridiculous statement insults a friendly, sovereign government and fuels the fires of unrest in that volatile country. Hillary is giving aid and comfort to the terrorists by feeding the conspiracy fever which runs high in the Muslim world without much help from abroad. She is destabilizing a government which, despite tactics which we abhor, is the best chance to keep Pakistan's nuclear arsenal out of the hands of the radicals.
Such outrageous remarks should never be spoken by a United States Senator, much less by a major party Presidential candidate. She is unfit to serve in the office she now holds, and certainly unqualified for promotion.
Permalink | E-mail This | Technorati Links | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this!
Filed under:
2008 Presidential Race, Democrats, Hillary Clinton, Moonbats, National Security, War On Terror
Tags: Bhutto, Hillary Clinton, Pakistan, Presidential campaign
Comments (13)
That title was a r... (Below threshold)1. Posted by marc | December 29, 2007 5:03 AM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
That title was a rhetorical question wasn't it?
Please tell me it was!
1. Posted by marc | December 29, 2007 5:03 AM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on December 29, 2007 05:03
2. Posted by John Irving | December 29, 2007 6:37 AM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
a full, independent, international investigation
None of those words even modify each other. It's like calling for a "wet, dry, live corpse"
I'm calling for Scarlett Johannsen to share my bed, and about as likely to get it.
2. Posted by John Irving | December 29, 2007 6:37 AM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on December 29, 2007 06:37
3. Posted by DavidL | December 29, 2007 7:07 AM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
The Clinton's like terrorists. Got anything new?
3. Posted by DavidL | December 29, 2007 7:07 AM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on December 29, 2007 07:07
4. Posted by Adrian Browne | December 29, 2007 7:12 AM | Score: -3 (5 votes cast)
Yes, Hillary is nuts -- her warmongering has proven that.
4. Posted by Adrian Browne | December 29, 2007 7:12 AM |
Score: -3 (5 votes cast)
Posted on December 29, 2007 07:12
5. Posted by Steve Crickmore | December 29, 2007 8:39 AM | Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Hillary has a tendency to use rather undiplomatic language, considering that by her own estimation, she is so experienced and has met so many world leaders. But in this case the Bhutto assassination, like many assassinations there are so many questions...An official report is now is saying that Bhutto died from skull fracture as result of striking the sun roof and was never shot as was first thought...It doesn't say where all the blood came from?
5. Posted by Steve Crickmore | December 29, 2007 8:39 AM |
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on December 29, 2007 08:39
6. Posted by iurockhead | December 29, 2007 8:54 AM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
So, in other words, she would have to "suspend disbelief" to accept that maybe it was Islamic terrorists that would resort to a hail of bullets and a suicide bomber to kill an uppity Muslim woman?
Riiiiiiight.
6. Posted by iurockhead | December 29, 2007 8:54 AM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on December 29, 2007 08:54
7. Posted by Alan Orfi | December 29, 2007 9:30 AM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Clinton employs a strategy of sowing the seeds of staged concern over specific events in hopes of claiming "leadership" at a later time. Should it eventually be determined that Musharraff's government is culpable to some degree for the Bhutto assassination, then Clinton will surely lay claim to having "known it all along." She is rarely questioned on all the red herrings, though.
7. Posted by Alan Orfi | December 29, 2007 9:30 AM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on December 29, 2007 09:30
8. Posted by Dave W | December 29, 2007 10:12 AM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Where the hell is her diplomacy? The dems have been screaming about diplomacy. She doesn't seem to be playing so nice in the sand box.
Oh, i forgot, Musharrif is not a US ally, he's george Bush's ally. There is a HUGE difference! The US has no allies, but George Bush has a few. not that we like to admit that.
Isn't it simply amazing that after going on about diplomacy and getting more allies in the world, two democratic presidential candidates are calling for invasion of pakistan or at least calling a foreign leader's credibility into question? Hillary is right on one thing, we need adults in charge. maybe she should step aside so the adults can handle the real problems...
8. Posted by Dave W | December 29, 2007 10:12 AM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on December 29, 2007 10:12
9. Posted by COgirl | December 29, 2007 10:48 AM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
I think we need "a full, independent, international investigation" on whether she is fit to be president.
Having tea with Bhutto does not make her experienced in dealing with foreign policy matters.
9. Posted by COgirl | December 29, 2007 10:48 AM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on December 29, 2007 10:48
10. Posted by 914 | December 29, 2007 11:03 AM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
What an idiot!
10. Posted by 914 | December 29, 2007 11:03 AM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on December 29, 2007 11:03
11. Posted by pa | December 29, 2007 12:40 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
COgirl said: "Having tea with Bhutto does not make her experienced in dealing with foreign policy matters."
Why not? Having tea poolside made Joe Wilson an infallible investigator into yellow cake sales.
11. Posted by pa | December 29, 2007 12:40 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on December 29, 2007 12:40
12. Posted by Sheldon | December 29, 2007 2:30 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Namedropping by Hillary Clinton does not make her a guru on foreign policy. Senator Biden has much more experience on international matters than Hillary Rodham Clinton.
12. Posted by Sheldon | December 29, 2007 2:30 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on December 29, 2007 14:30
13. Posted by CharlieDontSurf | December 30, 2007 5:22 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Hillary has a history of "foot in mouth" reactions to events. Remember when she was going to eliminate the electoral college after Algore lost? How's that project coming along Hill?
13. Posted by CharlieDontSurf | December 30, 2007 5:22 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on December 30, 2007 05:22