Whether it be ISIS or Russia, it seems the world is on the cusp of World War III. Our nation is fracturing more and more every day over race and inequitable police enforcement. But somehow, the nation is focusing in on the personal email account of Hillary Clinton.
It seems Republicans and their biggest political contributor, Fox News, want to make Clinton the center of attention for one reason: They have no viable contenders for the 2016 presidential nomination.
The last bastion for people with nothing to show for themselves is attacking others in the hopes of hiding their own innumerable shortcomings by bringing down someone else.
It’s a time-tested way of getting around actually dealing with your problems. For example, if you can’t figure out how to get a certain group of people to vote for you, the answer is: Do everything in your power to make sure they don’t vote at all.
The same thing is happening now with “email-gate.” Clinton, assuming she’ll run for president in 2016, will likely defeat any Republican opponent.
So Republicans must do everything in their power to tear Clinton down at all costs, even sacrificing self-respect and looking foolish.
Yes, it’s odd that Clinton chose to use a personal email address as Secretary of State when protocol is that she have an official government email. That isn’t in question. The problem is Republicans, and Fox News, are trying to make it look like Clinton is part of a sinister conspiracy. As if they’re going to find the smoking gun for Benghazi.
In reality, that smoking gun most likely never existed in the first place.
The sad part is: They already know this. They know there’s no smoking gun, but they also know that if they make it look like there might be, it strengthens their platform.
If a Republican contender somehow manages to topple Clinton in 2016, he or she will need to remember how their party changed the rules of the game during Barack Obama’s presidency.
George W. Bush was basically given a free pass on the bold-faced lies his administration told the public to garner support for starting the Iraq War.
Many Democrats, Clinton included, chose to support Bush with his plan to invade Iraq. Yes, we were all being lied to, but they rallied around the president and America looked strong and united.
This is something that Republicans have failed to do during the entirety of the Obama presidency.
Does it have to do with race? Most people probably say no — even if they don’t fully believe it. But let’s be honest, never in the history of our country has a president ever had to prove that he was born in the United States under such scrutiny.
Despite the fact that Obama proved he’s an American, people still doubt it. Does it have anything to do with Obama being black?
It has everything to do with Obama being black. If he were a white man born in Hawaii, it never would have even been brought up.
Again, Republicans know Obama was born in this country, but they also know that giving the appearance that he wasn’t strengthens their mostly-white voter base.
But if a Republican manages to get into the White House this time around, Democrats have every reason to be as disgustingly petty as Republicans been since the day your baby boy G.W. left office.
Meanwhile, people will forget “email-gate.” Because it’s clearly not a conspiracy to dupe the American people into supporting a war like Republicans did, it’s simply the time-old leadership flaw of “Do what I say, not what I do.”
Fox News will try to tell you otherwise, but in reality, it’s all part of their master plan of perpetual Democratic conspiracy and forcing an underqualified Republican candidate down the throats of the American people.
Eric • Mar 15, 2015 at 8:49 pm
For the record, explanation (link) of the law and policy, fact basis for Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Secretary Clinton’s support for the 2002 AUMF is easily explained. President Bush’s case against Saddam was really President Clinton’s case against Saddam. Before she was a Senator, Hillary Clinton was First Lady with a front-row seat to her husband’s whole-presidency struggle to enforce the terms of the Gulf War ceasefire with Saddam.
To wit, on July 3, 2003, President Clinton cited to his own still-fresh presidential experience with Saddam to endorse President Bush on Iraq:
Throughout his presidency, President Clinton worked with Congress, most of all senior Democrats, on the enforcement of the Gulf War ceasefire. See, for example, House Resolution 322 (1997) and Public Laws 105-235 and 105-338 (both 1998).
To wit, on March 23, 2004, Clinton Secretary of Defense William Cohen gave the Clinton administration perspective to the 9/11 Commission:
Operation Iraqi Freedom is often isolated out of context and misrepresented as a new policy by President Bush. In fact, OIF was the coda of the US-led enforcement of the UNSC resolutions for Iraq that began when Saddam seized Kuwait in 1990 and continued through the subsequent Gulf War ceasefire. President Bush inherited Saddam’s “clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere” (Clinton) and carried forward the Iraq enforcement from President Clinton.
As such, in 2002, Congressional leaders, especially senior Democrats like Kerry and Biden, were significantly more experienced with the Saddam problem than President Bush. When Congress voted with President Bush on the 2002 AUMF, it was also voting with President Clinton, and voting with Congress’ own decade-plus engagement on the Saddam problem.