…. serve president-elect Obama whom she described as a risk to the nation.
It is turkey-slaughtering for Obama’s supposed to be "dream team" this November 28, 2008, the traditional Thanksgiving Day.
But it’s no Thanksgiving – only a lot of misgivings. I am on the side of turkeys that wished they are not slaughtered for misgivings.Hilary Clinton, the next Secretary of State, cannot honestly serve president-elect Obama whom she described as "unwise, inexperienced, impulsive and indecisive" — in short, a president who is "a risk to the nation"!
The State Secretary nominee has already delivered her foreign policy speech in Washington, D.C. assailing Obama as "a risk to the nation" when they were rivals for the Democrat presidential nomination.
On foreign policy matters that could cause World War IIISecretary Clinton will override what she think is a "dangerous" president — unless of course she is fired first.
The war that would trigger World War III starts within Obama’s Cabinet.
Notice the notorious "trigger-happy" Rahm Immanuel who plots Obama’s international and domestic politics on a daily basis as the president-elect’s Chief of Staff. Emanuel once sent a dead fish to a consultant he did not like, a macabre way of letting out his personal rage if he believes anyone messes up with him.
Judging from what is perceived as the guy’s juvenile attitudinal behavior, his judgment is expected to be emotional, a person with a gun [power] who would shoot first before asking question – a dangerous presidential adviser.
Obama has a White House Counsel named Greg Craig, 63, former counsel to Bill Clinton. He is a rabid Obamanist who watches every move Hilary Clinton makes with a hostile eye of an eagle ready to swoop down on her and kick her from behind. The hostility that divides the two Obamanists into mortal protagonists is very ironic.
Craig is Hilary’s "old Yale Law School buddy". He was so intimately attached to President Clinton that he was the man who "more than anyone, led the rescue of his presidency starting the very night Kenneth Starr's lurid report into the squalid details of the former president's sex scandal with Monica Lewinsky were published on the internet in 1998."
But time has changed with Obama’s election campaign for change. In the Democrat primary, Craig – perhaps sensing that victory is up for grabs …and in that sense may be described as a practical opportunist — sided with Obama. This smart guy Obama, used Craig – at least that’s what critics think – "to undermine Mrs. Clinton’s claims to be a foreign policy expert than anyone else in some of the ugliest exchanges of the battle for the Democratic nomination." Craig knows the Clintons like the back of his palm.As a result, Obama did an irreparable damage to Clinton’s claim that she visited at least 80 countries, thus making her an "expert" on foreign policy. But Obama speechified in public that visiting a country only to witness a cultural dance that entertains a visiting dignitary does not make one an expert in foreign policy.
There is no more proof required to show how Obama looks down at Sen. Clinton’s "expertise" on foreign policy, which to him looks like some kind of ornamental garbage.
Recall how the Obama campaign pilloried Sen. Clinton’s poor foreign policy decisions that helped exacerbate problems in Pakistan leading to the assassination of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto.
This just point out that Obama has no respect at all for Hilary’s knowledge on foreign policy, which dragged former President Bill Clinton into the primary’s word war defending his wife who was not treated fairly by the Obama campaign.
Please rewind and backtrack towards these historic travails in the campaign trail that are not just an eye-opener. It is a portal of knowledge Americans may go through to be able to understand why the Obama administration is going to self-destruct sooner than later.
There is no doubt about it — Obama mocked Mrs. Clinton’s so-called "expertise" in foreign policy. And who do you think is Obama’s choice to do the job of the Secretary of State, the nation’s top-dog on foreign policy? Activate your gift above your shoulder, and understand this question.
So far, at least two Republicans call the shots on war and national security in the incoming Obama administration – Bob Gates as chief of the Pentagon, and James Jone, retired Marine Corps General, as national security adviser.
The Left and the radical Liberals that virtually catapulted Obama to the White House in the last election are fuming mad. They campaigned for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and end the war in Iraq immediately as soon as he is elected president, and the nation listened to them. Result: Obama became president.
But how in heaven’s name can Obama give these critical portfolios to hawkish Republicans whose agenda is just the opposite of the expectation of Obama’s massive Liberal supporters? We will continue to bleed in Iraq, Obama radicals whined.
I do not need to explain why die-hard Obamanists are kicking the bucket so hard that their ankle hurts. They felt betrayed!
Bill Ayers, anti-war American bomber and murderer and his legions of followers from the dark side, could be so frustrated they might revert to their old, violent war protest habit. After Obama was elected president, he declared his high hope that his socialist "revolution" will succeed!
What’s happening now is that leftist blogs are starting a war against the warring Obama Cabinet. OpenLeft.com that had been actively campaigning for Obama, angrily complained that what Obama is creating is "a center-right team". Leftist activist Chris Bowers bawled over the proposed Cabinet: "I feel incredibly frustrated … Progressives are being entirely left out of Obama’s major appointment so far."
But why blame Obama if they are given a cold shoulder? I thought they knew their candidate when he was running for president. It appears to me they don’t.
They listened too much to what Obama had been saying in public, with their eyes closed. What they heard from the podium was Obama, but the person they saw talking, was not.
I have written and published in many websites, a truckload of Obama’s oxymoron read by millions. Obama meant what he said, and said what he did not mean. That’s why in every contradictory statement he made, there is always a lengthy explanation.
For example, in the early part of the presidential campaign, he captivated a great number of leftist Liberals and a protesting mass of peaceniks who were demonstrating against the war in Iraq, by assuring them that immediately within six months following his election to the presidency he would withdraw American troops in Iraq. Anti-war activists celebrated this Obama pledge like crazy, intensifying their campaign to get the Democrat candidate elected president.
But a little while later, what Obama meant about what he said on troop withdrawal was that he would withdraw our troops immediately upon the recommendation of the commanders on the ground.
What it means is that if the ground commanders recommend that the troops should be withdrawn within six months, he tells a layman’s truth.
However, the withdrawal timetable is not six months if the ground commanders recommend that due to their unfinished job in Iraq, American troops would be withdrawn five years or more later. Here Obama tells you the truth not as you see it, but as he sees it.
So what seems to be contradictory is actually a typical Obama oxymoron that I have written about so many times to the point of boredom. Like when Obama says you are a "wise fool", or you committed a "legal murder". Those words are contradictory. But in-between, you see Obama.
If we listen to oracles, it has been predicted that as "president" – or acting like a president – Hilary Clinton is likely the first person to push the button of nuclear Armageddon – World War III. It could happen within the first four years of the Obama regime, or thereafter when she is president of the United States.
Although she is not the president within Obama’s four years term of office, she can always override Obama. That possibility could be propelled by her inner disrespect of an inexperienced weak president that she thinks is a danger to the country.
She could supersede the president’s foreign policy with her own anytime she wants at any opportunity that presents itself, and as a result trigger hostilities that would ignite a WWIII conflagration.
Like Republican candidate John McCain, Hilary abhors the thought of Obama meeting with the terrors of Iran and North Korea without pre-conditions. She vehemently opposed giving legitimacy to nuclear-armed terrorists like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran and North Korea’s Kim Jong Il.
Ahmadinejad would continue to develop nuclear devices while hiding behind the mantle of diplomacy that Obama is opening to international terrorists. Like Saddam Hussein, the terror of Teheran would hide his nuclear bombs until they are ready to be detonated or dropped on Israel.
Secretary Clinton would be on top of our secret intelligence reports as to what Iran is about to do with its nuclear devices. When the popularity polls sky-rocket to a dizzying height, which would indicate that the angry American public believes that Iran is about to bomb Jerusalem, Sec. Clinton would decide on her own while Obama is still negotiating with Ahmadinejad, to assure the War Cabinet of Israel that the United States would support Israel’s preemptive nuclearstrike on Iran.
Clinton would not hesitate to ride on anything trendy, fashionable or politically correct even if she has to somersault or change her position for as long as it is popular.
The rest would be the dawn of a new era which would indicate that man once walked the earth. And in their tombstones, the dead owed it to Secretary Clinton!
How strong is the possibility that Secretary of State Hilary Clinton is most likely going to do a dangerous act I just described is like asking the question if turkeys get slaughtered to commemorate Thanksgiving Day. Unfortunately, the bird of sacrifice gets butchered even if there is no thanksgiving to celebrate but misgivings and regrets.
When the invasion of Iraq reached a popularity rating as high as 95% in the polls, Sen. Clinton did not only vote for it but even endorsed it. That means that out of every ten Americans, hardly one of them voted against it.
But later on when the Iraq war became unpopular, Sen. Clinton exited out of the pro-war rail track faster than Tokyo’s 6:00 o’clock bullet train.
Lies published against the war, became the truth, with Bush as an historical casualty. The nation is turning Left, and whatever the radical left says about the war, was the truth, and nothing but the truth.
Although the objective of the lie campaign was to wrest power from the Republicans which culminated in the November 4, 2008 presidential election, many resourceful opportunists published books of fiction about the war in Iraq, and cornering quite a fortune, whistled their way to the bank!
Sen. Clinton did not only get out and joined hordes of anti-warniks that made a fortune out of protests, but she also got out of it in style – denounced Bush and called the war she voted for and endorsed, as an "illegal" war.
How can she vote for an "illegal" war and still stay in the Senate as a "respectable" Senator, perhaps bogs the imagination! But it’s not fiction or a story in Wonderland … it is real…!
On record, she is a dye-in-the-wool politically correct politician — a political opportunist through and through.
Obama himself had proven how thick is the skin of Sen. Clinton, a politically correct opportunist.
For example, Sen. Clinton looked down at Obama as an "unwise, inexperienced, impulsive and indecisive" president, a high risk to the nation. But when Obama appointed her State Secretary-designate to work for him, she accepted it !! Think about it if you know what delicadeza means.
An opportunist is a grabber of opportunity that presents itself whether or not there is a question of propriety. Anytime, compulsive opportunists would eat their own words — for power. This is not just true to opportunists like Mrs. Clinton, but to all knee-jerk politicians both in the Republican and Democrat camps that plunged this nation into a sorry state of affairs.
There is no self-respect. The skin is thick.
Since Obama appointed her Secretary of State, to Hilary, Obama now must be a very wise, very experienced, extremely decisive president we need!
I am sure Hilary wants us to celebrate Thanksgiving – to slaughter more turkeys and offer their blood in the altar of public opinion, and in a pagan-like ritual thank the gods in high heavens for giving us a president like Obama. #
© Copyright Edwin A. Sumcad. PAR access November 26, 2008.
The writer is an award-winning journalist. Go to NWS homepage, click on the columnist button to know more about the author or you may e-mail your comment at firstname.lastname@example.org