Can Hillary Clinton Crawl Out From Under The Bus?
No American should be happy with the bumbling chaotic nature of what this administration continues to call its foreign policy. Pundits suggest that pocketbook issues trump everything else when voters make their choices, but surely the odorous stench emanating from Libya via Foggy Bottom and the State Department will cause some noses to twitch. The interesting thing, thus far, is how neither the Secretary of State nor the President has been forced to take the responsibility for a truly reprehensible series of events culminating in the loss of four American lives.
In many ways it is as if the terrorist attack in Benghazi never happened and the American people are expected to understand that such events are to be seen as “bumps in the road” on the way to a gloriously peaceful destination. This is an outcome that satisfies both the Secretary of State and the President, at least until after the election, but does anyone doubt that advisers in both camps are making every attempt to ensure that the finger of blame ends up pointing in the other’s direction? The really sad part about the situation is that it seems to be the assignation of blame which is of the highest priority to both and that the importance of the event itself is being lost in the process.
It’s easy to get caught up in the minutia of who said what when, or, more importantly to Hillary, the question of exactly when Obama going to throw her under the bus, but let’s not lose sight of the fact that the event seems to have made not one iota of difference in how the administration views the Middle East or how it plans on conducting its foreign policy. As reported in nj.com, the Secretary of State seems completely oblivious to what is at stake in the Middle East…
In her address, which focused particularly on North Africa, Clinton stressed that extremists were trying to hijack democratic transitions under way. She warned of al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb’s growing reach from its stronghold in northern Mali, just south of Libya.
“Last month’s violence revealed strains of extremism that threaten these nations, as well as the broader region and the United States,” Clinton warned. “On the other hand, we’ve seen actions that would have been hard to imagine just a few years ago: Democratically-elected leaders and free people in Arab countries standing up for a peaceful, pluralist future.
Seriously, where is this evidence supporting her suggestion that extremists are hijacking the democratic transitions under way as opposed to the extremists being the beneficiaries of a free and open election? Where is the evidence suggesting that a significant majority of these democratically elected leaders and free people in Arab countries (are) standing up for a peaceful, pluralist future rather than a future inimical to American interests? Although such evidence would be welcome, can anyone really say it is available?
The underlying problem is that we have an administration which, whether by design or incompetence, is responsible for a significant policy failure which adversely affects American interests in the Middle East. At the same time we have a President who is somewhat dependent on the expertise and goodwill of an ex-President, who also happens to be the Secretary of State’s husband, for any possible hope of being elected for a second term. How all the various conflicts will be resolved remain to be seen.