So Hillary Clinton thinks, and says with a straight face, during a speech at Georgetown University that we need to exert “smart power,” which means that America needs to “show respect for our enemies and empathize with their perspective and point of view.”
And Dianne Feinstein calls what was done to and with some terrorist prisoners at Guantanamo and other locations after Sept. 11 was torture, and we need to publicize it and make amends.
And Nancy Pelosi is so furious about how the Barack Obama handled the dealing on the vote on the $1.1 trillion spending bill that she said venomously, “We are being blackmailed – being blackmailed, to vote for an appropriation bill.”
Whoosh! Are they examples of female leadership?
Liberals think so, but not in my book.
If having people like that in positions of leadership and power in our government is an example of what we would be like as a country with women like them in charge, then call me sexist, but we do not need – nor, in fact, can we afford – a woman president or a woman in any other major leadership/decisive position.
I’ve observed Nancy Pelosi’s political tactics close up over the years in the San Francisco area, and it’s clear she follows the party line and never deviates. Opposition to Democrat positions is simply not acknowledged, and she demands fierce loyalty or she dishes out total dismissal. Her reaction to Obama’s dealing with Boehner in the spending bill is a surprise to many; it remains to be seen what Obama will have to do to win back her support. He’ll get it, but at what price? He’s a lame duck. She isn’t.
Hillary Clinton isn’t even in office anymore, and yet you’d think she’s an elder statesman – errrrrrr, “woman.”
So she was the first lady; so what?
We know what you have to do to have that position, and she did it in spades, putting up with a rake of a husband and keeping that smiling face, as though everything was hunky-dory at the old homestead.
She ran for Senate as a carpetbagger and was elected, although clearly unqualified except for the name and the marriage.
When she didn’t make the presidential nomination, she hung in politically and was gifted with the secretary of state position and was a colossal failure – the culmination being Benghazi.
Hillary Clinton’s coat of arms is burned out buildings and cars and the bodies of four brave Americans, one being her “old friend Chris” – Ambassador Christopher Stevens, along with Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith and CIA contractors and former SEALs Tyrone Wood and Glen Dorety – the four men killed by an attack that the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton tried to cover-up by blaming an innocent man and a video no one ever saw.
Are Americans gullible?
Are our media in the pocket of the left?
Is the sky blue?
This woman wants to be president, simply because she is Hillary Clinton.
Am I disgusted?
Is the sky blue?
And then we have, last, but certainly not least, Dianne Feinstein.
She’s another politician I’ve had the opportunity to observe over the years in the San Francisco area. While I’ve not agreed with her politically, I’ve met her personally and liked her because I felt she was essentially strongly supportive of our country and our freedoms.
I don’t know what happened recently, but she’s shattered that. In fact, judging by the comments out of Washington, Feinstein has reacted to a personal disagreement with the CIA.
For whatever reason, political no doubt, 13 years after Sept. 11, the Democrats put together an investigation into what and how suspected terrorists were questioned as to what they knew and what it would mean to our national security.
In other words, in the aftermath of massive attacks on the heart of our country, the downing of commercial airliners, the attack on the Pentagon and the destruction of the World Trade Center and the murder of 3,000 Americans – what were expected to do? What were the parameters of the investigation into what was next? How do we deal with the suspects? Is anything off the table?
According to Feinstein and the Democrats who conducted the investigation, everything we did was too extreme and the United States is now supposed to do a massive “mea culpa” and face charges in international courts.
Really?
I have only one question for Mrs. Feinstein: Would you feel the same way if your only daughter and grandchildren were victims of such suicide terrorist attacks?
How about if the plane that wound up in a field in Pennsylvania because of the bravery of the passengers had instead reached the original intended target, the U.S. Capitol?
You talk about torture, Mrs. Feinstein. I would posit that torture is the decision of hundreds to jump from upper stories of high-rise towers to avoid being burned to death.
I would posit that torture is the mental images in the minds of families of the victims as they remember seeing the buildings collapse, knowing that their loved ones were inside.
I know torture is the memory of the families of the first responders knowing their loved ones willingly went into the buildings to try to rescue victims and faced their own deaths.
I know, for me, the images of the jumpers can’t be erased from my mind, nor can the sounds of the bodies of the jumpers hitting the pavement.
I saw that and remember that. As far as I’m concerned, the cretins who plotted such attacks and continue their murderous ways of plots and beheadings and worse, justifying it all in terms of their religion, deserve whatever it takes to stop them.
Would that be torture? Would it involve severe pain? Would it cause fear or dread?
As far as I’m concerned, yes – and good. When they stop, we’ll stop and not before.
Sorry, Dianne.
Follow Barbara Simpson on Facebook.
Media wishing to interview Barbara Simpson, please contact [email protected].
|
