Hillary Clinton gave her last interview as Secretary of State to AP last week. What little I saw of the interview left me dumbfounded. I had
the sensation of being smacked in the face, and I swear I could hear the sound of 1,000 camels backs breaking. This was her response
when asked to address her critics:
"She says they don't live in an "evidenced-based world" and that their refusal to accept the administration's statements is regrettable."
Wow. Where to start? When dealing with the Clinton's, first we should establish that: ( 1 ) Earth is an "evidence based world"
( 2 ) thats she is a resident of the planet Earth, and ( 3 ) what precisely the definition of the phrase "evidence based world" is. After enduring
this task that would be considered "unnecesary" with any other witness, we can examine Mrs Clinton's absurd claim without ambiguity.
First, let us establish what Mrs Clinton's record of honesty reveals about her credibiity as a witness. She was found to have made
"factually false statements" in her testimony related to TRAVELGATE, denied any knowledge of material facts of FILEGATE, and claimed
that subpoenaed WHITEWATER billing records were "lost or missing" - only to dicover them 2 yrs later in her living quarters at the White
House. She publicly and repeatedly put her own credibility on the line by denying the validity of the Lewinsky affair - and feigned shock, when
she found out like the rest of us, that her husband was a lying cad - an admission that any woman, given the history, would be
ashamed to admit. She denied knowledge of her brother Hugh Rodham's purchase of 2 pardons from her husband for $400k, including
one for a cocaine kingpin. She denied any interest in running for President during her 2000 Senate campaign, and denies it now. She
denied any relation with NORMAN HSU, convicted of a $20 million ponzi scheme selling, among other things, access to Hillary. This
despite a recording from Hsu's answering machine from Hillary beginning: "Norman...what am I gonna do with you?" Hsu,a TWICE OVER
fugitive from justice on a federal fraud conviction, had raised over $850K for Clinton and she was photographed with him.
The record now clear concerning Mrs Clinton's honesty, candor, and regard for "evidence", we can examine her latest testimony to
evaluate her claim that Republicans don't "live in an evidence based world." The evidence shows, through the testimony of top State
Dept officials, verified through documentation, and EVEN HER OWN TESTIMONY, that she was WELL aware of the situation on the
ground in Benghazi. Yet she claims total ignorance of the security situation at the consulate, or the repeated, documented requests
for assistance. And we're expected to, despite her record, take her at her word? Are we expected to believe that the smartest woman
on Earth is really a stumbling moron in disguise? Should we believe that the highest officials at State willfully witheld these requests
from her, and she didn't see fit to IMMEDIATELY relieve or reassign them? This despite the existing and continuing threat to any one
of hundreds of other diplomatic posts?
The evidence is clear that this adminstration,including Hillary, willfully and falsely promoted a bogus "spontaneous reaction" narrative for
political purposes. Why? Because If some clown somewhere flushes the Koran down a toilet, and muslims decide to tear eachother's hair
and teeth out over it, NO President could nor should be able to do anything about it. On the other hand, if it was a well executed, well planned
premedtitated and coordinated attack, then that is indicative of major failure at the highest levels of Government less than 1.2 miles from
a CIA station. All of the testimony from State, Defense, CIA, and National Intelligence shows that the standard "demonstration" alert
never went out, and that at no time did they believe the attack was the result of a spontaneous demonstration. All of the intelligence pointed
to the contrary. Ansar al Sharia had claimed responsibility for the attack before it was even over. The CIA operatives on the ground knew who
they were fighting. Firing mortars at a US installation is prima facia premeditation and requires a level of sophistication beyond an out of control
mob's capability. Even a dullard would've recognized what this was.
The evidence indicates that, once again, Hillary lied under oath. She misled the Congress when she said that "no live feed" of
the attack was available - the DOD made a video drone surveillance feed available to all. When she testified that she "never tried to link the
YOUTUBE video to the attack", she clearly lied. She cited it the next day, made a multi million $ commercial addressing the video for Islamic
consumption, and actually said to Tyrone Woods' grieving father: "We're going to GET this guy who made that video." Is it ever proper for
a Secy of State to exact revenge on a citizen expressing his or her First Amendment rights? Did she contact officials in the Justice
Dept. to fufill her pledge to a patriot's father? Did she contact the California A.G., or any other enforcement agency, or was she just blowing
smoke up a grieving father's ass and calling it the "fog of war"?.
ts ironic that Clinton refer to "evidence" on her way out, as any objective analysis of the evidence could lead to only 3 possible conclusions:
first, that Clinton is a gross incompetent, second, that she is a lying and untruthful sack, or three, she is both. Her phoney outrage expressed
best by her response "What difference does it make?" concerning the motive behind the murders in Benghazi, is illustrative of both her
failure to understand what is required to respond strategically to imminent threats, and her total disregard of the victims families that may beg
to differ in that WHY they were murdered rises above the level of "trivial". It also must've been a bucket of cold water to the faces of those
same family members to find out that Rice was the one to do the Sunday shows because Hillary "has better things to do on a Sunday morning"
than to answer questions about 4 murdered Americans.
Despite all of this, the press has declared her the most successful Secretary of State in history and her approval ratings are through the roof.
I'm beginning to think that she's right, that I don't live in an "evidence based world", and that I'm really on the planet Bizzaro. Hillary in 2016?
In the words of former Congressman Traficante: "Beam me up Scotty. Theres no intelligent life here."