At first look, Hillary Clinton should be a shoe-in for two terms. No one in American political life has more experience roaming the halls of power. She was the wife of the attorney general of Arkansas from 1977 to 1979, then the first lady of Arkansas from 1979 to 1981 and again from 1983 until 1992, when she became the first lady of the United States, which lasted until the election of George W. Bush in 2000. She was then elected to the United States Senate from 2000 to 2009, after which she was appointed Secretary of State by Barack Obama, a post she held until 2013.
Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton is the grand dame of unlikable people, ranking right up there with gonorrhea and Milli Vanilli as many Americans' least favorite things. Personally, I liken her to a particularly bad trip to the dentist, or that nightmare you had as a teenager, where you suddenly realize that you're at school in your Spider-Man Underoos.
There are probably dozens of reasons to not like Hillary Clinton, but I'll give you just two. In fact, I'll bookend her career with two especially unlikable moments.
I remember well my most politically formative years in the early 90s, when she and her husband became synonymous with political cronyism. They were strong proponents of the expediency-makes-right school of political science, backed by a strong belief in the notion that if they said something with enough swagger and sneer, then it must be true.
I was in the Army at the time, and everyone I knew was in either the Army or the Air Force, or was a military family member or had some other military connection. At a time when the news media were awash with stories about how the first lady had more influence over American public policy than ever before, the country's move away from the pro-military conservatism of the 80s and toward a big-government collectivist vision of the future was unmistakable.
And it was poison. Libraries started to close. Schools, hospitals, clinics, even shopping centers on post were disappearing. Social focus was on whether gays were being treated fairly in the military, even as billion-dollar bases were being shut down and whole divisions with time-honored lineages were being deactivated. Military career opportunities that I'd already signed up for were no longer available.
There were several reasons for my departure from the Army, but what I saw as an official anti-Army stance in Washington was as much a factor in that decision as anything else. And she had as much to do with that has her husband did. A lot of people conveniently forget how anti-military Hillary Clinton can be, how she sneers at her Secret Service detail, how she's known in official circles as someone who hates the mechanism that provide her with security: the military, law enforcement, and security personnel assigned to protect her. I saw it first-hand in the Army at the height of the Clintons' power, when they decimated America's military capacity, and I think we've all seen it since then in how she treats those around her.
SO let's fast forward to Benghazi, shall we? I know, a lot of investigations have shown that there was no cover-up, and no wrong-doing on Hillary's part. But I still have a few questions for the Department of State. I don't buy that it was a conspiracy or big cover-up, but there were several issues that the government has never been effectively called on the carpet for.
Why was no additional security sent?
Why was no military force sent?
Why no Marines to guard what would later be called an embassy? And if it wasn't an embassy and therefore didn't merit Marine embassy security, what was the ambassador doing there?
Why no quick reaction force from Italy, where airborne troops from the 325 were ready to deploy? What's that, 3 hours away? 5 hours?
And here's the big group: Who came up with the narrative that the attack in Benghazi was motivated by that video? When did that narrative begin to circulate? What was the motivation behind the narrative?
The appearance is that the Obama Administration, not wanting to admit that international jihadist terrorists had attacked a US station, made up the idea that these attackers were just regular townsfolk who'd seen some video made by Americans, and were so outraged at its content that they spontaneously protested at the gates of the US station, and the protest got out of hand and a few people got killed in the melee. It appears to have been a wag-the-dog effort that didn't quite work. And I've never heard a satisfactory explanation for it. I remember seeing many speeches from Clinton, Susan Rice, Obama and others about how horrendous this video was and how we condemn the video in the harshest terms, but no one ever condemned the actual violence? Nobody could send relief troops to help everyone actually survive it?
If that's what happened, then that's a powerful statement about who we're about to elect president. Their attempt to shift blame from the actual terrorists who attacked the compound to an American video that was never even shown in public would be a horrendous and egregious misappropriation of the American public trust, and should - even if nothing else is - be brought to light, not stonewalled by political rhetoric. And, just as with her attitude toward the military and LE, I've never even heard a satisfactory rebuttal, refusal or denial.