« | »

Hillary To Congress: Whose Side Are You On?

From an irony proof Associated Press:

Clinton asks Congress, whose side are you on?

By Bradley Klapper, Associated Press – Wed Jun 22, 2011

MONTEGO BAY, Jamaica – U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is questioning the priorities of lawmakers criticizing the U.S. intervention in Libya.

She’s asking bluntly, "Whose side are you on?"

Isn’t irony ironic? Didn’t Mrs. Clinton criticize President Bush’s handling of the war in Iraq? We seem to recall that she did – and right from the start.

In fact, back in April of 2003 when the invasion of Iraq was still underway, Hillary famously shrieked at a Democrat fundraiser in Connecticut that it was the patriotic duty of every American to dissent.

We quote: "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. And we should stand up and say ‘We are America,’ that we have a right to disagree with any administration.’"

You see, way back then, dissent was patriotic. There was a Republican in the White House.

Setting up a showdown on Libya, House Republicans agreed Wednesday to vote on dueling measures, one to give President Barack Obama limited authority to continue U.S. involvement in the NATO-led operation against Moammar Gadhafi and the other to cut off funds for military hostilities.

The measures reflect widespread dissatisfaction with Obama’s decision not to seek congressional consent for the 3-month-old war.

Isn’t it funny how the AP neglects to specifically mention that Mr. Obama is currently in direct violation of the 1973 War Powers Act. In fact, last Sunday was the absolute ‘drop dead’ date for him to comply. And he didn’t.

But the AP doesn’t bother to mention that. Nor do they mention that he is the first US President to violate that act. Do you think they would have taken notice if Mr. Obama were a warmongering Republican?

Clinton says Congress is free to raise objections but questions the priorities of the critics. She says the Obama administration and its partners are rightly siding with the Libyan people.

That sure sounds like Hillary no longer considers dissent to be patriotic. In fact, she seems to be implying that any objections are anti-democratic, even un-American.

She spoke about Libya during a brief stop in Jamaica.

How nice for her – and Huma.

This article was posted by Steve on Thursday, June 23rd, 2011. Comments are currently closed.

17 Responses to “Hillary To Congress: Whose Side Are You On?”

  1. Enthalpy says:

    Despicable Hillary continues. Islam trumps all allegiances for Muslims, so what does it matter whose side we’re on?

    • Petronius says:

      Yes, this is probably a lose-lose situation for America and the West.

      Maybe the proper question should be :

      When Qadafi regains power, whose side will he be on?

  2. Airmail56 says:

    I thought there was an American policy not to ‘Air our laundry’ while outside of the country? Perhaps she should talk to someone in the State Department about proper protocol…

  3. Liberals Demise says:

    I just want to state that what I have to say about Shilary and the double standard of the media I can’t print here for fear of being exiled.

  4. untrainable says:

    Good question Hilly! I’d like to know whose side we’re on too. Our government can’t even tell us who the “rebels” are! One thing is for sure, democracy has nothing to do with EITHER SIDE in this conflict.

    • Liberals Demise says:

      Who’s side is Frau Hilda on? We are broke, she knows it and wants to wage an illegal war with borrowed money.
      Gear up baby! Get in there and fight. Maybe you can dodge fictitious snipers and save the day.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      Hitlery is on the angry lesbian side of every argument. If you just take a moment and put everything she does/says in that context, you will understand. Her biggest disappointment right now is that she can’t wear a crew cut and logger boots.

    • Liberals Demise says:

      I’m trying to erase that mental image but all I get is her in Biker Leather and a riding crop.
      “HELP ME!!!!”

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      Lots of cellulite. yeah.

  5. Right of the People says:

    Yo Madam Hildabeast, we are on our side, you know the United States, remember the?

    There is no right side in Libya, just evil and more evil and frankly I’m not sure which side is the more evil, Q’daffy or the Mooselimb Brotherhood or whatever those Al Qaeda clones are calling themselves. Either way the people of the that third world sh*thole are screwed.

    Petronius, you are absolutely correct, it is a lose-lose situation for the US if we stay involved. I’m thinking maybe Barry the Bungler is in direct contact with the Mooselimb Brotherhood since we’re bombing Qadafi’s people. He has to help up his Mooselimb brothers any way he can.

    Of course they’d better get this over with quickly, the boy king has some serious campaigning to do.

  6. tranquil.night says:

    In the other thread, I brought up Teddy Roosevelt, whose administration I’ve been reviewing recently because from what I can tell, outside of being the grandfather of Populist Progressivism, executive privelege with the media, and big government overall, he was also the first to begin the Modern Era of American Humanitarian Interventionism (when Liberal’s start wars) and Military Adventurism (“Neo-Conservatism”), as they’re called – including bailing out foreign nations on the basis of national interests; economic, military, and otherwise.

    The Progressives just don’t get personalities like Teddy Roosevelt (who probably achieved as much or more radical change in American policy as his descendents) in their coalition anymore; it’s been flooded and taken over by all the social grievance groups since the 60’s/70’s and is now managed by can-do Technocratic incompetents of the Global Post-Modern Era. I cited Roosevelt’s involvment in the battle of San Juan Hill in my other post, and Liberal’s probably love to recall the story of how Teddy was said to have threatened all the black soldiers in his regiment that he’ll shoot them too if they retreat; before getting on his horse “Texas” and leading the charge. They probably cite it thinking they’re caricaturing a racist, warmongering Conservative hick rather than America’s first soft-tyrant Liberal of the 20th century.

    In any event, I believe the Roosevelt camp evolved into the Clinton machine eventually, which for all it’s ideological tyranny, still understood basic economics and wanted to govern a nation that still was the best in the world, and while they always stretched the Constitution – they were never out to just blow it up as the basis of our founding.

    The Bam Machine is a different beast entirely, and Rush has gone to great length to try and explain this too, in that it is objectively out to Manage America’s Decline and has explicitly ignored the Constitution in pursuing its agenda legislatively, judicially, and executively. Sometimes it seems they have no other motivation other than to challenge the Constitution anyway they can. As far as Libya goes, Spike co-opted the ‘humanitarian’ Clintonian message, but since the start in terms of managing and prosecuting the engagement, it is likely that his effective disengagement and apathy are purposeful as well – just part the ‘Smart Diplomacy’ of Bowing Down and Apologizing – because he simply is out to make the country and its alliances look weak while never letting political discourse ever acknowledge that point (or any other Liberal hypocrisies).

  7. Not so fast says:

    Well, Hillary we are not on the sides of the oil companies of ENI and Gazprom it that’s what you mean.

  8. Papa Louie says:

    “Clinton asks Congress, whose side are you on?”

    That’s a great question, Hillary. Why hasn’t your boss asked that question? If he had, he wouldn’t be in violation of the War Powers Act. But he’s too much of a coward to ask Congress to vote on that question.

  9. Mithrandir says:

    Remember what Democrats Said about Saddam ….when it was politically convenient?


    Whose side are they on!

    • canary says:

      Mithrandir, great piece. Now 20 years later we have the list of deadly chemicals that Saddam Hussein exposed U.S. troops to in Desert Storm.
      It’s just back then the idea was to deny any chemicals or Gulf War Syndrome.

      Obama recognized only one Iraqi minister when he had dinner with them on his trip to Iraq. It was the trip he begged the media to stay and talk to him, in spite of their expressing their fears they needed to get to a safe place and it was late. This was the trip where he called Marines who’d had a heavy loss, skinny pimple faced young men. They told him to leave, so he went to Palestine to comfort the Hamas terrorists.

      According to Obama the one minsiter he recognized was Mr. Ahmed Chalabi, a western-educated Shi’te; leader of the exiled group the Iraqi National Congress.
      Obama wrote he believed Ahmed Chalabi is the one that misreported the Weapons of Mass Destruction to the Bush Administration.

  10. P. Aaron says:

    Hillary’s lookin’ more & more like Madaline Albright.

  11. Reality Bytes says:

    This from the smartest woman in Washington?! Yo! it’s not about who’s side we’re on! It’s about logistics! Read TS Sherman & Grant & learn something instead of bloviating.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »