Originally posted February 1, 2016.
The Times tells readers about Hillary Clinton, “Voters have the chance to choose one of the most broadly and deeply qualified presidential candidates in modern history.” Qualified? I am not certain that lying to the American people on issues of national security, violating national security policy in terms of email activity, championing a distinctly Marxist brand of domestic policy and a thoroughly disgraced form of interventionist foreign policy can be associated with the word qualified.
Here is what the NYT is putting forth:
Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Nomination
Hillary Clinton is the right choice for the Democrats to present a vision for America that is radically different from the one that leading Republican candidates offer — a vision in which middle-class Americans have a real shot at prosperity, women’s rights are enhanced, undocumented immigrants are given a chance at legitimacy, international alliances are nurtured and the country is kept safe.
Prosperity? Enhanced Rights? Immigration Legitimacy? Nurtured Alliances? Marxism is hardly a path to prosperity. Undocumented is simply a smoke screen for illegal. There can be no chance at legitimacy. Nurtured Alliances? With whom? The criminal despots of the Middle East?
Former CIA bin Laden unit chief Michael Scheuer and veteran CIA operative Gary Bernsten (the CIA’s key commander coordinating the fight against the Taliban) offer a little different take on this NYT designated “deeply qualified presidential candidate.” Mike writes, there is a “prima facie justification for an immediate criminal investigation of Mrs. Clinton, as well as a damage assessment conducted by intelligence and law enforcement agencies that will inform the national government and the public of what damage Mrs. Clinton deliberately inflicted on national security by her arrogant refusal to use the government’s secure IT systems.”
How The New York Times has a single reader left must be a mystery to any American who has so much as a shred of historical perspective. Not only is Madame Clinton not qualified to hold any office in the U.S. government, she is, as Dr. Scheuer indicates, potentially worthy of indictment. Probably not an event that would enhance Clinton’s relentless march to the presidency. Qualified? Indeed not.
Latest posts by Richard C. Young (see all)
- Establishment GOP Loves Trump’s Iran De-Certification - October 16, 2017
- The Dow and the Leaders - October 16, 2017
- Trump and Reagan: Many Similarities but One Major Potential Difference - October 13, 2017