Maureen Dowd, "When Hillary Clinton Killed Feminism": Murder, She Wrote?

Tweet

"There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!"

- Madeleine Albright, speaking on behalf of Hillary Clinton's candidacy

Can you imagine a male candidate for president, Democrat or Republican, applauding and laughing raucously when endorsed by another man, who declares to the crowd, "There’s a special place in hell for men who don’t help each other!" I can't. Such a mistake would be fatal. But then I also couldn't imagine two PBS "NewsHour" journalists, Gwen Ifill and Judy Woodruff, moderators of the Democratic debate on  Thursday, failing to ask Hillary a single question about the State Department subpoena served upon the Clinton Foundation. Was this "feminism" or "sexism" at work, or just journalistic ineptitude?

In a guest New York Times op-ed entitled "My Undiplomatic Moment," Madeleine Albright yesterday attempted to explain away her controversial "special place in hell" comment supporting Hillary's candidacy. Albright wrote:

"However, I do want to explain why I so firmly believe that, even today, women have an obligation to help one another. In a society where women often feel pressured to tear one another down, our saving grace lies in our willingness to lift one another up. And while young women may not want to hear anything more from this aging feminist, I feel it is important to speak to women coming of age at a time when a viable female presidential candidate, once inconceivable, is a reality."

Maureen Dowd, however, will have none of this. In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "When Hillary Clinton Killed Feminism," Dowd writes:

"The interesting thing about the spectacle of older women trying to shame younger ones on behalf of Hillary is that Hillary and Bill killed the integrity of institutional feminism back in the ’90s — with the help of Albright and Steinem.

Instead of just admitting that he had had an affair with Monica Lewinsky and taking his lumps, Bill lied and hid behind the skirts of his wife and female cabinet members, who had to go out before the cameras and vouch for his veracity, even when it was apparent he was lying.

Seeing Albright, the first female secretary of state, give cover to President Clinton was a low point in women’s rights."

Ouch!

Any discussion of Hillary and feminism, however, would not be complete without mentioning the millions of dollars donated to the Clinton Foundation by Saudi Arabia, a country which whips and imprisons gang rape victims.

And then there is also that small matter involving Hillary's tweet on November 22, 2015:

"Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported."

Which was followed by Juanita Broaddrick's tweet on January 6, 2016:

"I was 35 years old when Bill Clinton, Ark. Attorney General raped me and Hillary tried to silence me. I am now 73....it never goes away."

With a little luck, all of this talk about Hillary's candidacy will be rendered moot when the FBI weighs in with a recommendation concerning the use of her home server for sending and receiving top secret government communications (including emails exchanged with President Obama, who claims he never knew that his secretary of state was using a private server). Further afield, my guess is that if Hillary is forced to withdraw from the race: a) no one will ever again pay her anything approaching $500,000 for a speech (although maybe she could make a paid guest appearance on "The Biggest Loser"), and b) her marriage to Bill (of convenience or inconvenience) will end within a year.

By the way, it is fast becoming apparent that Elizabeth Warren was wise not to endorse Hillary. Two days ago, in a Boston Globe article entitled "Why Elizabeth Warren can’t endorse Hillary Clinton," Eric Fehrnstrom wrote:

"Stumping for Hillary Clinton before the Tuesday vote, Madeline Albright delivered her now-famous 'special place in hell' warning to women who don’t help other women. If the Clinton campaign was sending a not-too-subtle message to Senator Warren, they’re going to have to wait a long time, maybe until hell freezes over."

Hell, however, could freeze over if Hillary - a narcissist, not a feminist - runs against Donald Trump, also blindly enamored of himself, in November, which is not so far off.

Stay tuned . . .

Gail Collins, "Republicans, Widows and Porn": Sisters in Arms

Tweet

"There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!"

- Madeleine Albright, speaking on behalf of Hillary Clinton's candidacy

Yesterday I observed that The Washington Post, MSNBC, CNN, Yahoo News, Bloomberg and UPI had all published articles concerning the State Department subpoena served on the Clinton Foundation, but The New York Times decided to ignore the matter entirely. I asked whether the Times is still a newspaper or if it has become a highly politicized, self-serving propaganda machine. Well, maybe I was too harsh on the Times. After all, during the PBS "NewsHour" Democratic debate on Thursday, Gwen Ifill and Judy Woodruff remarkably failed to ask Hillary a single question about the subpoena.

I supposed that it should come as no surprise that in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Republicans, Widows and Porn," Gail Collins also fails today to mention the subpoena. Instead she reserves most of her criticism for Ted Cruz ("The run-up to this weekend’s Republican debate was greatly enlivened by the news that Amy Lindsay, an alum of 'Animal Lust' and 'Whose Thong Is It Anyway?,' was starring in a Cruz campaign ad") and Donald Trump ("it might provide the opportunity for someone to recall that the widow in question once referred to the man who is now the leading Republican presidential candidate as 'a maggot, a cockroach and a crumb'").

So what is more important? The pulling of a Cruz advertisement or service of a subpoena upon the Clinton Foundation? We obviously know what's more important for Gail.

But don't worry, Gail! You've got good company! In a guest Times op-ed entitled "My Undiplomatic Moment," Madeleine Albright attempts to explain away her "special place in hell" comment supporting Hillary's candidacy. Albright writes:

"However, I do want to explain why I so firmly believe that, even today, women have an obligation to help one another. In a society where women often feel pressured to tear one another down, our saving grace lies in our willingness to lift one another up. And while young women may not want to hear anything more from this aging feminist, I feel it is important to speak to women coming of age at a time when a viable female presidential candidate, once inconceivable, is a reality."

Hillary is a "viable" candidate? Sorry, Madeleine, but the State Department subpoena (you remember the State Department, don't you, Maddy?) served on the Clinton Foundation did away with that viability. As Chris Cillizza wrote in a Washington Post article entitled "Hillary Clinton’s week just went from bad to worse":

"There is, without question, a desire on the part of many Republicans to cast Clinton in the worst possible light using almost any means necessary. But it strains credulity to believe that Republicans somehow concocted a way to get the State Department and the FBI to look into Clinton's tenure at State."

Hillary's candidacy will unravel when the FBI makes its recommendations. She would be doing the United States, the Democratic Party and women a favor by ending her presidential bid now and not later, unless it is her intention to demonstrate conclusively that female politicians are just as despicable as male politicians.

Iran to Continue Arming Assad and Hezbollah: Kerry and Rice Misinform the American Public

Tweet


On July 17, 2015, John Kerry and Judy Woodruff had the following interchange on PBS Newshour concerning Obama's nuclear deal with Iran (my emphasis in red):

JUDY WOODRUFF: You have emphasized that this was just a deal about Iran’s nuclear program. It wasn’t intended to get at anything else.

And yet, as you know, there is concern that Iran will take some of that money that they’re going to get from the frozen assets that are now being unfrozen, that they will use it on — some of it to create mischief, more mischief in the area, give some of it to Hezbollah, some of it to the Shiite militias in Yemen and so forth.

JOHN KERRY: Right.

JUDY WOODRUFF: What is the U.S. prepared to do about that? How do you see that playing out?

JOHN KERRY: Well, we’re going to clamp down. They’re not allowed to do that.

They’re not allowed to do that, outside even of this agreement. There is a U.N. resolution that specifically applies to them not being allowed to transfer to Hezbollah. They are specifically not allowed under another U.N. resolution to transfer to the Shia militia in Iraq. They are specifically not allowed to transfer to the Houthis.

And I will be meeting with all of the Gulf states in about two weeks in Doha, and we are laying down — and Secretary Carter is meeting with them in Riyadh next week. We are laying down the steps we will take to work with our friends and allies in the region to push back against this behavior.

So, according to Kerry, Iran cannot transfer money to Hezbollah or to Houthi rebels. However, on July 15, 2015, Susan Rice gave CNN's Wolf Blitzer a completely different answer:

WOLF BLITZER: I just want to be precise. Once the money starts flowing in, it's their money, correctly - as I pointed out, as you pointed out - it's their money. They can do with it whatever they want. If they want to give a billion dollars of weapons to Bashar al-Assad or a billion dollars to Houthi rebels in Yemen . . .

SUSAN RICE: No, they can’t do that, Wolf, because they’ll still be under an arms embargo that would prevent them from sending weapons anywhere.

WOLF BLITZER: So what if they're not sending weapons, what if they're just sending money?

SUSAN RICE: Well, they may be able to send money. Yes.

Well, neither Kerry nor Rice are telling us how Iran understands it obligations under the deal. As reported by Iran's Fars News Agency:

"Renowned political analyst Dr. Mohammad Marandi said that Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif told him in Vienna last week that Iran would continue to supply arms to the regional nations even under a final nuclear deal.

'When we were in Vienna, the Arab reporters asked me if Iran would continue arms aids to its regional allies under the final deal, and when I asked Mr. Zarif, the Iranian foreign minister, the question, he told me that Iran would continue the arms supply policy,' Marandi, a Tehran University Professor, said during a live interview with the English-language channel, press tv, on Monday night.

'Mr. Zarif told me that Iran would continue its arms aid to the regional nations and he told me that it would be in violation of the UN Security Council resolution (that was adopted earlier today), but it would not be in opposition to the agreement (also known as the Comprehensive Joint Plan of Action),' he reiterated adding that Zarif had not asked him to remain unnamed when reflecting the answer to the reporters."

Care to comment, John and Susan?

Wendy Sherman on PBS NewsHour: Iran's Arak Reactor Not for Peaceful Purposes

Yesterday, in an interview on PBS NewsHour (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/july-dec13/sherman_12-04.html), Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman, one of the architects of Obama's "agreement to agree" with Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/12/thomas-friedman-bibi-and-barack-sequel.html), who previously negotiated America's farcical agreement to restrict North Korea's nuclear weapons program, acknowledged that Iran's Arak Reactor is not for peaceful purposes:

GWEN IFILL: Is it fair to say that, as difficult as it was getting to this first step, as you call it, that it will be 10 times as difficult getting to the next one?

WENDY SHERMAN: I think getting to a comprehensive agreement will be very, very difficult.

GWEN IFILL: Does that include dismantling, full dismantling?

WENDY SHERMAN: This includes a lot of dismantling of their infrastructure, because, quite frankly, we're not quite sure what you need a 40-megawatt heavy water reactor, which is what Arak is, for any civilian peaceful purpose.

And yet, as part of his secret negotiations with Khamenei in Oman, Obama conceded that Iran, as part of an initial agreement, could continue to build the Arak reactor, capable of producing enough plutonium for two atomic bombs each year, without any restrictions whatsoever. Only owing to French objections, when Obama's secret agreement was brought for approval to the P5+1 in Geneva, was it deemed necessary to address the Arak reactor.

Nevertheless, pursuant to the Geneva "agreement to agree," Iran can:

• continue to enrich uranium (see: http://www.voanews.com/content/rouhani-iran-will-never-stop-enrichment/1798585.html);
• continue to build its reactor in Arak (see: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/27/us-iran-nuclear-arak-idUSBRE9AQ0U120131127), intended to produce enough plutonium for two atomic bombs each year;
• continue to build components for the Arak reactor off-site (see: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-says-work-to-continue-at-arak-nuclear-reactor-site/).

Just as bad, Obama abandoned American hostages held by Iran (see: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/12/03/obamas-iran-deal-left-pastor-behind/).

Meanwhile Britain's Foreign Service has sent a diplomat, Ajay Sharma, to Tehran for the first time since late 2011 (see: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ajay-sharma-makes-first-visit-to-iran-as-non-resident-charge-daffaires). After his visit, Sharma joyously declared:

"I had a good first visit back to Tehran today and want to thank the Iranian authorities, particularly my counterpart Mr Habibollahzadeh, for facilitating the trip. I held detailed and constructive discussions with the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs about taking forward our bilateral relationship on a step by step and reciprocal basis. I also visited our Embassy compounds to assess the damage caused in 2011.

. . . .

I intend to visit Iran regularly to continue the step by step process of improving relations between our two countries."

Not on the agenda of Britain's non-resident charge d’affaires during his trip to Iran was a visit to Evin Prison, where Iran continues to torture Baha'is, Kurds, Sunnis, Christians, homosexuals and political dissidents.

Britain is also brokering discussions between Hezbollah and Obama (see: http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Report-London-is-mediating-indirect-secret-talks-between-US-and-Hezbollah-333245). Of course, Obama doesn't care about the 1983 Beirut Barracks Bombing by Hezbollah, which killed 241 American servicemen, or the 1994 bombing by Hezbollah of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, which killed 85 and wounding hundreds. Needless to say, both attacks were undertaken at the behest of Tehran.

You see, Obama and friends are determined to dismantle the sanctions program against Iran, and it's all fast becoming lovey-dovey, notwithstanding the executions and assorted other horrors, e.g., stoning to death of women accused of adultery and rape of prisoners, perpetrated by the Khamenei regime.

Do you remember how Obama claimed in March 2012 (see: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/chips-down-israel-back-says-obama-while-reiterating-184525416.html):

"There should not be a shred of doubt by now: When the chips are down, I have Israel's back."

Well, Obama certainly has Israel's back, and he is busy putting a knife into it.