Hillary said: "I will because we now have enough evidence."
It's clear, Clinton said, that there is a brutally violent campaign "deliberately aimed at destroying not only the lives, but wiping out the existence of Christians and other religious minorities in the Middle East in territory controlled by ISIS."...It's more than a year until the next President takes office. If this is genocide, President Obama should be acting now. It's not enough for Hillary Clinton to use the word. She must criticize him, actively, and she must take responsibility for what she did as Secretary of State that led to what she now concedes is genocide.
The State Department has spent months debating whether to label the Islamic State’s attacks against members of a different religious minority, the Yazidis, a "genocide," a designation that carries significant legal, political and historical implications. Christian groups and Republicans have urged Secretary of State John Kerry to include Iraqi and Syrian Christians as well.
Posts
46 comments:
HRC and the Usurper, at the behest of their handlers, armed and created "ISIS". "ISIS" were the "anti Assad militants" that were funneled US armaments through the CIA Bengahzi station manned by Ambassador Stevens in the failed state of Libya (failed because HRC actively destabilized it by killing the ruling sovereign Ghaddafi, who was much loved by his people). Because Stevens knew too much about that organization and the crimes committed by the Usurper and HRC he was allowed to be killed, (and then it was blamed on an "anti Muslim movie" for weeks ), yet the Usurper and HRC have never been made to answer for that lie, or the killing of an Ambassador, or the creation of "ISIS" (because of the useful idiot lapdog media).
Then Presto, the Caliphate (ISIL), a new bogeyman used to ramp up the police state, springs out of the desert, with brand new Toyota trucks and armaments straight from the good ol' USA. The "Taliban" and "Al Queda" were getting old, so they needed a new bogeyman.
These crimes are many handles worse than treason, yet this witch HRC is supposedly running for POTUS, and her crimes are totally ignored by the lapdogs and useful idiots, while the US creation, "ISIS", maims kills and rapes their way through the ME, and the refugees displaced by them stream into Europe and soon the US, so that "fundamental change" can occur.
Up to speed yet?
And how will a Secrecy Master handle a real question? Stay tuned. She needs to ask Bill's advice.
"It's more than a year until the next President takes office. If this is genocide, President Obama should be acting now. It's not enough for Hillary Clinton to use the word. She must criticize him, actively, and she must take responsibility for what she did as Secretary of State that led to what she now concedes is genocide."
Bless your heart.
If Secretary Clinton follows her past course, she will encourage a Revolution to elect her buds, the Muslm Brotherhood, who can then slaughter the Coptic Christians with a legitimate political rule. That means ISIL with legitimacy.
It's not enough for Hillary Clinton to use the word. She must criticize him, actively, and she must take responsibility for what she did as Secretary of State that led to what she now concedes is genocide.
She probably cannot.
Her husband ignored a genocide during his term in office also. He bent over backwards to not label Rwanda a genocide.
It's easy to not act when you refuse to label a crime what it is.
Hillary doesn't have an unscripted moment. All inquiries are planted. She can't think on her feet.
At this point, what difference does it make ?
Hillary just wishes all those agitators would shut up and let her get on with the inauguration.
Obama is much more clever the HRC. (Perhaps it would be more accurate to say he is much better handled, BHO studious avoids situation where direct questions from honest journalists must be answered.) Because he processes the political adroitness Hillary lacks, he will never apply the word genocide to ISIL (the au courant acronym in the West Wing) just as he will never even apply the word Islamic to its name or its deeds (bizarrely since ISIL stands for the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant) because to do so opens him to creditable charges of malfeasance, incompetence, and even complicity in war crimes.
Barry believes the christians should be punished for what they did 1000 years ago in the crusades and that the future belongs to islam. end of story. the guy is a whack job.
"If this is genocide, President Obama should be acting now."
He's probably thinking about referring it to the UN.
Now that Hillary has pronounced this, some news person will probably ask Obama if her agrees with her assessment.
Once he gets back from Hawaii.
Candidate Obama promised to call out Turkey for the Armenian genocide. I'm sure President Clinton will keep her promise just as President Obama has.
It's not enough for Hillary Clinton to use the word. She must criticize him, actively, and she must take responsibility for what she did as Secretary of State that led to what she now concedes is genocide.
Bawahahahahahahahaha. OMG, you poor dear.
"Once he gets back from Hawaii."
The fact that Obama is in Hawaii and Rahm is still in Cuba makes me wonder of they know that something will happen in Chicago tomorrow night.
They certainly are in no hurray.
Pleased to see you taking a strong stand. Genocide is too serious an issue to play politics with. And what us going on under ISIS is not just cultural genocide, it's the real kind too. Obama's public plan is to degrade ISIS over many years so that, by the time they are vanquished, there will no one else left in the region. Because nuance. And sophistication.
So the follow up needs to be asked. If you think it's genocide, is Obama actually doing enough? Did he enable genocide?
Remember how the NYT echoing the lefts talking points said we needed to get out of Iraq, even if a genocide were to occur? Did liberal policies cause a genocide?
mick, please crawl back under a rock.
Pleased to see you taking a strong stand. Genocide is too serious an issue to play politics with. And what us going on under ISIS is not just cultural genocide, it's the real kind too. Obama's public plan is to degrade ISIS over many years so that, by the time they are vanquished, there will no one else left in the region. Because nuance. And sophistication.
She will end up recommending going to the UN, and the UN --- being the corrupt shithole of an organization that it is --- will decline to call it genocide.
When they said "Never again", they simply meant they'd never again label something genocide. Because of feelings. And the biggest opponents to labeling it genocide will be Islamic countries.
Who will be defending ISIS who, mind you, they say has NOTHING to do with Islam.
"I will because we now have enough evidence."
And what pray tell is this new evidence that wasn't apparent months and months ago?
Perhaps she now has "enough evidence" to blame Republcans and the VRWC.
Fat Chance that she will, would, ever take responsibility for anything that she has done.
Professor Althouse is going to vote for her.
She should be in the big house not the White House.
Doesn't matter if there is "officially confirmed" genocide or not. The Obama's and SOS Grifter's stated policy is that genocide is NOT a basis for US intervention.
0bama can't say anything about the genocide of Christians. He has that Peace Prize thing going for him. If he does try and stop the genocide, it will look like they gave him the prize for no reason at all. Like maybe he didn't deserve it.
She wouldn't be 'telling it like it is' if it weren't for Trump.
There's a reason why elected officials don't like to say "genocide"--because we have treaty obligations to intervene militarily in cases of genocide.
Which is why President Clinton ignored Rwanda, except to apologize after it was over for having done so. And the next President Clinton will do the same.
jr565 said...
"So the follow up needs to be asked. If you think it's genocide, is Obama actually doing enough? Did he enable genocide?
Remember how the NYT echoing the lefts talking points said we needed to get out of Iraq, even if a genocide were to occur? Did liberal policies cause a genocide"?
Sounds like you agree with me
"jr565 said...
mick, please crawl back under a rock".
Did I steal your thunder?
If treason is "giving aid and comfort to the enemy", then hasn't the Usurper and HRC committed treason by arming what is now ISIS?
Blogger damikesc said...
It's not enough for Hillary Clinton to use the word. She must criticize him, actively, and she must take responsibility for what she did as Secretary of State that led to what she now concedes is genocide.
She probably cannot.
Her husband ignored a genocide during his term in office also. He bent over backwards to not label Rwanda a genocide
When I was reading this, before I got to "Rwanda" I was thinking, no he didn't. He stopped the Muslim genocide that was happening by Christians in eastern Europe.
Interesting that he stopped a Muslim genocide but it does a Christian one.
Sure it's "genocide," but is it genocide genocide, or like, just a statutory thing?
Not that she would, but even if Mrs. Clinton became vocally critical of the Obama admin's currently handling of the situation why would anyone think (or even pretend to think) that President Red Line has any credibility when threatening to take action if certain conditions are present? The whole "Responsibility To Protect" deal was a crock of shit from the beginning, and pretending otherwise doesn't change reality.
Rhetoric vs. Reality - The Obama Years: A book by the well-know author Well Duh.
Gabriel said...There's a reason why elected officials don't like to say "genocide"--because we have treaty obligations to intervene militarily in cases of genocide.
Either you take genocide seriously or you don't. If it's so serious that we are obligated to act in cases of genocide, but then we decline to call acts of genocide by their real name because we don't want to act, then what's the point of the treaties?
There has been so much genocide in the last 100 years that people are used to it occurring.
Do we have enough evidence that Hillary is a fraud and a corrupt money-grubbing bribe artist who used her position at State to stuff Clinton Foundation coffers?
David: "He's probably thinking about referring it to the UN."
This is genocide of Christians, Islamic apostates and shia sects.
Why would Obama sweat that or even bother to refer it to the UN?
Oh come off it Ms. Althouse. Shrillary doesn't have to do anything but get coronated. So say 47% of the voters in the country.
jr565 said...
"mick, please crawl back under a rock."
Everything he said is true and more. Stevens was overseeing deliveries of surface to air missiles to the "rebels" in Syria. Isis was directly armed through the state department. The assault on our consulate in Benghazi was done with weapons we gave them. Belt fed machine guns are still somewhat difficult to get without uncle Sams help.
This administration was doing the same thing with the Muslim brotherhood who is now being rounded up and executed in mass by Egyptians.
Hillary and Barack are desperate to get her in the white house so they can keep this from getting out. ISIS is Barack Obama and Hillary's pet project.
It's more than a year until the next President takes office. If this is genocide, President Obama should be acting now. It's not enough for Hillary Clinton to use the word. She must criticize him, actively, and she must take responsibility for what she did as Secretary of State that led to what she now concedes is genocide.
Posted by Ann Althouse at 5:14 AM"
Your naivety is touching. You seem to forget she needs him more than he needs her and she really needs a pardon letter written and dated at 11.59 am on the morning of January 20th 2017.
"It's not enough for Hillary Clinton to use the word. She must criticize him, actively, and she must take responsibility for what she did as Secretary of State that led to what she now concedes is genocide."
Apparently there is a definition of "must" that falls outside my limited knowledge.
Because if she "must", but she does NOT...... What?
I'm so old I can remember when "ethnic cleansing" meant the US (and the world) had to act militarily. Not for national interest or our own national security, obviously, those aren't reasons to use our military power, but to stop ethnic cleansing we had a DUTY to fight bad guys even if it cost US lives and US money to do so. Ethnic cleansing didn't even require large scale killing, just forcibly moving people out (using threats, etc), remember? Seems like a giant refugee crisis is de facto evidence, but maybe that's just me.
Ethnic cleansing. Not a phrase you hear too much anymore, is it?
Either you take genocide seriously or you don't. If it's so serious that we are obligated to act in cases of genocide, but then we decline to call acts of genocide by their real name because we don't want to act, then what's the point of the treaties?
Indeed. If your treaty requires you to act in a certain situation and you refuse to label anything that specific situation, then your treaty is just ego pumping with nothing beneficial behind it.
I'll note that the track record of Democratic Presidents in times of genocide is fairly weak. The only time they intervened, in Kosovo, BOTH sides were guilty . It's not like the Bosnians were the only ones slaughtering folks en masse.
Didn't Hillary Clinton have some sort of role or position in the State Department a few years ago, where she might have had the authority and resources to determine the status of genocidal efforts by Islamic fanatics around the world? I vaguely recall that to be the case, but for the life of me cannot remember her doing that while at the State Department, in whatever job position it was that she held. Nor can I recall anything else significant she accomplished while there.
Can anyone else remember her being at State, or what she did there?
@damikesc, tim macquire:If your treaty requires you to act in a certain situation and you refuse to label anything that specific situation, then your treaty is just ego pumping with nothing beneficial behind it.
On the nose, gentlemen. On the nose.
To echo what HoodlumDoodlum said at. 10:29, it's not really genocide genocide unless it's done by white men in pursuit of money. I'm sure that closer examination of these unpleasantries will show that they all occurred as a direct result of Bush's invasion of Iraq or, as in the case of Syria, the Sykes Picot Treaty. I remember reading in The New Yorker how the Rwandan genocide was a direct result of the inequitable way the Belgians had administered Rwanda when it was a colony.
Mick: "HRC and the Usurper, at the behest of their handlers, armed and created "ISIS"."
If anyone tells you that ISIS/ISIL/Daesh etc was "created" by any group in the modern era, you can feel quite secure in ignoring every single thing that individual has to say on the subject.
What is happening now with ISIS/ISIL etc goes back to the 600's AD. I suggest everyone, including Mick, read up on the Ridda Wars in order to understand fully what is driving events of today (according to those waging the war).
The fact that obambi and his minions are just as ignorant of this history as well as conducting themselves as if they were in league with the islamists is not to be minimized either.
However, I always attribute to stupidity and hubris that which is much less likely to be conspiratorial.
Oops! I don't think that's the official position of this administration.
@damikesc, point of information. There were no Bosnians in Kosovo. The fighting was between ethnic Serbs and ethnic Albanians.
We are always sorry later that we didn't stop a genocide. Always.
(This may be a duplicate of another comment; if so, sorry.)
mick, please crawl back under a rock.
Well thanks or that insightful comment. Gives me a lot to think about.
OR
You can save a few electrons by just typing, "Shut up"
There were no Bosnians in Kosovo. The fighting was between ethnic Serbs and ethnic Albanians.
Oh. Thought Milosevic was Bosnian, but that entire conflict seemed like a waste. One group obliterates the other, then starts to lose and the obliterated group that is remaining retaliates.
Post a Comment