Obama Should Fire Hillary

International headlines have stacked up an impressive list of horribles for the United States this week.

American embassies have been protested and attacked and an ambassador and three others were murdered. Warnings came in and were either ignored or treated as so much noise. Adequate security precautions were not taken. The president shirked most of the official briefings leading up to the eleventh anniversary of the September 11 attacks.

Management of the Egyptian embassy effectively sided with the mob over their protest of an obscure movie that had no real distribution or production values. The embassy in Yemen was overrun by protestors. The apparatus of the US government was used to track down and reveal the identity of the offending filmmaker, who has every reason to fear for his life. Then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton denounced his product as “disgusting and reprehensible,” saying that the government “absolutely reject[s] its content and messages.”

That hasn’t helped so far. The anti-US protests in majority Muslim countries are rising to a fever pitch. A diplomatic evacuation from Egypt may well be in the offing. We’ll get a better idea of that Friday, which this Washington Post story helpfully notes is “the traditional day of protest in the Muslim world.”

It’s wall-to-wall ugly for American diplomacy right now and the person responsible for our diplomacy is not acquitting herself well at all. Moreover, many of the initiatives that she supported — siding against Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak and supporting the overthrow of Libya’s strongman Muammar Gaddafi and encouraging the protests associated with the “Arab Spring” — helped sow the seeds of protest that now batter against the embassy walls.

The fallout now does not, necessarily, mean none of those things were worth undertaking. It does mean that the US government and specifically the State Department had a very serious obligation to watch developments in Muslim countries closely and to guard American embassies at times when tensions might be running especially high… say on the anniversary of September 11.

After the disastrous 2006 midterm elections, George W. Bush decided that the US government had to change its approach to Iraq and thus Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was shown the door. Now, it is clear US diplomacy is in need of a major overhaul as well. Obama should look to his predecessor’s example and fire Hillary Clinton at the earliest opportunity.

  • David

    You conservatives are weird people.
    Have by any chance you read the reports about how George Bush/Condi/Rumsfeld ignored warnings about 9/11?

    • M

      But, but, but, isn’t Hilary the smartest woman in the world? Katie Couric told me so, I distinctly remember that.

      • stonedome

        and the n y times trumpets their ass kissing poll every year

    • JenJen56600785

      They didn’t ignore warnings; the warnings weren’t specific. Clinton ignored the presence of Atta and others learning to fly our airplanes in the late 1990s. He didn’t know that in December 2000 Atta and the other pilots were taking lessons 747 simulators in Florida. His two intelligence departments could not share info; so a sghting of one of the known terrorists in San Diego in the late 1990s was never reported to the right people. That was thanks to Jamie Gorelick, whom aware journalists now call the “Mistress of Disaster.”

    • tofubamboo

      That was actually your buddy Clinton who had all the warnings and ignored them. Read history; get educated.

    • TomJB

      You call him weird then post that ridiculous line after it?

    • DWPittelli

      I have seen nothing to indicate that the 2000 warnings were specific enough to allow countermeasures which would not have been widely derided as unlawful, indeed, as a new fascist regime, such as the measures taken immediately after 9/11 (at which time they were generally tolerated). In contrast, if we had recent warnings regarding Arab embassies, upping security on a half-dozen or so embassies was eminently doable — not very expensive, nor disruptive to embassy operations or offensive to American values.

    • SteveAR

      So in your warped mind, because Bush didn’t fire Rice or Rumsfeld after 9/11, it’s ok for Obama, who promised he would be a different President from Bush, to keep Hillary on as Sec. of State, ignore warnings, avoid intel meetings, and so on and so forth. Oh that’s just brilliant.

    • roger

      Bush was given no specifics relating to the actual attack. What he received was not actionable intelligence.

      These recent attacks , however, should have been anticipated on the anniversary of 9/11. This is just another example of how incompetent Obama is.

    • PamK

      Two can play that game of blaming someone else for an event that has nothing to do with what is being discussed. How about Clinton ignoring the attacks that led up to 9/11 and not taking out Obama when he had the chance before Bush even got into the White House? Clinton is yesterday, Bush is yesterday. Today is Obama. Obama’s State Department did not warn our diplomats to take extra precautions to not find themselves in an indefensible location on 9/11 when they knew 48 hours ahead of time that trouble was brewing. This was not “weird”, it was a pathetic job performance by someone too involved in campaigning. Tragic.

    • BILL N

      And this means that Hillary shouldn’t be fired? Explain.

    • LarryE

      You left-wing nutbags are weird people.

      Have you ever read “A Confederacy of Dunces”? How about “A Gaggle of Nutbags”? Or maybe “A Collation of Low-life Cretins”?

    • Rick Caird

      There were no warnings to ignore.

      “Hey, David, you or your family are going to be attacked some time. Please take every precaution because if an attack happens, you will be responsible”.

      So, what do you do???? What precautions do you take? Do you stay home? You have no idea, do you?

      That is called a non specific warning with no actionable intelligence.

    • http://not-yet-europe.com Kevin M

      And Roosevelt ignored warnings about Pearl Harbor. Your point?

    • Steve

      About Bush/FDR, both received vague warnings and suffered a failure of the imagination. FDR’s team didn’t think the Japanese would be able to “sneak attack” Pearl Harbor (they expected the Phillippines), Bush’s guys didn’t think the Johnny Jihads would turn passenger planes in to cruise missiles.

      But, uh, I thought this was about firing Hillary Clinton? Won’t happen before November. Firing Hillary would rile up a significant chunk of the Democratic base, and a lot of them might stay home in November if it happend.

      • Victor Erimita

        The quaint notion that Obama “should fire Hillary” rests on the assumption Obama is interested in protecting what were once seen as U.S. interests abroad. How could it be clearer that he doesn’t? He’s not a “closet Muslim,” as some continue to risibly insist. But he does think the U.S. and its cultural allies are to blame for most of the world’s problem and therefore need to be drastically weakened. The Middle East is but one area of the globe where Obama sees nothing but the result of the depredations of the Evil Imperialist Aggressor. He sees chickens roosting and shrugs.

        It should be abundantly clear that were we to focus on what anyone “should” be doing, it must be on the fact that the American voter should be pulling his head out and realizing the real nature of this man they elected and the corrupt media who continue to willfully misrepresent him.

    • http://barking-moonbat.com Rich K

      That report is specious at best but nice try.

  • Mike

    She is already planning to quit after the election you idiot.

    • JenJen56600785

      Will that be soon enough?

  • http://villagers-with-torches.tumblr.com/ epaminondas

    HE can’t fire her, SHE’S HIS TOOL. Who knows what truths and realities might emerge if she is mistreated? Bill can destroy this president and any accomplishment he might envision, even if he is re-elected.

    • http://not-yet-europe.com Kevin M

      More to the point, we don’t know how much was Obama’s doing. Fire her and we might find out.
      As it stands, Bill can’t dump on Obama because it would kill Hillary’s chances in 2016. Fire her and no more hostage.

  • Westie

    Fire the ragged old pantsuit, she has never succeeded at anything good for this country. Fire Susan Rice also!

  • Pingback: Instapundit » Blog Archive » JEREMY LOTT: Why Obama Should Fire Hillary….

  • Pingback: Instapundit » Blog Archive » “BLOWBACK:” NOW THERE’S A TERM WE USED TO HEAR A LOT: “From the Arabian Spring of hope (although t…

  • les nessman

    “… many of the initiatives that she supported — …”
    What do you mean ‘she’, Obama fully supported those same disasters. Her abject failure is his abject failure.

  • Bingobill

    To paraphrase, “Keep your friends close and your enemies closet.” Obama gave Hillary the Sec State job to keep her off the talkshows for 4 years where she could have planted the seed for a 2012 run in the style of Ted Kennedy Vs. Carter. He will use Hillary as a fall guy even though the blame for mismanagement and incompetence falls entirely on his head.
    Obama is a hard left apologist whose anti-American screed goes back decades. As commander in chief he is the final authority in allowing US Marines to guard a US consulate without ammunition. This same travesty was committed in 1979 at the US embassy in Tehran.

  • DWPittelli

    Regarding the Rumsfeld firing: the key word for the firing is that it came “after” the mid-term elections. No one admits failure by firing a cabinet officer right before an election, except in the most extreme or disastrous circumstances. But Obama can’t fire Clinton for her disastrous policies, as they were also his polices.

  • Mesah Hasill

    Why Obama won’t fire Hillary under any circumstances: Two words — Bill. Clinton. Lose him, lose the election. Politics 101.

  • http://freealabamastan.blogspot.com Paul A’Barge

    Let’s start with a list of all the people that Barack Obama has fired to date for incompetence … here we go, ready? 1) … tick. tock. tick.

    take my point?

  • Pingback: Moe Lane » Why Barack Obama will not fire Hillary Clinton.

  • http://talltown.us Retro

    No, don’t fire her. Just leave her on the front steps of the now decimated embassy and let her work her own way home. Traitorous b*tch.

  • jr

    These jerks that keep saying Bush also screwed up seem to think that justifies Obama’s screwups. Idiotic. Since when does it make sense for each president to set the lower for his successor?

  • Constitution First

    You are assuming events are not unfolding (more or less) as BHO planned. Not that Barry intended for Stevens to die, just the rioting for Sharia Law aspect. Whatever the truth is, we certainly aren’t likely to get it from the Malfeasant Media in my lifetime.

  • DH

    No, Obama should fire himself. The problem isn’t Hillary. The problem is Obama’s policy of appeasement. Throwing Hillary under the bus would be in character, though, as Obama always blames everyone but himself.

  • Jeff H

    O won’t fire Hillary; he knows she’d immediately go on one of those legendary Clinton revenge tirades.

  • tom Perkins

    @David

    there were no warnings which the Bush admin ignored which were specific as to targets, times, and means.

    In contrast, specific time and target warnings were rec’v’d here and not acted on.

  • http://postrepublica.wordpress.com NWBill

    In a technical sense, I completely agree. But here’s where I differ; and, it’s mainly because of conservatives’ propensity to run down blind, dead-end alleys when dealing with liberals: Barack Obama is NOT a stupid man … and he’s NOT going to fire his Secretary of State mere weeks before the debates, and the election. I mean, who can’t see that? So … while it’s OK to state it, it’s NOT OK to waste time demanding it, or expecting it to happen. Because it’s not. Any President who refuses to fire an Eric Holder DOESN’T have the character or cojones to fire a Hillary Clinton, okay? If you take a look at how Barack Obama handles anything that has the tiniest potential to make him look bad, under any circumstances … you’d be able to see that he’s certainly not going to fire anyone in his administration – senior member, or no – for that reason.Obama has no sense of his responsibilities as President; one can only hope that he carries out his responsibilities as a husband and parent. But a man like this has NO business within a thousand miles of the Presidency …. and those who voted for him in 2008, or support him now, should hang their heads in shame at what they’ve done.

  • richard40

    No way Obama will fire hillary after bill went to bat for him so effectively at the convention. No matter how bad foreign affaris get hillary cannot be fired, because Obama knows that the same effectiveness Bill demonstrated speaking for him, could be used to even worse effect speaking against him.

  • http://www.believeallthings.com/ Believe All Things

    It seems more like a “perfect storm” as one faction is pitted against other factions.

  • brian

    Heres an idea fire them both in November.

  • Jack

    Kristen Powers would make a good PR person for the next US Presidency. Aside from her steady voice, blonde hair and astute observations, she seems honest, and is young, American – I hope, and strong:)


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X