What is a Democrat today? I mean it seems established that President Obama nor President Clinton are or have ever been ‘Philosopher Kings’. And, today we are of a fallen Mrs. Clinton of having been allowed to fail - luckily in a lesser job than President - who failed. I do not know if I can be charitable to President Obama - now - now following his address in commencement at the West Point Military Academy.
Before we break bread for a old civility too around feminism we have it maybe that we need to avoid asking if ever there has been or yet could be any “philosopher queen(s)” - philosophically speaking. And so let it be written that we can here dispense with Mrs. Clinton at least for never yet having been a “queen” however.
It yet isn’t lucky for Mrs. Clinton that President Barack Hussein Obama’s Commander in Chief grandstanding as if of a new foreign policy also has to be considered as an inappropriate “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!”. Mrs. Clinton’s pedestrian hands are dirty of the likes of it and with culpability in carbon dating that long precedes even Senator Obama’s getting his feet the least wet per.
As she has yet never been a “queen” however it is too that we cannot quite tag her even as a “philosopher queen.” No! No she is an embodiment of the “COMPROMISE” - she is yet, however not a queen, of the same tag of her former boss as one, though a male, whom has been said to have been evidently witnessed as not having a philosophy of governance.
I concur. I too have never seen enough premeditation of an intellectual beyond knee jerk defensive convenient compromising from at least President Obama for even a hypothesis at a “philosophy” of governance. Though attempted at “proffered” the former Constitution Law Professor President Obama waned globally while commencing at West Point as if of a shouldered pride full of personal doing/building as if of all the pomp and circumstance as his “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!”.
Should we talk about the women? Need we talk about the women differently? Mustn’t we now at least talk about the women as differently and globally as Mrs. Clinton has in her practiced political & ‘diplomatic’? Is a life of the soul of an Afghani women so worth more than Mrs. Clinton, however, treated the value of Iraqi women? Mustn’t it be female Clinton’s fault that President Obama had a foreign policy that too allowed Iraqi women to be devalued relative to Afghani women?
So if she is all about the “COMPROMISE” where are all the compromises sold or pimped as greater goods as if intelligent?
To all the brave souls as of the The United States Armed Forces, however, and however if too much as collateral to the Democrats as family of the bravest: Right - philosophically speaking the Democrats have devalued Iraqi women while using an excuse for a war of choice against the Taliban as by lies about 9/11 deductions and so that the intelligent and any of common sense can discern that the argument for the Democrats said “necessary” war of choice against the Taliban does smartly work for Operation Iraqi Freedom justifying, but. When we now accept the Democrats lied and soldiers and diplomats, at least, died it is odd that their lie for a war of choice as if deduced from 9/11 “politics” is actually, however an “argument”, a better justification for the involvement, prior to the Obama Iraqi abortive, of OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM.
Right - best for now to leave it to the still much unconsidered intellectual contrasting as too how the Clintons, at least together in their 8 years of the Administration of the Clintons, were to likely then also of devaluing Iraqi women while of abandonment of both Afghani and Iraqi women & children. It is odd that Mrs. Clinton as “@HillaryClinton has her avatar of publicly stating she isn’t an advocate for men - that she is self bio’d as just an “advocate” of “women & kids”.
We should have asked the Clintons years ago for seeming lies about “PEACE” to justify their convenient compromised politics of “PEACE DIVIDENDS” while the women and “kids” of Afghanistan and Iraq suffered in the ABANDONMENT by the The United States of America. It seems, but seems as yet to be “officially” concluded, that the Clintons must have used the CIA to lie about “PEACE” so that they could sell abandoning so many souls in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Now, as the commenced MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! (false) pride of President Commander in Chief Barack Hussein Obama falls even flatter, it has us called to march for freedom, and renewed honesty; Now, as the commenced extant in that Mrs. Clinton likes to tag as at “evidence based deciding”, we have the globally evident contrariness to discern. I am not now willing to assert that President George W. Bush was greater than working to a standard operating methodology, even such as he was to yet being of a “philosophy of governance”! Such may have to wait for the discussion of any woman if a woman yet a “philosopher queen.”
Let me be clear: to keep it simple: to let us work at stupid simple: The Democrats lied worse as at a lying to the People for a war of choice not a war of necessity so such as Afghanistan now as a “longest war.” There is no argument for their war of choice that needed a clever misdirection deduction from the events of 9/11 that isn’t more real as so of how it so then was proper and justified more so for the Administration of the Clintons to have been in Afghanistan for such reasons even as early as their 1993-1997 term. We avoid talking “common sense” if we disavow ourselves from talking about how we were justified if so justified by such a justifying to have been there in Afghanistan before 9/11. Let me be clear, and to the “evidence based deciding” Mrs. Clinton is loosely posturing: Because the Clintons, however, so seemed at best to have been lying about “PEACE” and for political popularity in “PEACE DIVIDENDS” that they lied is that they lied worse than any of the Bush Administrations.
I leave you to accept that Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton has never yet been a “queen” however, and, to ask yourselves how bad the Democrats have been as their arguments as if of a justifying do “evidently” undermine their own (if an attempt at philosophy) “philosophy.” The lies told so the Democrats could have timely “operations” in Afghanistan for the “women & kids” do work as a better argument for OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM and yet though for how the said “lies” of the Adminstration of George W. Bush were evidently told in a “BLUFFING” to show a seriousness and towards avoiding any operation so better justifiable if justified by what was more lies by the Democrats as if “proffered” as able to justify a longest warring in Afghanistan and not though any operation even for the long abandoned “women & kids” of Iraq.
There now can hardly be any due “evidence” fairly at a justifying of sanction for any of the Clintons, and some of the Obama “Democrats”, for the failure to stand up a defense of the United Nations agreed sanctions in a timely manner in an enforcement of Saddam Hussein. I disagree with President Obama’s commenced remarks that there is “history” that can defend both sides’ sides, and I assert that “evidence based deciding” is not a civility nor weapon ready at his chest - ready to support any “philosophy.”
For more reading please visit http://JPHogan.org and at least attempt to juxtapose OBAMA’S RETREAT.
The said lies about “evidence” of/for OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM are also more excusable as well for while of a due “enforcement” flexing of United Nations’ agreed sanctions such were preparatory for a worse case scenario state of mind that should be reasonable and acceptable before any commencing that could go as wrong as such could be considered wrong and then considered as if whom was yet of underestimating the risks. Those we now accept as “Democrats” told worser lies and so as if their lies could only work on a local “evidence” convenient and not generally at all the areas they had already equally been of unjust abandoment.