This post is so incoherent, I can only conclude Barry was drunk when he wrote it. I *hope* he wasn't sober.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, unlike her boss > Barack Obama, speaks out strongly on the Iran election > and its aftermath, and the Obama-controlled media, > reluctantly, reports her ballsy stance and how diff- > erent it is from that of her boss: > > "We, like the rest of the world, are waiting and watching > to see what the Iranian people decide," she said at a news > conference in Niagara Falls, Ontario. "The United States > has refrained from commenting on the election in Iran. > We obviously hope that the outcome reflects the genuine > will and desire of the Iranian people." > > See? > > That's the kind of strong, capable leadership we would > have had if Saint Hillary had been elected instead of > that lying, duplicitous pig Obama. Just for the record, according to many reports, Hillary *did* privately urge Obama to take a stronger stance on Iran. And in fact, as has been widely noted, his statements have become progressively stronger. It's not clear whether that has anything to do with Hillary's influence, or whether it's a response to the increasing brutality and oppression from the Iranian regime. Some in the media are suggesting that he's bowing to pressure from the right; I very much doubt that's the case. Obama is having to thread an extremely delicate needle so as not to provide the regime with any ammunition for its false charges that the protests are the result of U.S. interference, while at the same time making it clear that the U.S. opposes the regime's behavior and supports free elections and free expression in Iran. > Then again, as Judy has suggested, Hillary strong stance, > so different from that of her boss, may still be tempered > because she's just playing it safe and protecting her job, > afraid to talk about actually invading Iran or any firm > action plan because she's afraid of being fired by her > male chauvinist pig boss. That's what Judy felt a strong > feminist *would* do in such a situation. Judy, of course, said no such thing, nor does she feel any such thing. Barry made that up out of his own wildly deluded mind. > As for why these strong, stinging comments by Secretary > of State Clinton haven't made it into the news more often > and on the front page where they deserve to be, well that > is obvious, isn't it? The media are all controlled by > Obama, who make sure that no strong comments urging > the US to get involved in yet another conflict in the > Middle East by interfering in it -- especially made by > a <spit> woman -- are seen by the general public. I seriously doubt Hillary has been advocating any kind of U.S. interference in the Iran situation, even privately. > Instead, the media reported the above and then reinforced > it with this pansy-assed comment by one of Hillary's own > senior officials in the State Department: "We're not going > to characterize what would have been a better or worse > scenario," the official said. "We will deal with this as > it is, not as we wish it to be. We have very serious > foreign policy and national security issues at play here. > That was the case yesterday. It is the case today." > > Obviously, this is an attempt to undercut Hillary's *real* > power by a traitor within her own ranks (probably male). > The speaker is trying to make the case for dealing with > reality (what is) vs. fantasy (what we'd like it to be). > > And, as anyone who has followed the writings of Hillary's > strong supporters knows, this is antithetical to her real > stance and that of her supporters. In their minds, fantasy > reigns supreme. And here's Barry, fantasizing like mad (and completely inaccurately) about what Hillary's supporters are fantasizing. That's called self-reference (small "s").
