Posted on 05/20/2013 4:28:02 AM PDT by don-o
As always, Henry Mark Holzer summed it up nicely:
Hillary Clinton: Immoral or Amoral?
During her recent Congressional testimony about the notorious Benghazi Affair Hillary Clinton uttered the now infamous rhetorical question “What difference, at this point, does it make?” Note my emphasis on the word “it.” In the context the question was asked and answered Clinton’s “it” referred at least to the murder of four Americans, and probably the State Department’s antecedent failure to provide adequate security and the White House’s subsequent stonewalling cover-up.
In other words—according to the former First Lady, United States Senator, presidential aspirant, Secretary of State, and putative 2016 democratic party presidential candidate—it made no difference that the government of which she was then a high-ranking member exposed Americans to high-risk danger, left them defenseless in a hotbed of terrorists, made no effort to rescue them, literally watched them being murdered—and then tried to cover up apparatchik malfeasance by lying through their teeth to the people of the United States.
“What difference?” indeed.
But beyond what has become obvious about Clinton’s and her colleagues’ betrayal of the deceased Americans and the rest of the government’s malfeasance, the Benghazi Affair reveals something even more sinister.
Over the years, some of Hillary Clinton’s questionable conduct has not involved issues of morality. She has been a poseur, playing the role of victimized, yet forgiving, wife during the Lewinsky scandal. She has been a hypocrite, castigating George W. Bush for warrantless surveillance but using purloined tapes to her own political advantage. She has been a paranoid, complaining to the world about the alleged “right wing conspiracy.” She has been a conniver, ousting career White House travel office employees in favor of her cronies. She has been a dilettante, presuming to make over America’s health care system.
While this conduct, and much more like it, has been unseemly and at odds with the dignified and trustworthy image that had been projected by modern-era First Ladies from Bess Truman to Laura Bush, none of Hillary Clinton’s conduct raised serious moral questions.
On the other hand, Clinton has done many other things that have raised serious questions of immorality (immoral defined as “not in conformity with accepted principles of right and wrong behavior; contrary to the moral code of the community” [Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language (13th ed.)]; in other words knowing, but disregarding, those principles).
She authored a brief reeking with fraud while a staff lawyer for the Watergate Committee. She was a beneficiary of illegal commodities transactions that turned her a large profit. She fraudulently stung lenders in the Whitewater land scheme. She bought votes and campaign contributions with criminal pardons issued by her husband. She lied about Chinese contributions to her political campaigns. She participated in slandering and intimidating women whom her husband sexually and otherwise abused, and was complicit in covering up his salacious conduct. She blithely desecrated the presidency by selling the Lincoln Bedroom to donors and celebrities. She stole furniture and furnishings from the White House. And much more—including her recent complicity in the murder of four Americans in Benghazi and the attempted cover-up of the entire sordid affair. All immoral conduct.
There’s more, but to elucidate all of it would be to gild the lily. Hillary Clinton’s immoral conduct—rationalize by her adherence to the “Rules for Radicals” promulgated by her mentor Saul Alinsky—has been detailed on the public record for decades, especially since her abortive campaign for the Democratic Party presidential nomination in 2007.
At that time, I raised the question of whether Clinton’s decades-old questionable character traits and corner-cutting conduct demonstrated that she was merely immoral or, worse: Whether she was amoral—and whether there’s any important difference between the two concepts.
The answer is that there is a difference, a profound one, and with Hillary Clinton’s eye on a 2016 presidential nomination it’s crucially important for the future of the United States of America that the voters of this country understand it.
I begin with the concept of “morality” itself, one which Americans instinctively understand. Rooted in fundamental notions of “right” and “wrong,” most Americans know (or knew!) that it’s right to pay our bills and protect our loved ones; that it is wrong to defraud creditors and abuse children. It’s immoral to buy votes, lie to investigators, release terrorists for a political quid pro quo, attack the defenseless, steal from the White House—all conduct that Hillary Clinton was a party to—as well as to engage in countless other actions which, by anyone’s definition, must be characterized as immoral. That this prospective candidate for the presidency of the United States has acted immorally time and time again is clear beyond any legitimate disagreement.
But what about amorality?—defined as “being neither moral nor immoral; specifically: lying outside the sphere to which moral judgments apply; lacking moral sensibility . . . .” (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed.); emphasis in original.)
A person who is amoral does not accept any moral standard by which her conduct is to be judged by others. She simply does not care about the concept of morality, about right or wrong, in what she thinks, says, or does. Morality does not apply to such a person. “What difference, at this point, does it make?” could well be such person’s mantra.
Thus, the questions arise: Does all of Hillary Clinton’s dubious conduct over the course of decades reflect a simple, garden-variety immorality—knowing but eschewing the right, and deliberately doing the wrong? Or does Alinsky’s acolyte—the leading candidate of the Democrat Party for the presidency of the United States—at root care nothing for morality and deem it to have no application to her? Is Hillary Clinton amoral?
Her record (let alone her character) leaves no doubt about the answer. Yet Clinton and her supporters ask: “What difference, at this point, does [morality] make?”
To ask the question is to answer it.
Don’t get your hopes up, nothing to see here. Move along.
All thee questions and still very far from the most damaging facts...Why was the Ambassador in Benghazi to meet with the Turks anyway? Arranging safe land passage of Qaddafi’s weapons stockpile.
I believe with all my heart that "that was her job"...and that he got set up. She has received "0" penalty for her actions. I'd say she's a political wh***....and is proud of her accomplishment.
The 'little people' don't count!
It's like I'm back at Arlington Towers when Leona Helmsley was the landlady ~ she actually shipped in cockroaches to detract us from the fact she had ceased all building maintenance.
Dean’s to-be wife was still running tricks at Secret Service and State Department parties long after he’d begun ‘dating her’.
The Dear Leader must surely appreciate the effort to demoralize the Right. It frees the Left to demonize and distract.
Fur Shur Monica Crawley wasn’t running tricks with the Dean gal. Not even when she was much younger, if not thinner.
I think Wheel of Scandals would be an appropriate game show right now. Instead of using a wheel with prize amounts just list all the scandals and constitutional infringements by the Obama administration...on second thought, that would have to a pretty big wheel and wouldn’t fit in the studio...oh well it was a thought...
I disagree. Benghazi was a one off event. The IRS and DOJ scandals are an ongoing war by the administration against liberty.
Monica worked for Nixon in his final years
Four dead Americans would disagree with you if they were not dead. Every Soldier, Sailor, Airman and Marine worth his salt would disagree with you.
so using the IRS, FBI and Domestic Terrorism bureaucracy to harrass your political enemies and deny them the ability to organize is not a scandal that matters?
The obvious first one is: Who issued the stand-down order? I can't believe that we don't already know. Maybe the House investigators do, and they're playing it close to the vest.
Basically, here's the problem for the WH. The stand-down order had to originate from a civilian authority, and then down the chain of command. Either Obama gave the order, or someone will attempt/be coerced to take a bullet for Obama,and say that he did it on his own. Which would be even worse for Obama..The IRS can try the "stupidity/incompetence" defense to shield the WH, but that wont work with national defense issues.
BTW..where's Jay Carney?
C-span just posted that Carney’s presser will be at 12:45. Should be interesting..Nice of Jay to give Rush time to finish his monologue.. I may start a thread if I’m around..
Guess I’m not worth my salt.
I didn’t say it wasn’t important, just its not the only scandal that matters. He should be impeached over Benghazi now. I think the IRS and DOJ scandals will reveal he should be for them too.
“Either Obama gave the order”
Fact:
It would have come from Jarrett. Obama sits In the oval, chewing gum, smoking and bouncing a basketball, whilst watching FNC or ESPN.
While I think the Obamites tried to pull a Clinton by throwing a more titillating but less harmful scandal out to cover for what they thought was a more damaging scandal, the IRS is no Monica Lewinsky and “just about sex”.
The IRS, Benghazi, Fast & Furious and the AP story (because it might have woken up the left leaning press dragon that supports attacking others, but not themselves) are all highly relevant because together they show corrupt, poorly and dangerously managed, if managed at all leadership. Together, they are one big scandal that shows the corruption and disregard for our Constitution and way of governance that permeates the Obama administration. Their “carrot and stick” approach to running our country (reward their friends, punish their domestic enemies) is an affront to all decent and civilized Americans.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.