The Liar, the Pacifist and the Apologist Debate

 By Florida Bill

                      The dust has now settled from the second Democratic debate.  There were three   contenders on a Des Moines  platform:  a liar, a pacifist and an apologist, and it gave me an uneasy feeling that the prevaricating  Hillary Clinton could actually wind up as the 45th President of the United States. And after listening to two hours of her dodging and dancing around the truth, that thought became even scarier.  However, I should be thankful that Clinton's two opponents have no chance at all. 

                       There used to be six contenders seeking to become their party's standard bearer in next year's election, but now there are just three and the debate was scheduled by the Democratic party to allow voters the opportunity to see and hear Clinton and her playmates tell how they would provide new leadership for a country which needs it very badly.   

                      Clinton, 68, former Secretary of State for four years under President Obama,  has a 40-year track record as a liar; her disingenuous statements are a matter of solid record.  Alongside Clinton were Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, a pacifist and conscientious objector who dodged service for his country during the Viet Nam era; and former Governor Martin O'Malley who has been a mayor of Baltimore and then a governor in Maryland, and who has apologized for saying that "all lives matter" when he really meant to say that "all Black lives matter." 

                     The debate came just the day after the Islamic attack in Paris in which 129 persons were killed and more than 350 injured, and predictably, the debate began with questions about how this crisis might be confronted by the United States.  Is radical Islam the enemy and what strategy do you have to cope with it and the terrorist organization known as ISIS, the candidates were asked. 

                      Smug and confident, Clinton talked about organizing international coalitions with America as a leader among many, but she would not define the enemy as "radical Islam."  That, she asserted, "would be painting with too broad a brush, and that would not be helpful.  We are not at war with Islam or with all Muslims."                      

                       You might wonder, as I did, how anyone could not recognize that "radical Islamists" are the terrorists doing the killings and beheadings.  It is the extremists in the religion, certainly not all Muslims, of which there are 1.6 billion in the world, wreaking havoc on innocent citizens around the globe.  And virtually always, these mad dog killers scream Allahu Akbar (God is Great) as they condemn and kill innocent men and women and even children so that there will be no mistake about their identity.  Cannot Clinton, a lawyer and an intelligent woman, recognize that these terrorists are Muslim extremists, who in their perverted minds are followers of the religion of Islam?  Is she really that obtuse?

                        But Clinton is not the lone nutcase on the platform. Neither Sanders or O'Malley would speak of "radical Islam."  Not appropriate, they agreed.   Not important what you call it, said Sanders; and O'Malley, pausing, added with great deliberation, they are "extremist jihadists--that is what to call them."  

                        In identifying America's enemy, it is more than likely that Clinton, Sanders and O'Malley are taking their cues from President Obama, who has steadfastly refused to recognize "radical Islam."  Obama will speak of terrorists and extremists, but will never link them to Islam, the religion of his family while growing up in Indonesia. 

                       Obama's reverence for Islam is for certain an  outgrowth of his early life,  the son of a fanatical Muslim father and then stepfather, and who himself attended a  Muslim school (Madrassa).  Obama has said that he is a Christian, but his comments about the beauty of Islam and his bowing while in the presence of Mullahs suggests that his respect for the Muslim faith is more intense than his Christian beliefs.  

                        Sanders, the anti-war zealot, who has served as a Chairman of the Senate VA committee, leading that bureaucracy into the sorry condition we see today, had more to say about the ISIS threat, one-upping Clinton and O'Malley.  

                        The greatest threat to America, says Sanders, is "climate change."  Yes, absolutely, it is "climate change" he emphasized, and he added that it  is "directly related to the growth of terror" in the world.   If there were a gold medal for obfuscation, this socialist and pacifist would surely receive it with highest honors for that statement.  

                        After the ISIS talk with no sensible strategies other than coalitions offered by any of the candidates, the subject turned to the USA's lame economy. Sanders lashed out at Clinton for taking enormous contributions from a corrupt Wall Street in exchange for doing its bidding. Clinton snapped, "Are you questioning my integrity?" which of course he was. Sanders replied that banks "know what they are going to get in exchange for their campaign contributions...everyone knows that." Nonplussed, Clinton said that Wall street was appreciative of her work as a New York senator in the wake of 9-11, and supported her.

                       Although it was never mentioned, Sanders sounded a lot like his nemesis Donald Trump who has said many times that big contributors buy the candidate and down the road when they want something, it will be pay back time. Sanders had it right about Clinton.  Republicans will probably want to use those comments in their literature reviewing Clinton's integrity.                        

                        Clinton also took the opportunity to call for stricter gun laws, and she rattled off statistics concerning gun deaths.  Her position on gun control has been a bouncing ball. As one of her opponents noted, she was for gun control in 2000, but against new gun laws in 2008 when she ran for President against Obama.  Now she has "evolved" and supports President Obama's calls for stricter gun control and new laws.
                        My final take on this debate was that Clinton was all smiles; cocky and confident that nothing could prevent her from being the Democratic nominee.  And she is right; the nomination is hers.  It's in the bag.  She shows the same nimble manipulating of the truth she has displayed her entire life, especially in the Benghazi hearing. Yet her lifetime of deceit seems to endear her to loyal Democrats who applaud her often inane and contradictory comments and overall performance.
                 As to Bernie Sanders, the anti-war socialist--it would be complete lunacy to have him in the Oval Office making decisions as to how the United States is to defend itself against all enemies, domestic and abroad.  And why are we even bothering to listen to O'Malley?  More than likely, Americans will best remember him as the apologist seeking the support of African Americans, and as a governor who left communities in Maryland laden in racial tension and drowning in gun violence.  It was over for Gov.O'Malley before it ever began.

                                                      xxx