The staggering hypocrisy of Hillary's attack on the Tories


Blackleaf
+2
#1
It’s hard to work out what is most galling about Hillary’s latest act of haughty, self-righteous condemnation of people and politicians who think differently to her...


COFFEE HOUSE

The staggering hypocrisy of Hillary Clinton



Brendan O'Neill
9 October 2018
The Spectator



Today Hillary Clinton slammed the Tories for failing to join the recent pile-on against Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orban. In a speech described by the Guardian as ‘stinging’, Clinton said it was ‘disheartening’ that Conservative MEPs in Brussels voted to ‘shield Viktor Orban from censure’. She was referring to the 18 Tories in the European Parliament who last month rejected the invoking of the punishing Article 7 of the Lisbon Treaty against Orban’s Hungary for being a prejudiced and illiberal state. Hungary is no longer a real democracy but an ‘illiberal’ one, said Clinton — and it’s shameful that Tories are cosying up with such a regime.

It’s hard to work out what is most galling about Hillary’s latest act of haughty, self-righteous condemnation of people and politicians who think differently to her. There’s the historical illiteracy. In a line that her speechwriters knew would hit the headlines — and it did — Clinton said the Tories’ refusal to slam Orban suggests they have ‘come a long way from the party of Churchill or Thatcher’. Right. Because Churchill would never have sided with a political strongman from the East that he disliked and opposed in order to achieve a broader political goal, would he? Perhaps while she’s at Oxford today, Clinton could sign up for a booster course on modern British history.

There is also the staggering hypocrisy. Being lectured by Hillary Clinton about getting too close to foreign authoritarians is like being told off by Shane MacGowan for boozing too much. Clinton is the queen of tea-and-hugs with dictators. She described Egypt’s authoritarian ruler Hosni Mubarak as a personal friend. There are loads of photos of her being chummy with him. And lest we forget, his rule of Egypt from 1981 until 2011 — when the people turfed him out — was essentially one long state of emergency in which dissidents were ‘disappeared’ and criticism of the government severely punished. He makes Orban look harmless in comparison.

Clinton continued her political flirtation with Egyptian tyrants when Abdel Fattah el-Sisi took over in a coup in 2012. Despite his vicious repression of human rights, political rights and freedom of speech, Hillary welcomed Sisi to the US in 2014, where he hung out with her and her husband. I wonder what Oxford’s Institute of Human Rights makes of that? Indeed, one wonders why an Institute of Human Rights invited as its keynote speaker a woman who has been so chummy with people who have trampled violently over people’s human rights. There’s a shamelessness to all this.

And of course Clinton is friendly with Saudi Arabia too, such a human-rights void that women can’t even swim in public or try on clothes when they’re out shopping. As for the right to vote, the right to speak or the right to religious freedom, forget about it. How curious that Clinton condemns the Tories for opposing the EU’s censure of Orban yet the Clinton Foundation is happy to take donations from a kingdom in which people are beheaded in public and where anti-Semitism is a national pastime (the New York Times says that between $10m and $25m in donations to the Clinton Foundation came from Saudi Arabia). Anyone who applauded Clinton’s self-serving pose as a defender of human rights at Oxford today needs to have a word with themselves.

And finally there’s the fact that Clinton knows, deep down, that the Tories were not actually siding with Orban’s government but rather were standing up to the EU and its arrogant belief that it has the right to reprimand and punish democratically elected governments. We know she knows this because her chief criticism of Tory MEPs is that they voted to ‘shield Orban from censure’. So she is attacking them for doing something that was actually quite principled: no, not singing the praises of Hungary under Orban but questioning whether Brussels has the moral authority to try to politically re-engineer a government that was freely and fairly elected by its own people, as Orban’s was. So there you have it. Clinton accuses others of getting too tight with tyrants despite having done much of that herself. And she slams Orban for being anti-democratic while cheering the far more anti-democratic behaviour of the EU and its oligarchical bullying of elected governments it doesn’t like, and by extension of electorates it thinks are dim or deranged. And still that aloof, Third Way, arrogant political class, of which Hillary is the archetype, wonders why it is being rejected at the ballot box.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/1...llary-clinton/
 
Hoid
#2
I guess Hillary forgot it was the Tories who appeased Hitler and enabled his destruction of Europe.
 
pgs
Free Thinker
-1
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

I guess Hillary forgot it was the Tories who appeased Hitler and enabled his destruction of Europe.

O how witty ,
 
Dixie Cup
Conservative
+4
#4  Top Rated Post
Apparently she is of the opinion that a country can't decide how to protect their borders and culture. They have the right to determine how their country is ruled - not some outsider has been who is so pathetically disingenuous it's a wonder she still has the guts to go out in public to spew her idiocy.


If it was my house, I determine who comes in - not some outsider who lives a life most of us could only dream of and likely from illegal means but she'll never have to face consequences. She's an utterly disgusting human being!


I say atta boy Orban! Stand up for your countrymen and don't give in - unlike Trudeau, he actually wants what is best for his country. Poland too is standing firm and I applaud them as well


BTW in an interview, he said that they accept immigrants but those immigrants must abide by the Hungarian rule of law, its culture and its traditions - in other words, become Hungarian. Don't see anything wrong with that!!


JMHO
 
Dixie Cup
Conservative
+1
#5
PS Excellent article - describes her perfectly!
 
MHz
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

I guess Hillary forgot it was the Tories who appeased Hitler and enabled his destruction of Europe.

So the Nazis smuggled into the US with Operation Paperclip were 'good Nazis' and would never do anything bad to America, got ya.
 
EagleSmack
+1
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

I guess Hillary forgot it was the Tories who appeased Hitler and enabled his destruction of Europe.


Let's not forget the Kennedy's! The Kennedy's loved Hitler and the Nazis.
 
Walter
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by pgs View Post

O how witty ,

Oops . Responding to the post you quoted.
 
Blackleaf
+2
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

I guess Hillary forgot it was the Tories who appeased Hitler and enabled his destruction of Europe.

It was a Coalition Government in power in the 1930s, not a Tory Government.
 
Danbones
Free Thinker
+1
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

I guess Hillary forgot it was the Tories who appeased Hitler and enabled his destruction of Europe.

The would be Hitler, the lefty


Well that just shows you what a dishonest low **** Hitlery is.
 
Hoid
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

It was a Coalition Government in power in the 1930s, not a Tory Government.

Appeasement was Chamberlains baby. Chamberlain was a Tory in charge of the National government of the 1930s.

The Coalition government did not come in until the Tories appeasement policy resulted in World War.
 
MHz
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

Let's not forget the Kennedy's! The Kennedy's loved Hitler and the Nazis.

Papa Bush kept them rolling in cash as was rewarded handsomely for an act or treason of America by Americans. I don't see the situation reversing itself when all the Nazis slipped in with Operation Paperclip. I think they had to register as Jews looking at the immigration numbers for the time as no 'Nazis' are listed.
 
Blackleaf
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

Appeasement was Chamberlains baby. Chamberlain was a Tory in charge of the National government of the 1930s.

The Coalition government did not come in until the Tories appeasement policy resulted in World War.

The National Government of the 1930s was a coalition government. It ran from 1931 to 1940 and was led by three Prime Ministers - Ramsay MacDonald (Lab), Stanley Baldwin (Con) and Neville Chamberlain (Con).

As for appeasement of Nazi Germany throughout the 1930s - which Canada was also complicit in, don't forget - it had strong support in Britain. There was a large pacifist movement in Britain in the 1930s which resulted in Britain not rearming itself as the German military grew stronger. Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin told the Commons in 1933 that he had been unable to pursue a policy of rearmament because of the strong pacifist sentiment in the country. It was this failure to rearm which led to Britain's appeasement of Germant.

As for Chamberlain, his appeasement policy was widely supported in the Commons by MPs of all parties. When he left for Munich in 1938, the whole House cheered him on, and the Munich Agreement had huge support amongst the British public.

Chamberlain may have been a Tory, but the appeasement of Germany in the 1930s was widely supported by MPs of all parties and the public.
Last edited by Blackleaf; 6 days ago at 05:48 AM..
 
Hoid
#14
That is an awfully long way to say that he was a tory.
 
Blackleaf
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

That is an awfully long way to say that he was a tory.

You said "it was the Tories who appeased Hitler and enabled his destruction of Europe."

I was clearly pointing out that it was also Labour, the Liberals, other political parties and Canada who also appeased Hitler and enabled his destruction of Europe, not just the Tories.
 
Hoid
#16
The only one who has ever denied it was the tories is you.

It only makes you looks stupid.
 
Hoid
#17
and why the argument?

you would be further ahead to try and establish what it is that is hypocritical about Hillary being anti the current Hungarian government.

because that is not at all clear.

it just seems to be more of the tabloid bullshit you are so fond of.
 
Dixie Cup
Conservative
#18
Isn't it funny how people bring up the past... yah but the UK did whatever back in the 1800's or Germany did whatever in the 30's or what Israel did in the 70's. Does anyone bring up what the Muslims did back in the 600's? They were as evil and barbaric as any other society in the world and the Islamists still are today.


Screw that- we're talking about what is happening today - we can't control what happened 1000, 100 or 10 years ago we can only control what happens today. The arguments about what happened in the past are totally not relevant and shouldn't even be part of the conversation. It's only a way to avoid talking about current issues, so stop it!!


JMHO
 
Hoid
#19
Still not sure how HIllary speaking out against a right wing regime is out of character for her.

She's a liberal. She's supposed to speak out against shit like that.

The staggering hypocrisy would be if she didn't.