« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Hillary Clinton: “No Way Out?”

Some here may remember the 1987 spy thriller “No Way Out.” Kevin Costner play a naval officer, who is actually a deep cover Soviet mole, who gets assigned to the Pentagon, working for the egomaniacle Secretary of Defense (Gene Hackman). Costner meets, has an affair, and falls in love with, a beautiful DC lady about town, (Sean Young) who is actually the unhappy mistress of the SecDef, who in a fit of jealous rage that she is secretly seeing someone else, accidentally kills her. To deflect any possible investigation of the SecDef, the media is told that the mole is suspected of the murder. Costner is charged with running the now-suddenly intensified investigation for the mole. He is thus in fact hunting himself.

A complex, convoluted, not really believable plot. Let’s see, it’s about as credible as blaming a YouTube video for the attack on the Benghazi complex, and the deaths of four Americans. Ya think?

But is it in fact any different, any LESS believable than what is unfolding daily regarding Hillary, the State Department,and the Benghazi attack?

I will not summarize again the events timeline; RS readers are all too familiar with it.

But just consider that Hillary, the SecState, publicly “takes responsibility” for the whole event, then for nearly a month, refuses to speak withe anyone, Congress, the media, (and probably Obama as well) while “the investigation is ongoing.”

Yet she is NEVER questioned during the investigation.

Four underlings are blamed in the report, and are reported to have been forced out; then we find out they really haven’t been. Guess these days, one only falls on one’s sword while wearing a kevlar vest.

Clinton promises to appear before Congress, then cancels because of illness and a concussion from a fall. I suspect that she is is concussed, but not from a fall, rather from repeatedly smacking herself upside the head for being so stupid as to let Obama drag her into this mess.

She will now reportedly testify before Congress “sometime” in the near future. Will she have resigned first? Will she dare to lie to the committees? How bad will her testimony make her appear? Can it torpedo her reported 2016 plans? She is reported now somewhere in the Caribbean with Slick, obviously trying to figure out what she is going to say in her testimony, or possibly even a way to avoid testifying.

Clinton, Costner: both names have 7 letters, begin with “C”, have an “n” and a “t” in the middle.

Costner’s character got in trouble because of his love for a woman. Clinton is in trouble because of her love of power, her lifelong dream of the White House.

Like Costner, Clinton may have “No Way Out.”

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • commonsenseobserver

    Hillary Clinton is arrogant, hypocritical, dogmatic, manipulative, divisive, spiteful, stubborn, irresponsible, corrupt and out-of-touch. To say nothing about Bill Clinton.

    The 15th most liberal member of the US Senate has definitely performed up to expectations.

  • Jim_Riggs

    She will return. Where else does she have to go? :)

    • commonsenseobserver

      Her health may make it impossible. Even if this concussion/clot story is fake, she’ll be 70+ after all. And she’s not John McCain or Ronald Reagan, or even Fred Thompson.

      We’ll probably have to watch out for Cuomo or Warner most, if Hillary doesn’t run, though I wouldn’t put it past the Democrats to nominate Joe Biden. On our side, at least we can be certain that Chris Christie is at least more than 10 points behind Paul Ryan. And the Establishment pick would probably be either Bush or Rubio (at least the Bush wing of the Establishment- no one with a reputation will support Christie if they can help it), probably the former, because Rubio probably wouldn’t run against Bush without looking frightfully opportunistic and two-faced, something Ryan needs to avoid with the Boehner implosion too.

      But name recognition skews these numbers, of course.

      • commonsenseobserver

        Marco Rubio has almost 10% with no opinion, one of the highest. Those who oppose Santorum, Paul, and Bush are all in the high 40s, making it almost impossible for them to win.

        It’s Ryan-Martinez 2016 for me.

      • Jim_Riggs

        I was just quoting the last line of the movie.

        • commonsenseobserver

          Perhaps you are, but it’s worrying all the same.

  • Viet71

    Hate to say it, but Hillary would have been a better president than Zero. Mainly because she wouldn’t have gotten so many passes.

    To your point: Hillary needs to sing. My guess is she’ll perform like her own songbird once she’s not working for 0.

  • reddog53

    Great post and analogy. The whole affair, including her on/off again musings about leaving her office, GE spectacle of the President naming her replacement before she resigns, and the notion that she should be allowed to avoid testifying under any circumstances has set a low threshold of performance for the administration. This really makes us all look pathetic.

  • bobmark

    I have been wondering since before Benghazi whether Hillary would ever come clean about working for/with 0bama. Recall that her campaign were the original “birthers”, and that the “Chicago way” prominently features blackmail and intimidation.

    Are they in a “friends close and enemies closer” relationship, or more like professional wrestlers putting on a show, but secretly friendly fellow travelers in the Progressive statist march “Forward”?. I believe her calculation will be based on whether she feels she can somehow “win” in whichever manner she defines winning, and to what extent she is willing to take one for the Prog. team.

    Knowing what went down in that meeting when she dropped out in ’08 and whether both sides have kept to their agreement would be illuminating. It will be just as important to notice what she doesn’t say as anything she does. It will be easier for her to weasel out of a lie of omission rather than outright perjury.

    The important questions are just how much do the members of the committee(s) she testifies before know (to be able to spot obfuscation), and whether they truly want to get to the bottom of this potential Watergate situation, or just put on another kabuki performance. Just as what Hillary does and doesn’t say, the questions they do and don’t ask will be very revealing. We will know early on, should they decide to hide behind closed doors due to “national security”.