Hillary's State Department Irony

Submitted by Matt on Wed, 2013-06-12 02:09

Well as we know, Hillary Clinton is no longer the US Secretary of State. But recall that one of the imperatives of her administration of the State Dept. was to work to end the sexual exploitation of women and girls. Just one article here goes:

'Clinton says preventing the exploitation and marginalization of girls is no longer an afterthought but a core foreign policy objective of the United States, which is co-sponsoring a Security Council resolution on the issue next week.'

This is a good aim. But contrast this with this recent piece of news:

'WASHINGTON — A State Department whistleblower has accused high-ranking staff of a massive coverup — including keeping a lid on findings that members of then-Secretary Hillary Clinton’s security detail and the Belgian ambassador solicited prostitutes.

A chief investigator for the agency’s inspector general wrote a memo outlining eight cases that were derailed by senior officials, including one instance of interference by Clinton’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills.

Any mention of the cases was removed from an IG report about problems within the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS), which provides protection and investigates crimes involving any State Department workers overseas.
...
* A DS agent was called off a case against US Ambassador to Belgium Howard Gutman over claims that he solicited prostitutes, including minors.'

So such is one prominent political feminist figure's actual commitment to "ending the sexual exploitation of women and girls." But assume for a moment none of the allegations are in fact true. Should the investigations have been summarily suppressed before any such conclusion could be drawn? And what if the allegation in particular that some amount of solicitation involved minors? Even if you believe an adult should be perfectly free to choose, without duress, to be a prostitute, few would make the case that even of his or her own free will, a minor should be allowed to be a prostitute, nor anyone be allowed under the law to buy their services.

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

Does anyone for a moment think the ambassador's place as a campaign finance "bundler" for Pres. Obama and consistent political supporter of the Clintons had nothing to do with it? Yes, perhaps if you just fell off the back of a turnip truck.

Being no particular fan of either major political party, given the tendency on both sides of the aisle to pander to feminists when they think they can make hay of it, I hope I don't come off here as too partisan. Truth is, I have little doubt that *any* given political personage placed sufficiently high enough in any power structure, regardless of party affiliation or stated beliefs or ideology, will be of necessity corrupted. The key to maintaining integrity however is to acknowledge politics' inherently corrupting influence on oneself and refuse to allow it past a certain point. Suppressing investigations into your officials' possible solicitations of *minor* prostitutes is beyond the pale.

More affirmation of the age-old joke: "How do you know a politician is lying? His (or in this case, her) lips are moving." Speaking of which, get a load of this: Mr. I-did-not-have-sexual-relations-with-that-woman is getting "Father of the Year" from the National Father's Day Committee (first time I've heard of it).

Add the above scandal to Benghazi, the IRS, the NSA snoop-fest, and who knows what else, and it's pretty hard to keep up with this crowd, though some people seem to be trying. But Hillary. Oh, Hillary...

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Wed, 2013-06-12 02:11