Let's pay attention to what Hillary is actually DOING

The popularity of this "Text From Hillary" nonsense -- which was never very witty -- has shown that many Democrats are, like Allen West, residents of fantasyland. (See post below.) Time for a reality check:

Not that anyone cares, but the United States committed itself to yet another war on Sunday -- yes, April Fool's Day -- as the ever-bellicose Hillary Clinton teamed up with the extremist tyrants in Saudi Arabia and other international humanitarians to supply moolah and military materiel to the rebels in Syria.

The self-proclaimed "Friends of Syria" group has now undertaken to pay the salaries of the "Free Syrian Army" and supply the rebel forces, led largely by Islamist factions -- although Western leaders and their parrot-like media still pretend (at least in public) that the armed uprising is aimed at establishing a groovy secular showcase of pluralistic democracy.

The Syria policy stands in fascinating contrast to Hillary's attitude toward Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. The released Wikileaks cables reveal that Mubarak was starting to totter well before the uprising began in Tunisia. In fact -- and this is a hard thing for liberals to admit -- the Bush administration had decisively turned against Mubarak; the Obama policy was to re-friend the disgusting Egyptian dictator. Well after the revolt in Egypt began, and even after it became clear to the world that Mubarak's days in office were numbered, Hillary Clinton offered strong words of support.

Let's get back to the afore-linked story:

America's chief ally in the Syrian intervention is Saudi Arabia -- a theocratic-autocratic regime that is, by every measure, far, far more repressive than Syria. The Saudi royals ruthlessly -- and violently -- suppress any peaceful protest against their stifling, draconian rule. They have sent troops and weapons and money to murderously repress peaceful protests in neighbouring Bahrain. Yet Secretary Clinton stood proudly with these murderous repressive tyrants this weekend as she outlined their joint plan to ensure the death and suffering of more people in Syria.

And what about this administration's policy toward Iran? What we are seeing is absolutely indefensible -- a slo-mo remake of a bad movie called Bush Goes to Baghdad.

Former United States president George W Bush issued an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein before bombing and invading Iraq.

Nine years later, US President Barack Obama has issued an ultimatum to the leadership in Tehran before ... setting optimal conditions for an "all options on the table" exercise...

For starters, it's not an offer; it's a list of demands - even before any negotiation takes place. And these "near term" concessions are packaged - according to the president's own rhetoric - as a "last chance".

Most Americans haven't noticed what America is doing in Colombia. In 2008, Obama announced his opposition to the Colombia Free Trade Agreement because of the outrageous slaughter of union organizers there. That assurance, like so many others he then made, has been betrayed.

Still, despite continued anti-union violence, the high rate of impunity, serious impediments to union organizing, and the dire conditions faced by workers, President Obama is now poised to announce at the Summit of the Americas that Colombia has complied with the Labor Action Plan... If Obama goes ahead with his plans in Cartagena to green light the FTA, Colombian and U.S. workers will lose their last bit of leverage to stem the tide of anti-union violence and defend the rights of Colombia’s most vulnerable populations.

We (justifiably) talk a lot about Obama's broken 2008 promises. But what about Hillary's?

During the campaign, she went to great lengths to convince the public that she had turned against NAFTA. Now, she spends much of her time fighting for yet more "free trade" -- that is, more outsourcing. Her number one job is to make sure other Americans lose their jobs.

Hell, she's proud of it. See also here.

I just don't understand it. If you go back to 2008, you can find lots of articles by pro-Obama opinionators slamming Clinton for her presumed advocacy of free trade. (Example.) Now that her advocacy is an indisputable fact, those same writers never breathe one word about it.

You would think they'd be doing the I-told-you-so dance. But no, they can't do that -- because she's now working for Obama.

That factor works both ways. Die-hard Hillary supporters have an all-purpose excuse when forced to confront the unhappy facts about our current foreign policy -- they reflexively blame the man who stole the Oval Office. That's the way the knee jerks: If anything good happens in the realm of American foreign policy, credit Hillary; anything bad, blame the President.

I call bullshit on that hypocritical attitude.

Hillary Clinton joined forces with this miserable administration of her own free will, even though she damn well ought to have stayed in the Senate, fighting against Obama's continual sell-out of traditional Democratic values. Like it or not, the painting bears her signature.

The feminists who still have a worshipful attitude toward Hillary Clinton talk endlessly about the image she projects. Image is superficial; image is unimportant; image is nonsense. Her defenders also talk endlessly about the outrages of 2008. We should never forget what happened, but we should also recognize that history is history and now is now.

The Republican attack dogs rarely criticize Clinton these days. Most of the time, they batter this administration on every front but foreign policy. That fact should tell you much. If Hillary were pursuing decent and honorable policies, Rush Limbaugh would be going after her with a ferocity that would make his attacks on Sandra Fluke seem kindhearted.

Some women are so caught up in their puerile empowerment fantasies that they remain blind to the sorry state of America's relationship with the rest of the world. They cannot admit the obvious fact that Hillary Clinton has sullied the Clinton name. The "devil's henchman" argument goes only so far: Nothing has ever stopped her from resigning out of principle, as Cyrus Vance did. Had she done so in 2011, she might have been in a position to mount a challenge to Obama.

If you persist in placing all blame on Obama, if you persist in the belief that the Secretary of State does not shape foreign policy, then you are a naive and deluded fool. Any female blogger who maintains this stance cares more about gender solidarity than about America's bad behavior on the world stage. Wake up. Pay attention. Don't have heroes.