Reddit reviews Queen of Chaos: The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton

and the regime-change beat goes on: Queen of Chaos: The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton

https://www.amazon.ca/Queen-Chaos-Misadventures-Hillary-Clinton/dp/0989763765

Do you realize Hillary is a joke as far as Secretary of State matters go? She was pretty bad according to this book. http://www.amazon.com/Queen-Chaos-Misadventures-Hillary-Clinton/dp/0989763765

What exactly has Hillary achieved that has impressed you?

As far as I'm concerned, she is a garden variety crony politician who has sold her influence to anyone who has the money (very successfully).

She was the one who pushed to go to war with Libya and the US economy has been stagnant under Obama and I presume her if president. She brings no new ideas to the table.

There are multiple books written about the Clintons and their corruption,
https://www.amazon.com/Queen-Chaos-Misadventures-Hillary-Clinton/dp/0989763765/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1462121390&sr=1-1&keywords=queen+of+chaos

For “House of Cards” fans who can’t get enough of fictional President Frank Underwood and his First Lady Claire, it must be tempting to view Bill and Hillary Clinton as their real-life political doppelgangers.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Cards_%28U.S._TV_series%29]

Certainly there’s fertile ground for those seeking parallels between the main protagonists of this quintessential political soap opera, and our more flesh and blood “heroes.”

Like their imaginary foils, the Clintons’ moral compass is functionally impaired, so much so one suspects the HoC scriptwriters modeled their lead characters on the Democratic Party’s resident “royal couple.”

To be sure, a critical assessment of Hillary Clinton’s fitness for the Oval Office can’t be undertaken absent some reference to the respective roles she and her husband have played in each other’s professional lives.

Many folks will recall their indelible slogan from Bill Clinton’s successful tilt at the top job in 1992, where the campaign pitch to voters was, “Two for the price of one.”

President Bill Clinton, First Lady Hillary Clinton and daughter Chelsea parade down Pennsylvania Avenue on Inauguration Day, Jan. 20, 1997. (White House photo)

Again, one not unlike the mantra the Underwoods might concoct for voters.

One wonders why the Clintons have not retooled that hoary old refrain for 2016, and here I’m thinking, “Buy one, get one free” might fit the bill.

The Clintons then (cue Frank and Claire again) are the consummate political “chancers” (British slang for “opportunists”), with style overwhelming substance, ruthlessness eclipsing truthfulness, and political expediency supplanting personal integrity. Occupying their own “house of cards” is a long, yet not so illustrious history of deception, malice, corruption, duplicity, careerism, avarice, turpitude, warmongering, hubris, incompetence, arrogance, media manipulation, venality, hypocrisy, influence touting, and everything in between that the ugly, sleazy side of politics has on offer.

[http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/03/hillary-clintons-foreign-policy-resume-what-the-record-shows/]

This reality was first underscored most notably when — in what must be the modern American narrative’s most indelible “stand by your man” moment — the then “Tammy Wynette” of U.S. politics vigorously defended her husband against allegations of unbridled lechery and sexual predation.

These allegations, along with many others in her view, were invented by what she later defined as a “vast right-wing conspiracy,” one that was unscrupulously trying to take them down and out.

[http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-the-vast-right-wing-conspiracy-is-even-better-funded-now/]

But irrespective of whether this much touted “conspiracy” was actually a reality (the Clintons surely had powerful and well-heeled enemies), a product of Mrs. Clinton’s penchant for self-aggrandizing delusion, or simply dirty politics (the perfect tautology if there is one), it is now safe to say it was going to take much more than a “vast right-wing conspiracy” to stop the Clinton juggernaut in its tracks.

[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/mar/25/hillaryclinton.uselections2008]

Powerful Juggernaut

That this “juggernaut” shows few signs of losing steam is evident; at the same time it continues to showcase all that’s wrong about Establishment politics — Republican or Democrat.

And whilst we can say now the accusations against her husband contained more than a grain of truth (at least those related to womanizing and self-aggrandizement), both Bill and Hillary were in for the long haul.

That she tendered her impassioned denials in the full knowledge that many were true is difficult to refute, and if nothing else, says much about the candidate’s capacity to deny reality in the service of a larger ambition.

And without placing too fine a point on it, this is one area where given the prevailing zeitgeist in Washington – in both neoliberal and neoconservative circles – Hillary Clinton is most definitely qualified as both the preferred candidate of Democratic insiders and the Establishment’s choice for president (including a number of erstwhile Republicans).

In any event, the Clintons themselves are no slouches when it comes to playing “dirty politics,” for whom we might say all’s fair in love, war and their chosen vocation.

They embody moreover, raw political ambition at its hard-core finest, steeled by narcissistic megalomania, all of it unencumbered by accountability, transparency, humility, ethics, honesty, scruples or altruism.

Her seemingly inevitable selection as the 2016 Democratic flag-bearer — and from there most likely the presidency — is ample indication of that “long haul” ambition.

To their credit as political survivors, they’ve been effectively dodging political snipers ever since they parachuted into public consciousness during the 1992 campaign.

And if the current contest is any guide, the Clintons have not lost their innate talent in this regard.

As for Hillary Clinton, one suspects even her most zealous detractors could not help but admire — if begrudgingly — the mix of chutzpah and resilience that have been key to her longevity, with her not always subtle campaign “trump” cards: “It’s my turn!”

Even without playing the “elect me as your first woman president” card, the palpable sense of quasi-regal entitlement becomes icing on the Clinton cake!

[http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/trump-hillary-clinton-woman-card/480129/]

We might argue that given the weight of mounting evidence against her fitness for office — a modicum of which would deep-six most politicians’ career ambitions — they have become ever more adept at keeping their political ducks flying in a row, and well out of the range of the shooters.

Not that they’ve achieved this all on their own.

In this the Clintons have been ably served by the mainstream media (MSM), who’ve generally eschewed the forensic analysis — whether political, policy or personal — vital to objectively evaluating her fitness as the Democratic nominee (and therefore president).

[http://whowhatwhy.org/2016/04/28/new-york-times-helped-hillary-hide-hawk/]

Mistress of Malevolent Mayhem

The prospect then of another Clinton presidency should make all right-thinking Americans increasingly concerned – even afraid – about the direction in which their country is heading. I know I am, and I’m not even an American!

Like many of America’s key allies over recent years, our country Australia is no different in that more and more Aussies are harboring anxious — one might say existential — fears about the respective agendas of the U.S. neoconservative and neoliberal establishments.

And notwithstanding her blandly reassuring campaign rhetoric on both counts, Clinton hasn’t just aligned herself with these agendas; it’s increasingly clear she’s the preferred standard bearer of the authors.

With this in mind, outside of her aforementioned Tammy Wynette moment, we should explore a little more of the aspiring president’s résumé.

In an excellent book, aptly titled Queen of Chaos: The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton, Diana Johnstone does just this.

[http://www.amazon.com/Queen-Chaos-Misadventures-Hillary-Clinton/dp/0989763765]

The author chronicles in a clear-eyed manner her subject’s back story in excruciating detail.

What makes Johnstone’s tome all the more remarkable and essential is the depth and breadth of her narrative, one that goes way beyond the outwardly narrow focus suggested by the book’s title.

For Johnstone, Clinton’s “misadventures” aren’t simply a reflection of the warmongering misadventures of the country she aspires to lead and whose dubious “virtues” Clinton obsequiously and glibly extols at every turn...

More: https://consortiumnews.com/2016/05/21/hillary-clintons-house-of-cards/

>So why did you vote for him


I didn't. I campaigned for Bernie, then voted Stein. Trump got elected on Bernie's platforms. Sadly, Trump was lying while Bernie was not. And yes, Hillary is just as corrupt and dishonest as Trump if not more so. Plus she's a real war monger. Look at Libya, her slave selling jihadi run baby. Just think if she had not attempted a rigged, crooked self-coronation, Bernie would be our President not Trump. Hillary cares nothing for the We the People and thinks even less of allowing registered Dems a real choice in their own primary. Hillary is responsible for Trump not the Rooskis. And remember her stamping her foot and saying "never,ever,ever" to universal heathcare during her campaign? She even lacks foresight and vision.

https://www.amazon.com/Queen-Chaos-Misadventures-Hillary-Clinton/dp/0989763765

> Oh Hell. Post-Gaddafi Benghazi was a huge supply depot for Syrian war. Various and sundry Sunnis had all the supply destinations in their own hands. There was no control over the destinations of these arms. The US thrives on creating chaos and Hillary Clinton is the Queen of Chaos: https://www.amazon.ca/Queen-Chaos-Misadventures-Hillary-Clinton/dp/0989763765