Peter Van Buren Says “Blowjob” to Hillary Clinton

/9 Comments/in /by

Actually, he didn’t say blowjob. He said this, in a post pointing out the State Department’s rather inconsistent evaluation of what does and does not constitute poor judgment.

What if a video existed that showed a prominent State Department VIP on the roof of the Republican Palace in Baghdad receiving, um, pleasure of an oral nature from another State Department officer not his wife, or even his journalist mistress of the time? What if that video has been passed around among Marine Security Guards at the Embassy to the point where it is considered “viral” with many copies made? What if the Deputy Chief of Mission, hand in hand with the Diplomatic Security chief (RSO) at the time, decided that the whole thing needed to be swept under the rug and made to go away, at least until some blogger got a hold of it.

Would that count as poor judgement? What if it was published during his oft-delayed Congressional hearings? Funny that State aggressively punishes some extramarital fooling around while ignoring other, er, well-documented cases.

Or would the State Department once again excuse the act itself and instead punish the person who made the act public, claiming THAT was the example of poor judgement, the crime of not hiding State’s dirty laundry at a sensitive time?

Now, I have no idea who the VIP in question is (though I am rather interested in which journalist was sleeping with said VIP when he wasn’t otherwise engaged getting blowjobs on the roof of the Republican Palace, as it presumably affects her coverage).

I do, however, find the insinuation that Hillary chose to discipline someone who exposed such a spectacular blowjob rather than the blowjob recipient.

Unlike Van Buren, I really have zero problem that Hillary had a beer and went dancing in Colombia. But you’d think Hillary wouldn’t be using her authority to protect inappropriate blowjobs.

image_print
9 replies
  1. MadDog says:

    Might this not be something Hillary learned from an earlier part of her life? I’m thinking Pavlovian.

  2. PeasantParty says:

    Hillary is smart. She won’t do anything that might jeopardize her future in Government. Once on the US tab, the harder it is to remove them.

  3. Tom in AZ says:

    C’mon, Marcy. Putting her in position to have to acknowledge said bj is what gets to Hillary.

  4. Frank33 says:

    How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People

    To his credit, Peter Van Buren admits his bad judgement. The government can never admit a war or torture or secret mercenary armies were bad judgement. However, Van Buren is turning it up to “11”. EXCELLENT! The Whole-Of-Government is not amused by insubordinate truth tellers. Obviously Van Buren has violated some regulation, such as bad judgement, and will be quickly terminated from Hillary’s Department of State.

    And before everyone gets all wound up over the photos posted, would you please first consider the point here, that judgement as contained in the acts pictured is the issue, not harvesting them from around the Internet where they already exist and reposting them here. For those too self-righteous to get it (oh, they’re colleagues ya’all!), the other point is that the State Department excuses all sorts of behavior when it wants to for people it likes or who are connected, and then hauls out the bully-bat of “poor judgement” when it is trying to stretch to justify firing someone they don’t like because of a blog. Thank you.

  5. lysias says:

    Despite the use of the masculine pronouns, I wonder if this State Department VIP was really a male individual. There have, after all, been many rumors about Hillary.

    By the way, why is it such a big scandal now that Secret Service agents have employed prostitutes? I wonder if that’s just a cover story for something else.

  6. prostratedragon says:

    @lysias:

    I think the apparent failure to get the women paid and gone within the hotel rules (the version I’ve read said a busted guest curfew was the tipoff) looms large here —another failure to keep it to themselves. Especially considering it was a business trip, though not a protective duty.

  7. rugger9 says:

    It was actually worse than that. These yahoos had the Presidential detailed schedule out and about in their rooms, something the narco-terrorists or the GOP/Cuban/Venezuelan agent provocateur wold be very interested to have. Bad enough they jeopardized their mission that way, but to add the disrespect on being tightwads just because they arrogantly felt they could means they need to go.

  9. orionATL says:

    though it does seems to fit the writing,

    i suppose “tongue in cheek” would not be the best choice of words.

Comments are closed.