Former first lady Hillary Clinton was the person MSNBC’s Alex Wagner sought out to criticize Tucker Carlson for securing an interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin, as she trusted Clinton to fulfill that role.
“He’s what’s called a ‘useful idiot,’” Clinton said of Carlson because of his desire to interview a prominent world leader.
“After having been fired by so many outlets in the United States,” Clinton said, “I would not be surprised if he emerges with a contract with a Russian outlet.”
Clinton subsequently asserted, devoid of substantiation, that Carlson had faced multiple terminations due to his consistent dissemination of falsehoods, prior to advancing an even more audacious allegation.
“[The interview is] a sign that there are people in this country right now who are like a fifth column for Vladimir Putin,” she said.
“There is a yearning for leaders who can kill and imprison their opponents, destroy the press, lead a life that is one of impunity, unbound by any laws,” Clinton said.
“There’s a yearning among certain people in our country for that kind of leadership.
“And I find that absolutely gobsmacking terrifying.”
NEW: Twice failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton calls Tucker Carlson a “useful idiot” and a “puppy dog.”
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) February 8, 2024
Hillary is mad that a journalist is doing journalism.
“He's like a puppy dog. You know? He somehow has been fired from so many outlets in the United States.”
“He… pic.twitter.com/URCElBP2SI
Alright, I acknowledge that there is indeed a desire for that kind of leadership among certain individuals.
However, it is important to note that the majority of those individuals can be found on the left side of the political spectrum.
Additionally, it is worth mentioning that if you can think of anything, no matter how obscure, there will always be someone in this country who has a longing for it.
Having said that, it is perplexing as to why anyone would give heed to Hillary Clinton when it comes to conspiracy theories.
This is an individual who has a proven track record of perceiving conspiracies where none exist, while simultaneously failing to recognize them when they are present.
To illustrate this point, let us recall the incident when Clinton appeared on national television in 1998 to defend her husband, President Bill Clinton, against accusations from Republicans regarding his alleged sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
She lamented at the time that the president was a victim of a “vast right-wing conspiracy.”
However, as we now know, this so-called “conspiracy theory” turned out to be false.
The only conspiracy that transpired was the one between the president and his former intern to conceal the truth about their sexual relationship, not only from the public but also from his wife.
By the way, if you are interested, you can watch the entire segment on MSNBC’s website.
Although, I strongly advise taking some painkillers beforehand to mitigate any potential discomfort.
It makes one wonder what Hillary Clinton’s reaction would have been if she had interviewed Russian dictator Joseph Stalin in 1949, as The New York Times did.
I do not recall her ever insinuating that Dan Rather was part of an Iraqi fifth column simply because he interviewed Iraq’s Saddam Hussein in 2003, prior to the Gulf War.
After all, the term “fifth column” carries significant weight.
It was coined in 1936 by Spanish rebel Emilio Mola during the Spanish Civil War.
Mola essentially claimed that a substantial number of people sympathized with his cause to such an extent that approximately 20 percent of his forces consisted of civilians waiting in Madrid to join the advancing rebels.
The number of personnel in the Russian armed forces exceeds 2 million, as reported by Statista.
Is it truly Hillary Clinton’s belief that 400,000 individuals in the United States sympathize with Russia and eagerly await a Russian invasion in order to join their ranks?
Undoubtedly, Hillary Clinton may have employed the term “fifth column” as a form of exaggeration.
However, given the highly polarized political climate of 2024, one must question the wisdom of such a statement, regardless of the intention.
It is plausible that she may not be aware of the precise definition of the term, although I find this possibility less probable.
Regardless of whether Hillary Clinton used the term recklessly or unknowingly if I were Carlson, being labeled a “useful idiot” by a two-time unsuccessful presidential candidate, I would respond in a particular manner.
