Hillary: Those Russians I did that re-set with are acting like Nazis

Don't liberals have some dumbass notion they talk about on the Internet called "Godwin's Law"? Yes. They do. In their never-ending quest to make up the rules of engagement to suit them, "Godwin's Law" states that once you mention Adolf Hitler or Nazis in a discussion, the discussion is over and you have lost.

I didn't say it made any sense. I said it's their rule. You lose, Hillary:

“Mrs. Clinton talked at length on the situation in the Ukraine,” said one attendee, Harry Saltzgaver, the executive editor of a group of newspapers in Long Beach. Both Saltzgaver and a second fundraiser attendee, who requested to speak without attribution, described Clinton’s parallel between the actions of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Adolf Hitler, who resettled tens of thousands of ethnic Germans in Eastern and Central Europe to Nazi Germany before the war. “She compared issuing Russian passports to Ukrainians with ties to Russia with early actions by Nazi Germany before Hitler began invading neighboring countries,” Saltzgaver said. “She said, however, that while that makes people nervous, there is no indication that Putin is as irrational as the instigator of World War II.”

---

“She talked about how what Putin is doing now is similar to what Hitler did, essentially providing these ethnic Russians in the Crimea region access back to Russia,” said the second attendee. “And that it was destabilizing.” Now the on-the-spot analysis of someone who once had some impressive-sounding jobs doesn't mean a hill of beans as it pertains to today's issues with Russia. But since this same someone still appears to think she is owed the title of 45th president of the United States, it's worth asking: How's that re-set working out? When Hillary was Secretary of State, she and Obama let Putin play them for fools. They welched on America's commitment to install missile shields in Eastern Europe in order to placate Putin. They even initiated arms control talks (and this from the people who mocked Mitt Romney for '80s style foreign policy talk?), and time and again during the 2012 campaign they ridiculed the idea that Russia is a strategic foe. And all because they pushed that re-set button! Holman W. Jenkins, writing in the Wall Street Journal, makes a pretty strong case that western leaders in recent years have made a huge mistake thinking they have to deal with Putin because he is so strong domestically.

Mr. Putin is a modern-day Peter the Great, we're told. He has visions—of a Eurasian Union to counter the European Union, of Russia leading an orthodox counterrevolution to Western libertinism. These tidbits of Russian propaganda, of extraordinarily recent vintage, explain nothing. The visions that propel Mr. Putin are of himself hanging by his heels from a lamppost or spending the next 20 years in a dock answering for everything from the disappearance of $90 million in food money in St. Petersburg when he was deputy mayor to the 2006 murder of critic Alexander Litvinenko in London. His campaign of intimidation aimed at Ukraine is about protecting his position at the head of the Russian klepto-banquet. Popular overthrow of a crony oligarchy so close to home, his corrupt ally Viktor Yanukovych, was not acceptable. Ukraine, with its control of strategic pipelines, moving toward energy independence and even energy competition with Russia (it recently signed shale deals with Shell and Chevron) was not acceptable.

Hillary's foreign policy instincts are about as good as Obama's, which is to say, not good at all. She totally bought into the notion that all the U.S. had to do vis-a-vis Russia was stop upsetting them so much and everything would be peachy. That is proving to be one of the biggest geopolitical miscalculations of this still-young century. And in typical Hillary fashion, she now presumes to give speeches putting forth the obvious (Putin wants to restore the Russian empire? Really? Who knew?) as if it comes from deep, sophisticated knowledge that only she possesses because of her great experience. Please. Do we really have to listen to this woman's rot for the next three years while she pursues her desperate quest to be defined by something other than her husband's humiliation of her? And now she's violated "Godwin's Law" too! Where are snarky liberal pundits to jump all over this?