« | »

NYT Lies About Hillary’s Qualifications

In a less dangerous world this would be a real knee-slapper from New York Times:

An Uncommon Résumé in an Unusual Time


December 3, 2008

WASHINGTON — Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks no foreign languages, but has visited 90 countries. She has never negotiated an agreement between two warring sides, but a speech she delivered in Beijing in 1995 is still quoted by women’s rights advocates around the world.

As President-elect Barack Obama’s choice for secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton carries a résumé that is in many ways thinner than her predecessors. She does not bring the decades of academic and policy expertise that Condoleezza Rice brought to the job, nor does she have Colin L. Powell’s military know-how, or even Warren Christopher’s past experience as a deputy secretary of state.

Nor does she have James A. Baker III’s chummy relationship with her boss. Or the street credibility of a Madeleine K. Albright or Henry A. Kissinger, whose very birthplaces — Prague and Bavaria — gave them an aura of worldliness that added sheen to their diplomatic credentials.

And yet, Mrs. Clinton’s selection has electrified a diplomatic world where officials can now anticipate the prospect of sitting across a conference table from a former American first lady and presidential candidate, with all of the drama that is attached to the Clinton story.

“When she arrives in a capital city, that city will be riveted,” said George Friedman, chief executive of Stratfor, a geopolitical risk analysis company. “The one thing she will have is the undivided attention of any foreign leader she is in a room with.”

Beyond mere star power, Mrs. Clinton’s backers say that her unorthodox background masks diplomatic skills that many of her predecessors in the job did not have. And they dismiss the notion that her inability to order a meal in French means she cannot cajole the European Union to send more troops into Afghanistan.

“Look, there are lots of fabulously successful career foreign service officers out there, but first and foremost a secretary of state has to be a person who understands the complexity of the world,” said Liz Schrayer, director of the Center for U.S. Global Engagement. “In today’s world, the old school of criteria for the job of secretary of state doesn’t make the same sense to me as it might have a decade ago.”

Mrs. Clinton does not, at the moment, have the kind of close working relationship with Mr. Obama that two of the most highly regarded American secretaries of state, Dean Acheson and George Marshall, had with President Harry S. Truman. But neither Acheson nor Marshall began his tenure as Truman’s close friend. “They developed close professional relationships with Truman,” said Richard C. Holbrooke, the former United States ambassador to the United Nations, “but they were not his drinking buddies, or part of that poker-playing crowd that sat around at the Sequoia.”

Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Holbrooke said, “understands global issues, women’s rights and public diplomacy, and has watched her husband make war-peace decisions.”

That last bit — the idea that Mrs. Clinton received firsthand foreign policy experience via osmosis in her eight years as first lady, was a bone of contention in the Democratic primaries, when Mr. Obama’s own foreign policy advisers pooh-poohed Mrs. Clinton’s experience. In his news conference on Monday, Mr. Obama shrugged off his own words as bygone.

With the campaign behind them, advisers to Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton now say the Obama camp exaggerated Mrs. Clinton’s lack of foreign policy experience. Mrs. Clinton traveled to 82 countries as first lady, and before heading overseas would often buttonhole White House national security employees. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings, but she did speak regularly with foreign diplomats and experts, her aides said.

She pushed to attend a United Nations conference on women in Beijing in 1995, when many Washington critics, within and outside the Clinton administration, argued that her attendance would send the wrong signal, offering China a reward of sorts for improper behavior in the detention of human rights activists. (President Bill Clinton did not visit China until 1998.)

At the conference, Mrs. Clinton said: “If there is one message that echoes forth from this conference, let it be that human rights are women’s rights and women’s rights are human rights, once and for all.” More than a decade later, women’s rights advocates still refer to those words.

Mrs. Clinton has an extensive network of foreign contacts from her time on the Senate Armed Services Committee, through which she traveled to Iraq and Afghanistan three times, and through her husband. In the Senate, she sometimes used the foreign contacts she developed while at the White House, including picking up the phone to ask Tony Blair, then the British prime minister, to put in a plug at the White House for a defense contract that would benefit New York.

The biggest question mark on Mrs. Clinton’s résumé may be whether she can actually negotiate a peace deal — a requirement for any good secretary of state. Mrs. Clinton has not had to lock warring foreign leaders in a room and bully them into submission, or shuttle between world capitals to prod officials to sign a piece of paper.

Mrs. Clinton has praised Gen. Wesley K. Clark, the former NATO commander, and Mr. Holbrooke, an envoy to the Balkans in the Clinton administration, for their conduct of diplomacy, in which both men socialized and drank with Serbia’s wartime leader, Slobodan Milosevic, to gauge his strengths. “You don’t learn something from him by pointing at him across the ocean,” she told The New York Times in an interview this year.

Philippe Reines, Mrs. Clinton’s spokesman, said she had worked as a senator to persuade Manhattan entrepreneurs to invest in economic development in upstate New York, and even worked to get Manhattan restaurateurs to use farm products from upstate.

Alas, in the age of Obama it is futile to even think about anyone being unqualified for any job.

But even for the New York Times this is a laughable screed. Mrs. Clinton has exactly no qualifications for the position of Secretary Of State.

In fact, she herself tacitly admitted as much when she was forced to make up a foreign policy background that even her former aides and assistants reported were a tissue of lies.

Everyone knows that her appointment by Obama is just the worst kind of political pay-off in the time dis-honored tradition of Democrat Party.

It had nothing to do with whether she can do the job or would be a benefit to our country.

But remember this article the next time you are tempted to think that the New York Times has any regard whatsoever for the truth.

This article was posted by Steve on Wednesday, December 3rd, 2008. Comments are currently closed.

9 Responses to “NYT Lies About Hillary’s Qualifications”

  1. Liberals Demise says:

    SG :
    Of course both of these statements Hillary said are lies but why bother ……. they were little WHITE lies!!

  2. proreason says:

    “in the age of Obama it is futile to even think about anyone being unqualified for any job”


    It’s not about experience and knowledge. It’s about ideology and payoff.

    The country is paying the price as we speak. And it won’t get better without a major shock. If a 52% drop in the SP500, unemployment shooting up, and retirements ruined doesn’t shock the system into sanity, then it will take something even worse. And it will happen. If not now, then soon. At the end of the day, a price for stupidity will be enacted.

  3. Enthalpy says:

    We must remember that she the same years of experience in the White House as the pastry chef.

  4. GuppyNblue says:

    Hillary is a professional politician and has never been anything else. Even when in school (where she could have been learning something) she was a political activist. Her and kind only use an office to further their careers and portfolios. I just heard Obama named Bill Richardson as commerce secretary – same story there. When he knew he wouldn’t go further in the primaries he gave Obama his endorsement for a second best option.

    This has been a problem in the past but today it’s the only way to do business in Washington. They don’t serve the office or the nation but use both to serve themselves. What we get out of this are the worst possible leaders because they never had any character to bring to the office anyway. Lying is second nature to them and media like the Slimes won’t call them on it. “Mr. Obama shrugged off his own words as bygone.” WTF! In other words – oh I was campaigning and we all know it’s acceptable then.

    I’ll bet my first 100 Ameros that when Hillary is meeting with hostile foreign leaders, her priorities will be what she can gain and how she can get away with it.

  5. 12 Gauge Rage says:

    The Clinton’s have always come across as shady characters. Never trusted Bill when he was my commander-in-chief. But I noticed that for a man who despised the military and slashed it’s funding he sure the heck used us a lot for his wag the dog activities. I wonder if Hillary would’ve been any different if she had won the presidency. So now she and Obama will be working together to run (or ruin, depending how you look at it) our country. The stupid farmer just handed the ravenous fox the keys to the hen house.

  6. czar says:

    Aw, ‘cmon. She stayed at a Holiday Inn Express recently.

  7. 12 Gauge Rage says:

    How clever of Hillary. She stays at a Holiday Inn Express to show that she’s one of us. And while she’s there she plots and schemes a coup against ‘The One.’

  8. Steve says:

    Isn’t it odd. We have been told ever since Hillary arrived on the national scene and of course all through the campaign that she was obsessed with two noble issues: the defense of children, and the implementation of universal healthcare.

    These two issues, children and healthcare, were said to be the causes of her life.

    So isn’t it a bit odd that she would jump at the chance to become Secretary Of State. Even though she would have very little chance to do anything about those two issues. And it would mean leaving her job in the Senate where she could have done something about them.

    Of course, as a follower of Saul Alinsky, Hillary simply latched onto these causes as her means to gaining power. (Who could be against children or healthcare?)

    Still, maybe someone in our watchdog media will ask her about why she abandoned her “life’s work” so readily.

    (Just kidding, of course.)

  9. 12 Gauge Rage says:

    She hasn’t given up her life’s work. She’s merely put them on hold for the moment. Accepting the position of secretary of state is just a means of holding onto power in anyway and to further her credentials if she tries to run for POTUS again. After all, what better way to convince the public that you have foreign police experience than to remind them you were formerly secretary of state.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »