Patterico's Pontifications

1/3/2008

L.A. Times Has Nothing on Hillary’s Idiotic Pakistan Comments

Filed under: Dog Trainer — Patterico @ 12:13 am

I said I’d check the paper today to see if they covered this story.

They didn’t.

UPDATE: I’ve sent a letter to the Readers’ Rep asking why not:

Recently, Hillary Clinton stated twice that Pervez Musharraf was going to be on the ballot in the upcoming Pakistan elections. (He will not, since he was recently re-elected, and the upcoming elections are for parliamentary seats.)

She said to Wolf Blitzer [.pdf link]: “If President Musharraf wishes to stand for election, then he should abide by the same rules that every other candidate will have to follow.”

And, referring to Musharraf, she told George Stephanopoulos: “He could be the only person on the ballot. I don’t think that’s a real election.”

Journalist Ben Smith wrote about her gaffe at the Politico web site.

Moreover, in the appearance with Stephanopoulos, she indicated that she thought Nawaz Sharif [leader of the PML-N] was eligible to run for office in Pakistan:

“I think it will be very difficult to have a real election. You know, Nawaz Sharif has said he’s not going to compete.”

Pakistan analyst Thomas Houlihan, who first noted the error regarding her claims about Musharraf, also says Sharif is not eligible:

“Nawaz Sharif isn’t allowed to run for office in Pakistan because of a felony conviction.”

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I haven’t seen a word about any of this in the L.A. Times. And I can’t understand why I haven’t. Hillary Clinton is running largely on the strength of her alleged foreign policy expertise. Yet, as Mr. Houlihan notes, she doesn’t seem to understand even the most fundamental basics about Pakistan’s political situation.

Are L.A. Times editors aware of these statements? If so, I can’t understand why somebody wouldn’t be writing about this. Back in 1999, when candidate George W. Bush failed a journalist’s pop quiz asking the names of four world leaders, the L.A. Times ran four separate pieces mentioning Bush’s poor performance. This seems at least as significant.

If the editors aren’t aware of these statements, could you please pass along these facts to them? I think they would make an interesting story.

Patrick

I’ll let you know what I hear back. Meanwhile, she has passed along to editors my complaint about that quiz saying Bush erroneously said Mandela was dead.

22 Responses to “L.A. Times Has Nothing on Hillary’s Idiotic Pakistan Comments”

  1. If the LAT lowered themselves and actually reported important news, they might be mistaken for crabgrass bloggers. Can’t have that.

    Perfect Sense (b6ec8c)

  2. The bias in the press is not that they tell you want to think; the bias is that they tell you want to think about.

    Or, in this case, what not to think about.

    Yeah, it’s an oldie; but it’s still a goodie.

    SteveMG (2c65cd)

  3. Pop quiz questions on foreign affairs are only used on Republicans–and they’re big news if they fail them.

    The Dems and Hillary get to sit in the back of the class and never have to answer.

    Mike Myers (31af82)

  4. Yeah, but I bet she can spell tomato.

    BlacquesJacquesShellacques (324683)

  5. FOR GOD’S SAKE, don’t hold your breath!

    Sue (d324e8)

  6. Along the same lines, I’m waiting for anyone to pick up on Edwards saying, in his WSJ op-ed yesterday, that Wall Street investors took home $38 billion in bonuses last year, when in fact investors don’t get – and didn’t get – bonuses of any amount, let alone $38 billion worth. Edwards probably mixed up Wall Street investors with Wall Street executives. Notwithstanding that anyone who doesn’t know the difference between the two isn’t ready for prime time, if this is what he did, he would still be wrong as the $38 billion referred to the amount of bonuses paid by the 5 biggest Wall Street firms to their entire 186,000 person workforce and not just to their executives.

    The guy doesn’t know the difference between investors and executives and executives and the secretaries and runners and everybody else who works on Wall Street… and he wants to be in charge of our economy? And unlike Hillary’s oral comments, which were perhaps somewhat off-the-cuff (hard to believe for Hillary, but possible), this can’t be explained away as an innocent slip of the tongue; his goof came in a written article that he presumably researched, wrote and reviewed himself before submitting.

    Detailed links: here

    steve sturm (40e5a6)

  7. Meanwhile, she has passed along to editors my complaint about that quiz saying Bush erroneously said Mandela was dead.

    Along those lines, one point in favor of Bush having something of a clue regarding the Alive or Dead status of Nelson Mandela is this: had Mandela died while Bush was president, given the prominence of African-Americans in his cabinet, odds favor him either attending or sending a high level official to the funeral.

    Had Mandela died while Clinton was President, chances are Bush would have read about Bill Clinton attending the funeral, breaking down sobbing and throwing himself on Mandela’s casket.

    BumperStickerist (350875)

  8. It was a while back, but it would be interesting to see how the LATimes covered Bush’s brain-flub about Musharraf back in 1999. People were still drawing conclusions about Bush’s intelligence based on that in 2007. Isn’t it fair to look at Hillary’s slip the same way?

    See-Dubya (1fc18b)

  9. Hillary’s knowledge of world affairs stops at the Chinese border. Her only concern is which clique is in power and whether she still is their Manchurian Candiadate.

    nk (5221ab)

  10. She also said in that same interview that Bhutto’s party needs to choose a new leader. Oops. It’s a hereditary party. Her will stipulates that the leadership passes to her son.

    CraigC (cbd74e)

  11. And I’d like to know who, from frontiernet.net located in Rochester, New York, monitors these comments and clicks on my site whenever I make an anti-Hillary comment.

    nk (5221ab)

  12. Nk,

    Getting a little paranoid aren’t you? Besides I thought you were for the NSA Wiretapping activities….

    voice of reason (10af7e)

  13. See Dub,

    I already said how they covered it. They did four stories touching on it. I gave the links in my previous post.

    P

    Patterico (79f1b4)

  14. Why, so you did. Great minds think alike, but some of them don’t read that carefully.

    See-Dubya (7f702c)

  15. NK, For all you know, it’s just a browser that preloads links automatically.

    As far as this story goes, it’s very typical. “Nobody questions Hillary’s foreign policy knowledge” because that’s how democrats maintain the appearance of intelligence. Bush is a smart guy, but year after year of huge coverage of every gaff has made him out to be a dunce. They did the same to Reagan. Carter, on the other hand, is routinely considered to be extremely intelligent, but obviously is probably quite a baffoon.

    Our press corps is largely propaganda. That used to be overly obvious, with papers taking “democrat” and “republican” in their name to inform consumers of the bias. It’s not disgusting that the media distort everything. It’s disgusting that people think they are fair, adn that Hillary is really really smart because John Carville said so.

    Jem (9e390b)

  16. Just an observation: Obama abd Edwards have said some absurd things when it comes to foreign policy. Truth be told, their foreign policy spin panders to those who think force, the threat of force, the use of sanctions and even public outcry against our adversary’s behavior are the elements that the world rightfully holds in contempt. Kucinich will throw support towards Obama and Nader will back Edwards. So before one trashes Hillary, and the media does not extend her the hand it lends Obama, consider the broad outline of policy as described by Obama and Edwards. Then compare it with Hillary’s full record. In fact, just read speeches Obama and Edwards gave in 2004. The Clintons are the only DNCers in the hunt and who have not apologized for supporting regime change.

    Hillary knows full well the history of Sharif who Bill pushed to arrest Musharraf resulting in Musharraf arresting Sharif. The Clinton/Pakistan relationship is an interesting read. So is the handling of Russia which Susan Rice diverts to Bush’s failures. She works for Obama now, having served in the Clinton administration.

    There was an election and Musharrah literally ran alone. I’m not sure he played by the rules and the West elevated Bhutto as some savior to bring back Liberal Democracy. Richardson thinks moderates make up the vast majority. His comments following Bhutto’s death seem much more questionable than Hillary’s gaffes. Bhutto’s husband would be disqualified running in the US with the record he has. He also prevented the autopsy on his wife calling for immediate elections to garner the sympathy vote. Yet Bush and Clinton supported an alliance between Bhutto and Musharraf. It is quite complicated and Hillary’s remarks seem to pale behind Obama’s suggestions several months ago when suggesting we send troops into Pakistan. He called Pakistan complete chaos. This is also a candidate that says human rights trumps national security.

    Musharraf is on the ballot in the sense that were strong majorities against him to come in next month’s elections, it could push him out. Hell, the PM could order the old justices back to nullify Musharraf’s victory. Jem thinks that Bush is a smart guy and years of public attitude turned him into a dunce. That would seem quite funny were that very plausible. I wouldn’t hold him up as a measure of Hillary’s accumen before or after media dmaged his mind.

    Sharif did first say he would run despite the court’s ruling. Then he said he would abstain because the elections would not be fair. Thewn he seemed to lean towards going forward. If Sharif could pull off a huge following next month, it is concievable pressure could mount for Sharif to be pardoned. This is all Pakistani deal making as no leader has ever really controlled Pakistan.

    While Hillary mispoke, perhaps it was the mixing of realpolitik with AP headlines. In any case, let’s not take sound bits as Gospel because Huckabee, Obama, Edwards, Romney all have said some highly questionable things. Many times it is trangulation. At other times it is autopilot gone astray or confused thinking. I suggest we look at the broad strokes when wondering what the foreign policy considerations will be for the candidates. Compared to Edwards and Obama, I feel far more comfortable with Hillary. Despite “talking” to our adversaries, Syria, Iran, the Taliban and even Russia and China are moving in a more hostile direction. I can only wonder how long Obama will talk and what his other plans are. He doesn’t seem to favor sanctions which the NIE clearly said was the reason Iran stopped. I doubt we will hear Obama or Edwards ever suggest out invasion of Iraq made Iran blink or how we are to keep the lid on the very weapons Obama and Edwards pledged they would never let Iran acquire. Now what kind of gaffe is that?

    Maxtrue (a21e73)

  17. The L.A. SLIMES is just the west coasts version of the NEW YORK SLIMES

    krazy kagu (cf73c3)

  18. Thanks, Maxtrue, for defending Hillary Clinton. I think she is indeed capable and willing to take tough and/or unpopular stands on this country’s biggest problems: (1) $9 trillion federal deficit and (2) dependence on oil that simultaneously hastens this earth’s environmental demise and inclines us to wrongly and imperialistically involve ourselves in the business of a region with inner turmoils centuries old.

    Frankly, it is a good thing that the planet’s oil sources are in a state of decline. It appears to be Mother Nature’s way of fighting back.

    Karen M. H. (7911a0)

  19. Uh, Karen, evidently you didn’t read Maxtrue’s comment very closely. By the way, the US does not have a $9 trillion deficit. The correct term is debt, not deficit, for the total owed by the government. And why it is denominated at the moment as $9.2 trillion, only $5.1 trillion is actually publicly held, the remainder is “intragovernmental holdings” which is basically one part of the Federal government purporting to loan the other part.

    So the $9.2 trillion figure is an exaggeration in many ways.

    But thanks for the sockpuppet visit from Hillary’s campaign.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  20. Karen,
    Just as SPQR knows about the debt/deficit, I could probably write a book about how misguided your Oil/Environmental thinking is.

    I’ve come to expect a great deal of misinformation, hype, Anti-Americanism, and Anti-Capitalist mumbo jumbo from leftists when the topic turns to the environment – so I’ll just skip most of the critique and ask just one (multi-part) question:

    How can it be that you do not understand — even if you’re right — that Mother Nature “fighting back” entails her fighting back against YOU TOO? Are you immune from any negative effects of “Nature’s Vengeance” because you feel you have pure motives and actions?
    Do you not also need Oil? Do you not own a car? Do you not by goods transported by gas or deisel?
    How ’bout coal? Are your computer and internet connection powered by cold fusion?
    Are you independently wealthy? Do you have unlimited income to afford higher priced oil, or the higher price of whatever you’d like to take the place of oil?
    Are you somehow separate from modern civilization? You can’t be Amish, as you’re on-line.

    In short, Are you utterly retarded?

    Madden Proffet (7059a3)

  21. When the L.A. SLIMES tells the news its not real news just the usial amount of bull kaka

    krazy kagu (c6ad08)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2461 secs.