L.A. Times Still Not Reporting Hillary’s Pakistan Gaffes
The L.A. Times reports on the possibility that Hillary Clinton could be Secretary of State. The paper hits some of her weaknesses, but misses one fairly prominent one.
She tried to make foreign affairs a selling point, repeatedly telling crowds that as first lady she had visited more than 80 countries. But she occasionally overreached. Clinton was forced to backtrack after claiming she had to evade sniper fire when landing in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1996. Archival footage showed a peaceful arrival, not the harrowing scene she described.
Good. And?
During a conference call with reporters in February, her aides were asked to name a single foreign policy crisis in which she was tested. There was a lengthy pause. A reply offered by one aide seemed beside the point: She had been endorsed by more than two dozen high-ranking military officers.
Very good. And?
Clinton also stated twice that Pervez Musharraf was going to be on the ballot in upcoming Pakistan elections. But Musharraf had been recently re-elected, and the upcoming elections were for parliamentary seats. Additionally, she suggested that Nawaz Sharif was eligible to run for office in Pakistan, although several experts concluded he is not.
Oh, wait. That last paragraph wasn’t in the article. I wrote that.
And as far as I can tell, the L.A. Times has never reported it. I even sent them a letter about it. They never responded.
As you can see, the paper still does a decent job of pointing out some of her shortcomings. But if she actually goes through confirmation hearings and her Pakistan comments never come up . . . well, it would be an outrage.
But hey, we’re used to those.
But hey, we’re used to those.
Unfortunate4ly.
Paul (5705e0) — 11/15/2008 @ 10:40 amThe Dog Trainer can go back to celebrating HRC as a brilliant, trailblazing, respected Democrat now that she no longer stands in the way of the coronation of BHO. Watch for the change in the way she is covered and, yes, there ain’t gonna be any mention of her embarrassing Pakistan gaffe. See entry under “Biden, Joe” for how this works.
JVW (89c289) — 11/15/2008 @ 11:11 amShe’d still be a hell of a lot better than Albright – faint praise, but I’ll take what I can get.
Dmac (e30284) — 11/15/2008 @ 12:19 pmMaybe she can be Ambassador to Liarstan.
Icy Truth (84d054) — 11/15/2008 @ 12:23 pmHillary can see the UN from her house and she frequently eats at the International House of Pancakes.
Perfect Sense (9d1b08) — 11/15/2008 @ 3:15 pmThe notion of Mrs Clinton as Secretary of State really doesn’t bother me. Yeah, there are Democrats available with much more solid foreign policy credentials — Bill Richardson, anyone? — but so what; we’re not going to get an appointee we’d actually like.
Mrs Clinton, if actually selected for the job, has very limited executive experience, and what executive experience she does have — as health care tsaritsa — is experience in failure, yet she’d be asked to run a sizable executive department. Her foreign policy experience is limited to the superficial. Chances are she’d be a rather poor SoS.
But, you know what? It takes a woman who could be re-elected by New Yorkers until the day she dies, and gets her out of the Senate! As a cabinet secretary, she maxes out at eight years, and very few cabinet secretaries last that long.
Foreign policy will be set by the president, and it will be the secretary’s duty to carry out his policies; unless she tries to undermine the next president by going rogue — in which case he’d fire her, which I’d really love to see — she won’t be putting any special “imprint” on our foreign policy.
The Dana in Pennsylvania (556f76) — 11/16/2008 @ 12:43 amBarack wants Hill’ry for State,
The Limerick Avenger (556f76) — 11/16/2008 @ 12:46 amA choice he came to of late.
But if it is done,
He won’t have much fun,
It’s a choice that he’ll come to hate.
Mulligan!
Bel Air (802704) — 11/17/2008 @ 9:27 pm