Object Lessons: Rantings of a Lone Pamphleteer
Oh, Hillary...Today's Research attempts to answer the question: So which is first? The meeting or the decision?
Just found an addendum to my earlier post, where I mention how Hillary Clinton is claiming "white house experience" for being a sounding board.
Senator Clinton once again claims White House Experience not too subtly on January 2, per this youtube video:
"The idea that you're not involved because you don't attend a meeting, and knowing as I do that were too many of those 'formal' meetings, really doesn't understand how decisions were made."
(I know, the sentence doesn't quite make sense, but you can see what she's getting at.)
Meredith Viera points out Hillary's claim that she was "the first high-profile American in Bosnia after the accords" sounds like a (false) claim for foreign policy experience. Hillary responds:
"I put my experience up against anybody," then moves onto something about change and experience embodied together, how you can't have one without the other... some generalized political BS.
Hmm... So, is she claiming she was a policy maker outside of those pesky, formal meetings? You know, those meetings that follow established, legal procedure? Is she claiming to have maybe directed policy from behind the scenes, where she was perhaps legally, at least morally, barred from doing so?
I just think it's wrong, what she's implying. She should not have been in on policy anymore than he should have been making decorating decisions. And now, though she assures us her hubby won't be in on it anymore than she was, she's claiming that her involvement was more than she's getting credit for now. So... is he going to be in the same position -- behind-the-scenes advisor? Confidant, privy to information for which he is no longer cleared? Because I'm sure you don't get a clearance in perpetuity.
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry. "
Comments: Post a Comment