Is it an optical illusion or is Hilliary’s nose getting longer after each time she is interviewed about her personal and political experiences.

Hillary simply cannot tell the truth. Here’s her scorecard:

Image Blocked Admitted Lies

• Chelsea was jogging around the Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. (She was in bed watching it on TV.)

• Hillary was named after Sir Edmund Hillary. (She admitted she was wrong. He climbed Mt. Everest five years after her birth.)

• She was under sniper fire in Bosnia. (A girl presented her with flowers at the foot of the ramp.)

• She learned in The Wall Street Journal how to make a killing in the futures market. (It didn’t cover the market back then.)

Whoppers She Won’t Confess To

• She didn’t know about the FALN pardons.

• She didn’t know that her brothers were being paid to get pardons that Clinton granted.

• Taking the White House gifts was a clerical error.

• She didn’t know that her staff would fire the travel office staff after she told them to do so.

• She didn’t know that the Peter Paul fundraiser in Hollywood in 2000 cost $700,000 more than she reported it had.

• She opposed NAFTA at the time.

• She was instrumental in the Irish peace process.

• She urged Bill to intervene in Rwanda.

• She played a role in the ’90s economic recovery.

• The billing records showed up on their own.

• She thought Bill was innocent when the Monica scandal broke.

• She was always a Yankees fan.

• She had nothing to do with the New Square Hasidic pardons (after they voted for her 1,400-12 and she attended a meeting at the White House about the pardons).

• She negotiated for the release of refugees in Macedonia (who were released the day before she got there).

With a record like that, is it any wonder that we suspect her of being less than honest and straightforward?

Why has McCain jumped out to a nine-point lead over Obama and a seven-point lead over Hillary in the latest Rasmussen poll? OK, Obama has had the Rev. Wright mess on his hands. And Hillary has come in for her share of negatives, like the Richardson endorsement of Obama and the denouement of her latest lie — that she endured sniper fire d uring a trip to Bosnia. But why has McCain gained so much in so short a period of time? Most polls had the general election tied two weeks ago.

McCain’s virtues require a contrast in order to stand out. His strength, integrity, solidity and dependability all are essentially passive virtues, which shine only by contrast with others. Now that Obama and Hillary are offering images that are much weaker, less honest, and less solid and dependable, good old John McCain looks that much better as he tours Iraq and Israel while the Democrats rip one another apart.

It took Nixon for us to appreciate Jimmy Carter’s simple honesty. It took Clinton and Monica for us to value George W. Bush’s personal character. And it takes the unseemly battle among the Democrats for us to give John McCain his due.

When Obama faces McCain in the general election (not if but when) the legacy of the Wright scandal will not be to question Obama’s patriotism or love of America. It wil l be to ask if he has the right stuff (pardon the pun).

The largest gap between McCain and Obama in the most recent USA Today/Gallup Poll was on the trait of leadership. Asked if each man was a “strong, decisive leader,” 69 percent felt that the description fit McCain while only 56 percent thought it would apply to Obama. (61 percent said it of Hillary.) Obama has looked weak handling the Rev. Wright controversy. His labored explanation of why he attacks the sin but loves the sinner comes across as elegant but, at the same time, feeble. Obama’s reluctance to trade punches with his opponents makes us wonder if he could trade them with bin Laden or Ahmadinejad. We have no doubt that McCain would gladly come to blows and would represent us well, but about Obama we are not so sure.

You have also been so UNFAIR to REV WRIGHT, Senator Obama and the TRINTY UNITY CHURCH. PLEASE ask high ranking representatives from that church to talk to your news station. Rev. Wright is a prominent and respected religious leader. He has been the guest of the White House several times and seen shaking hands with Bill Clinton. The Clinton should explain THIER relationship with him. His sermons… by Shawn Hannity, was edited and taken OUT OF context. I have viewed the ENTIRE sermons and they are uplifting. Give Trinity a chance to explain their side. That is fair and responsible journalism.

The Clintons and McCain should and MUST address race in this country. Senator Obama DID an OUTSTANDING job…..” A More Perfuect Union” speech. Race is a huge divide. Blacks folks feel insulted, election after election because our needs are never spoken about. Or if they are ….people like Pat Buchanan say, Black folks should thank white folks for slavery and giving them their religion. Thankful for lynching and separation of family!?!?!

I am feed up with this type of journalism and will contacting progressive organizations to put a stop to it.

Its 3.am the eagle has landed.Clintonites follow this lead to see who the real comedian is .Click on the blue links.

FREE News Flashes

WND Directory
Shop.WND
Page 1 News
Page 2 News
Commentary
G2 Bulletin
WND Poll
WND Forums
Letters to the Editor
MoneyNetDaily
SportsNetDaily
TV Guide
Weather

WND Resources
About WND
WND Scoops
WND Books
Advertise with WND
Put WND headlines on your site
Make WND your home page
Sign up for WND Email Alerts
Voluntary Payment
Download to your PDA
US Newspapers
Foreign Newspapers
Major News Wires
Other News Services
Other Sites
Writers Archives
Contact Government Officials
Search Engines
Media
Entertainment

WND People
Contact WND
Who’s Who at WND
Speakers and Talk Show Guests
Columnists

——————————————————————————–

——————————————————————————–
Hillary: Where were you at 3 a.m. July 18, 1996?

——————————————————————————–
Posted: March 22, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

© 2008

Predictably, Hillary, when the National Archives released 11.000 pages of your schedule as first lady, the media focused on the unenlightening and the inconsequential.

Where were you when Bill soiled Monica’s blue dress? Where were you when Bill was impeached? When did you first start work on health care reform?

But Hillary, there is one question that needs to be asked, one that cuts right to you own claim to the presidency: Where were you at 3 a.m. on the morning of July 18, 1996?

In the ad that helped you win the Texas primary, a hushed male voice solemnly observes, “It is 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep. But there is a phone in the White House and it is ringing.”

The announcer continues, “Something is happening in the world” asking the listener, “Who do you want answering the phone?”

The answer, of course, is you, Hillary, “someone tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world.”

In fact, as your schedule reveals, you once found yourself in exactly that position. So please, why not share that experience with the world?

(Column continues below)

To refresh your memory, on the night of July 17, 1996, you and Bill attended a gala for the Women’s Leadership Forum of the Democratic National Committee at the Sheraton Washington Hotel.

After working the rope line, at 8:35 p.m. you and Bill left the Sheraton by presidential motorcade.

At 8:31 p.m., however, a few hundred miles away, that hot line was about to start ringing.

Two FAA veterans at the New York Air Route Traffic Control Center had observed a target arching and intersecting with TWA Flight 800 as it headed east off Long Island’s south shore.

The controllers reported what they saw immediately. A manager from that center rushed the radar data to the FAA technical center in Atlantic City for further analysis.

In Atlantic City, a playback of the data was recorded on videotape and plotted onto paper. From there, it was faxed to FAA headquarters in Washington and rushed “immediately” to the White House.

“Holy c–-, this looks bad,” said Ron Schleede of the National Transportation Safety Board upon first seeing the data that “suggested something fast made the turn and took the airplane.”

Obama man Richard Clarke got the message, too. By 9 p.m., he was driving in to the White House to convene a meeting of his security group.

As you know, he did not call such a meeting after the ValuJet crash two months earlier. Clarke was clearly worried.

“I dreaded what I thought was about to happen,” he told us in “Against All Enemies,” “The Eisenhower option.”

Had Iran been behind the downing of TWA Flight 800 – or Iraq for that matter – the president would have had to respond. In fact, Clarke labeled this chapter of his book, “The Almost War, 1996.”

You and Bill arrived at the White House at 8:45 p.m. You were still likely unaware of the incident when you retired to the family residence.

Curiously, when Bill did find out about the disaster, he chose not to join Clarke and the other agency representatives in the White House situation room.

He remained holed up in the family quarters with you. Did he stay there because he needed you by his side during this crisis?

Retired Air Force Lt. Col. Robert “Buzz” Patterson and others have confirmed that the president kept to the family quarters.

Patterson was in a position to know. He carried the nuclear football for the president, and he too was in the White House, though clearly out of the loop.

Patterson is not sure who is in the residence with you. The one person he can tentatively cite is Sandy Berger, the deputy director of the NSA and the kind of guy you could, well, depend on.

All night Sandy and the president gathered information. And we can safely assume you were not baking cookies while they were doing this.

The eyewitness accounts were now confirming what the FAA radar picked up. In time, 270 people along the Long Island coast would eventually tell the FBI that they saw flaming objects streaking up toward the plane, culminating in a series of massive explosions.

Did you see the satellite data? On Oct. 4, 2001, Defense Department satellites equipped with infrared sensors captured a Ukrainian missile striking a Russian airliner 30,000 feet above the Black Sea.

Our government informed Russia within five minutes. After TWA Flight 800’s demise, all satellites were said to be malfunctioning. You could possibly confirm or deny.

Curiously, as you know, Bill’s national security adviser, Tony Lake – and Sandy Berger’s boss – was downstairs in his office during that night.

By 3 a.m. you all had apparently gathered enough information to call Lake with the following message: “Dust off the contingency plans.”

Yes, the Eisenhower Option. But right now, especially on these terms, with the 1996 election comfortably in the bag, war was the last thing you wanted or needed.

Yet for all the peril and intrigue of that first night of near war, one that kept the family quarters humming until at least 3 a.m. – your time to shine – in “Living History,” your 500-plus page memoir, you summarized the entire episode in exactly one-third of one sentence.

You do not even mention your emotionally wrenching day among the victims’ families in Long Island a week later.

Don’t be shy, Hillary. This is a great opportunity to remind us why you are “tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world.” You were there.

——————————————————————————–

Related special offer:

Get Jack Cashill’s groundbreaking exposé, “First Strike: TWA Flight 800 and the Attack on America”

——————————————————————————–

Jack Cashill is an Emmy-award winning independent writer and producer with a Ph.D. in American Studies from Purdue.

——————————————————————————–

——————————————————————————–

E-mail to a Friend Printer-friendly version

EMAIL JACK CASHILL | GO TO JACK CASHILL ARCHIVE

| Page 1 | Page 2 | Commentary | MoneyNetDaily | G2 Bulletin | About Us | Terms of Use | Privacy | Contact Us |
Copyright 1997-2008
All Rights Reserved. WorldNetDaily.com Inc.

Today’s WND
News Highlights
Paper promotes ‘Res-erection’ homo-sex play on Good Friday
Canada orders ministry by Christians shut down
Former police officer: ‘Canada tortured me’
Francis Schaeffer’s son: Dad ‘worse’ than Obama’s pastor
Obama church published Hamas terror manifesto
Clinton-Obama animosity dates back to ‘99
Photo refutes Hillary ’sniper fire’ account
Christian school battles discrimination complaint
Shell exec says world not running out of oil
Anything that grows ‘can convert into oil’
Sandra Day O’Connor justifies prayer limits
Librarian fired for reporting child pornography
Innocent wife and mom spends 5 days in jail
Meet your new daily guide to hard economic times
7 strategic tips for small-business start-ups
Craig R. Smith on Fox News to discuss economy
Bernanke: Federal Reserve caused Great Depression

Today’s WND
Commentary Highlights
Go, go, go with BHO!
- By Joseph Farah
The blame game works both ways
- By Pat Boone
Fired for protecting children?
- By Jonathan Falwell
GOP: Focus on what’s right, not Wright
- By Star Parker
Why I became a conservative
- By Ellis Washington
Time for a Commission on the Status of Freedom
- By Henry Lamb
Easter: A time for 2nd chances
- By Greg Laurie
Hillary: Where were you at 3 a.m. July 18, 1996?
- By Jack Cashill
7 strategic tips for small-business start-ups
- By Karin Abarbanel

General Election: McCain vs. Obama
RCP Average
McCain (R)42.3%Obama (D)47.5%Und9.0%Obama +5.2%

General Election: McCain vs. Clinton
RCP Average
McCain (R)46.0%Clinton (D)47.7%Clinton +1.7%

Obama wins Mississippi primary
Romney says he’d take Veep job
‘They’re attacking me because I’m white’
McCain manager: No more personal attacks
Don’t always stand by your man
The RCP Blog
Obama Wins Mississippi
Ferraro’s Monstrous Remarks
Congressional Vacancies Filling
PA Poll: Clinton +19
Gillibrand: No Choice For Spitzer
Latest Opinion
Is Obama Or Clinton The Better General Election Candidate?
Team Obama: Ready for Prime Time?
Don’t Let Spitzer Get Away with Being Called a Hypocrite
Torture Now a Campaign Issue
Culture Wars? How 2004.
Related Opinion
An Open Letter to the Candidates
Panel Analyzes Times/McCain Story
Questions For John McCain
Panel Discusses Clinton’s Superdelegate Defections
Clinton Has a Chance to the Right of Obama
Related Topics
clinton
election 2008
foreign policy
obama
Election 2008 Democrats | Republicans | General Election: Heads-to-Heads | Latest Polls

SEND TO A FRIEND | PRINT ARTICLE | Comments

——————————————————————————–
March 11, 2008
Senator Clinton’s Claims of Foreign Policy Experience Are Exaggerated
By Greg Craig

To: Interested Parties

From: Greg Craig, former director, Policy Planning Office, U.S. State Department

RE: Senator Clinton’s claim to be experienced in foreign policy: Just words?

DA: March 11, 2008

When your entire campaign is based upon a claim of experience, it is important that you have evidence to support that claim. Hillary Clinton’s argument that she has passed “the Commander- in-Chief test” is simply not supported by her record.

There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton played an important domestic policy role when she was First Lady. It is well known, for example, that she led the failed effort to pass universal health insurance. There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue - not at 3 AM or at any other time of day.

When asked to describe her experience, Senator Clinton has cited a handful of international incidents where she says she played a central role. But any fair-minded and objective judge of these claims - i.e., by someone not affiliated with the Clinton campaign - would conclude that Senator Clinton’s claims of foreign policy experience are exaggerated.

Northern Ireland:

Senator Clinton has said, “I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland.” It is a gross overstatement of the facts for her to claim even partial credit for bringing peace to Northern Ireland. She did travel to Northern Ireland, it is true. First Ladies often travel to places that are a focus of U.S. foreign policy. But at no time did she play any role in the critical negotiations that ultimately produced the peace. As the Associated Press recently reported, “[S]he was not directly involved in negotiating the Good Friday peace accord.” With regard to her main claim that she helped bring women together, she did participate in a meeting with women, but, according to those who know best, she did not play a pivotal role. The person in charge of the negotiations, former Senator George Mitchell, said that “[The First Lady] was one of many people who participated in encouraging women to get involved, not the only one.”

News of Senator Clinton’s claims has raised eyebrows across the ocean. Her reference to an important meeting at the Belfast town hall was debunked. Her only appearance at the Belfast City Hall was to see Christmas lights turned on. She also attended a 50-minute meeting which, according to the Belfast Daily Telegraph’s report at the time, “[was] a little bit stilted, a little prepared at times.” Brian Feeney, an Irish author and former politician, sums it up: “The road to peace was carefully documented, and she wasn’t on it.”

Bosnia:

Senator Clinton has pointed to a March 1996 trip to Bosnia as proof that her foreign travel involved a life-risking mission into a war zone. She has described dodging sniper fire. While she did travel to Bosnia in March 1996, the visit was not a high-stakes mission to a war zone. On March 26, 1996, the New York Times reported that “Hillary Rodham Clinton charmed American troops at a U.S.O. show here, but it didn’t hurt that the singer Sheryl Crow and the comedian Sinbad were also on the stage.”

Kosovo:

Senator Clinton has said, “I negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo.” It is true that, as First Lady, she traveled to Macedonia and visited a Kosovar refugee camp. It is also true that she met with government officials while she was there. First Ladies frequently meet with government officials. Her claim to have “negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo,” however, is not true. Her trip to Macedonia took place on May 14, 1999. The borders were opened the day before, on May 13, 1999.

The negotiations that led to the opening of the borders were accomplished by the people who ordinarily conduct negotiations with foreign governments - U.S. diplomats. President Clinton’s top envoy to the Balkans, former Ambassador Robert Gelbard, said, “I cannot recall any involvement by Senator Clinton in this issue.” Ivo Daalder worked on the Clinton Administration’s National Security Council and wrote a definitive history of the Kosovo conflict. He recalls that “she had absolutely no role in the dirty work of negotiations.”

Rwanda:

Last year, former President Clinton asserted that his wife pressed him to intervene with U.S. troops to stop the Rwandan genocide. When asked about this assertion, Hillary Clinton said it was true. There is no evidence, however, to suggest that this ever happened. Even those individuals who were advocating a much more robust U.S. effort to stop the genocide did not argue for the use of U.S. troops. No one recalls hearing that Hillary Clinton had any interest in this course of action. Based on a fair and thorough review of National Security Council deliberations during those tragic months, there is no evidence to suggest that U.S. military intervention was ever discussed. Prudence Bushnell, the Assistant Secretary of State with responsibility for Africa, has recalled that there was no consideration of U.S. military intervention.

At no time prior to her campaign for the presidency did Senator Clinton ever make the claim that she supported intervening militarily to stop the Rwandan genocide. It is noteworthy that she failed to mention this anecdote - urging President Clinton to intervene militarily in Rwanda - in her memoirs. President Clinton makes no mention of such a conversation with his wife in his memoirs. And Madeline Albright, who was Ambassador to the United Nations at the time, makes no mention of any such event in her memoirs.

Hillary Clinton did visit Rwanda in March 1998 and, during that visit, her husband apologized for America’s failure to do more to prevent the genocide.

China:

Senator Clinton also points to a speech that she delivered in Beijing in 1995 as proof of her ability to answer a 3 AM crisis phone call. It is strange that Senator Clinton would base her own foreign policy experience on a speech that she gave over a decade ago, since she so frequently belittles Barack Obama’s speeches opposing the Iraq War six years ago. Let there be no doubt: she gave a good speech in Beijing, and she stood up for women’s rights. But Senator Obama’s opposition to the War in Iraq in 2002 is relevant to the question of whether he, as Commander-in-Chief, will make wise judgments about the use of military force. Senator Clinton’s speech in Beijing is not.

Senator Obama’s speech opposing the war in Iraq shows independence and courage as well as good judgment. In the speech that Senator Clinton says does not qualify him to be Commander in Chief, Obama criticized what he called “a rash war . . . a war based not on reason, but on passion, not on principle, but on politics.” In that speech, he said prophetically: “[E]ven a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.” He predicted that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would “fan the flames of the Middle East,” and “strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda.” He urged the United States first to “finish the fight with Bin Laden and al Qaeda.”

If the U.S. government had followed Barack Obama’s advice in 2002, we would have avoided one of the greatest foreign policy catastrophes in our nation’s history. Some of the most “experienced” men in national security affairs - Vice President Cheney and Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others - led this nation into that catastrophe. That lesson should teach us something about the value of judgment over experience. Longevity in Washington, D.C. does not guarantee either wisdom of judgment.

Conclusion:

The Clinton campaign’s argument is nothing more than mere assertion, dramatized in a scary television commercial with a telephone ringing in the middle of the night. There is no support for or substance in the claim that Senator Clinton has passed “the Commander-in-Chief test.” That claim - as the TV ad - consists of nothing more than making the assertion, repeating it frequently to the voters and hoping that they will believe it.

On the most critical foreign policy judgment of our generation - the War in Iraq - Senator Clinton voted in support of a resolution entitled “The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of U.S. Military Force Against Iraq.” As she cast that vote, she said: “This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make - any vote that may lead to war should be hard - but I cast it with conviction.” In this campaign, Senator Clinton has argued - remarkably - that she wasn’t actually voting for war, she was voting for diplomacy. That claim is no more credible than her other claims of foreign policy experience. The real tragedy is that we are still living with the terrible consequences of her misjudgment. The Bush Administration continues to cite that resolution as its authorization - like a blank check - to fight on with no end in sight.

Barack Obama has a very simple case. On the most important commander in chief test of our generation, he got it right, and Senator Clinton got it wrong. In truth, Senator Obama has much more foreign policy experience than either Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan had when they were elected. Senator Obama has worked to confront 21st century challenges like proliferation and genocide on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He possesses the personal attributes of a great leader - an even temperament, an open-minded approach to even the most challenging problems, a willingness to listen to all views, clarity of vision, the ability to inspire, conviction and courage.

And Barack Obama does not use false charges and exaggerated claims to play politics with national security.

——————————————————————————–
Sphere: Related Content | Email | Print | Comments

——————————————————————————–

Related Topics: clinton | election 2008 | foreign policy | obama |
Sponsored Links

Login | Register | RSS
Greg Craig
Author Archive Latest From this Author
Senator Clinton’s Claims of Foreign Policy Experience Are Exaggerated
About Us | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy © RealClearPolitics 2008