No Answers Are Good Answers
By Richard H Collins Posted in Archived — Comments (21) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Say what you will about Meet the Press host Tim Russert, but he proved to be an effective moderator for Wednesday’s Democratic debate in New Hampshire. He wasn’t afraid to challenge the candidates on the issues and force them to defend their policies and statements.
And by using a creative hypothetical he caught Hillary Clinton in a bind. Not surprisingly she said what she thought the audience wanted to hear. She even managed a nice comeback line. The only problem was her answer didn’t mesh with her previous statements. This will not come as a surprise to anyone familiar with her history. The truth is that Hillary has a long record of instinctive responses that sound good but turn out to be untrue or contradictory after further investigation.
Shocking, I know. But read on . . .
In discussing the issue of torture as a tactic in the war on terror, Russert raised an interesting hypothetical that had been offered by a guest on his program. We have captured the number three man in Al Qaeda; a bomb is set to go off somewhere in the country; and we know he knows where it is. Wouldn’t we, the guest argued, have an obligation to “beat it out of him?”
Hillary responded that torture "cannot be American policy, period." Russert than sprang the trap he had set: the guest who had offered that scenario? Her husband, Bill Clinton. The former first lady had a ready quip when presented with this surprise: “Well, he isn’t standing here right now.” And when pressed on whether this meant she disagreed with her husband, she responded “Well, I’ll talk to him later.”
Hillary’s response drew applause, but in substance it was a change from her previous position. The New York Daily News pointed out that her response conflicts with the answer she gave them last October. When questioned about a “ticking time bomb” scenario then she seemed to indicate that a narrow exception was possible:
"In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the President, and the President must be held accountable," she said.
Hillary has been fighting to project a tough demeanor to convince voters that she can handle the role of Commander in Chief. And it is likely that the way she answered last October was part of this strategy to project a “whatever it takes” attitude about the war on terror.
On Wednesday, however, her fellow candidates were all forcefully rejecting torture as an option. Perhaps fearing that she had already ducked too many questions (responding to Syria, her Iraq vote, Social Security, etc.), and not wanting to appear equivocal, she gave her full-throated rejection of torture without thinking that it contradicted her previous statements on the issue.
Her quick response to Russert’s surprise seemed to go over well with both the audience and with media pundits, but it once again highlights a less flattering trait than her sense of humor. Hillary is all too quick to respond with an answer that makes her look good at the expense of the truth.
Few may recall the controversy and scandal that rocked the first years of Bill’s administration and even fewer may be aware that a great deal of the problems were caused or exacerbated by Hillary. Whether it was Travelgate, Whitewater billing records, the Health Care debacle, or any other of the innumerable early stumbles, Hillary regularly shaded the truth and held back information. This tendency caused suspicion and distrust amongst the media and White House staff and acerbated an already shaky start for the new president.
Tellingly her memoirs are also laughably slanted even by the low standards of that genre. Quite simply her natural instinct is to withhold information and attack anyone who questions her. She may try to hide this by laughing whenever a question is raised, or by offering deadpan one-liners, but it is clear that Hillary shares her husbands seeming inability to offer a straight answer.
The question is whether she will share his remarkable ability to get away with it. For the sake of the country, let’s hop not.
Richard H. Collins is the founder of StopHerNow.com, a website dedicated to educating the public about Hillary Clinton’s liberal record.
is that her campaign won the spin on this exchange.
The fact that the answer itself is itself inconsistent with those previous has no effect because she is rarely held accountable in that regard. Its only being brought up as an issue among those of us on the right who would never consider her anyway. So far it appearsthat she is able to get away with it, or at least that the lefty media is very willing to help... no surprise there
Though I would say that one conceivable victory for us out of this one is that she had to distance herself from her husband. That could weaken her position with those who like Bill but are lukewarm about her, and might cast their vote (foolishly) thinking that he'd really be in charge of the administration.
That's essentially what's happened. As I said here, that exchange won't soon go away.
In fact, I'll venture another guess: This will get Hillary into real trouble because people might just ask her if she'd like to correct her mistake. Knowing her stubbornness, there isn't a chance that she'll admit that she made a mistake.
My dad taught me a saying that's now a family cliche: "Stupidity is what gets us in trouble; pride is what keeps us there." I think that cliche fits this situation perfectly.
we need to nominate a candidate who will take no prisoners and who recognizes that the Democratic candidates are, to a person, on the side of our enemies in the war on terror.
Give me a candidate who take that statement and beat the Senator literally to death with it.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Her Rose Law firm years and Whitewater proves she is a crook and staying with her philandering husband just for the sake of her political career proves she is a whore. As such, lying would seem to be a necessity, not an option.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
- whore
Please don't call her that. It's, erm, not classy. In the future please refer to her as a "politician."
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
an entire acknowledged class of professionals with your inference.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Ratchet it back a couple of notches.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
all you have to do is point out the error of my ways. Sometimes I just get caught up in the moment and lose all perspective and your guidance is not only needed but appreciated. Thank you.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I'm not asking you to be nice. I am asking you not to say things about people (even Hillary Clinton) that you can't back up.
A different word choice would have been more appropriate here.
in that none of the allegations were ever proven in court. Kinda like calling OJ a murderer I guess.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
You know I was talking about the other word. I thought you didn't need to be hit over the head with stuff like this. Was I wrong?
I'd like to see any candidate say, "If we were absolutely certain that Person X had information that could lead to preventing a WMD from going off in an American city in short order, I would support torturing Person X's wife and kids right in front of him to get that information if that's what it took to save American lives. Saving innocent Americans from a foreign enemy is the #1 job of the Commander in Chief. Whiney trial lawyers at the ACLU, bureaucrats at the UN, and editorial writers at the New York Times may disagree, but their position is suicidally naive." Then stand back and watch the left stammer, sputter, and spit with incoherent rage as they try to parse their indefensible position in this exact scenario.
This is the level of clear-headed ferocity we will need to survive against an enemy who is doing everything in their power to kill millions of us.
She's more evasive than Amadinejad.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
...he is frequently yhe lesser of many evils in the MSM. I'll never forget the time he made Nancy Pelosi cry.
--
"We want great men who, when fortune frowns, will not be discouraged." - Colonel Henry Knox
...the same MTP where Nancy Nostradamus guaranteed a Kerry victory.
After hitting Pelosi with several questions that caught her off guard because they weren't appropriately fawning, Russert shared DeLay's quote that Pelosi was "...so caught up in partisan hatred for President Bush that her words are putting American lives at risk."
Pelosi responded, "I made the statement that I did, and I think with great courage." Her tears may have been self-congratulatory, or just poorly re-constructed tear ducts from her plastic surgery, but I think they were more attributable to her inability to face criticism.
--
"We want great men who, when fortune frowns, will not be discouraged." - Colonel Henry Knox
it's scary when presidential candidates can't answer them.
You're faced with a very threatening situation. What do you do?
Option A. Some terrorist might get a few bruises.
Option B. Over a million innocent people get radioactively incinerated.
This should not be a hard question to answer.
So what's different about the Hillary as first lady, Hillary as a senator, and Hillary the candidate? She (and her husband) have been blessed with keenly deceptive peronalities. Not only are they deft at deflecting critical questions at critical points, but they have facial expression that are magnets for sympathy. Whether it's biting lips, or rolling eyes, or giving that slanted look of surprise, they are deft at deflecting attention from the real issue. Look at how she handled the questions regarding contributions to the Clinton Library. Why should we not be interested in who is contributing to the Clinton Foundation? This is money flowing to their family interst; she's running for president; and yet suddenly, this is off limits. And then the ex President states that he'd only be intersted in divulging future contributors, since the previous ones did so assuming their names would be kept anonymous. Oh really? Flash to Bill, all the big money flowed in in the early days; that's where the skeltons are hidden.