Now most of the folks reading this (presently just me, my lady, and that odd fellow that stumbles quite by accident into this forbidden corner of the blogosphere and goes 'Wha?') have heard probably more times than they ever wanted to hear, about the vaunted Hillary Clinton Foreign Policy credentials. Other than the Crowe/Sinbad affair (which was ludicrous, lets be frank), one of the key citations from Hillaryland is the Northern Ireland Peace process.
Before gleefully diving into this post, which is just itching to be written, let me give full credit to Jay McDonough over at Swimming Freestyle, for bringing this story to light, and where I'd actually read it.
But boy, do I have news for you. Or perhaps you already knew and the Raconteur was the last to find out. As it turns out, the people that actually negotiated the Irish Peace process say she really didn't have much to do with the 'peace process' part of her being in Northern Ireland.
According to an article in the Telegraph, a UK Newspaper, Lord Trimble, a Nobel Prize winner with the Ulster Unionist Party, and formerly First Minister of the province, Ms. Clinton's statements as to her having a direct role in the peace process were a "wee bit silly".
Some enlightening quotes from the article itself (which I highly recommend one read):"I don’t know there was much she did apart from accompanying Bill [Clinton] going around."
"I don’t want to rain on the thing for her but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player." - Lord Trimble.
A few more:"...Whether she was involved on the issue side I think probably not." - Conall McDevitt, an SDLP negotiator
"[Mrs Clinton was] a cheerleader for the Irish republican side of the argument." - Steven King, Ulster negotiator.
Putting this into perspective, there is no doubt in my mind that HRC played a positive role in the Irish Peace process. I am fairly certain that the work, and time, she invested into that affair had some positive results.
The point here, however, is the deliberate and manipulative manner in which that positive yet negligible role has been presented by the Clinton camp. The point here is that in attempting to draw more credit for her work there than she rightly deserves, Ms. Clinton is hailing back to the good old Rovian tactics that have plagued the political arena for the last decade and more.
It's absolutely shameful, not to mention deceitful and unethical, for a candidate running for office at the highest level should resort to such deliberate and ruthless distortion of facts in order to have themselves shined upon in a better light.
Just something the Billary proponents out there might want to think about: Do you really want someone like THIS in the Whitehouse? More poignant a question, perhaps, of all times for it to happen, after eight years of Dubya's incompetent, talking-to-god style presidency, do you really need more of this sort of thing NOW?
This incident, from an observer's point of view, really underlines what the Clinton Machine has been all about.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Hillary's Foreign Policy Experience Fraud
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Really, all I see quoted here is -opinion- and not fact.
I'd like to see something a bit more concrete with regards to her involvement or lack thereof.
While I'm not defending HRC and claiming she hasn't misrepresented the role (both the size and the validity of it) she played in the NIPP, I -am- really growing weary of sensationalizing showy opinions rather than digging up hardcore facts to back them up.
It's sloppy. It's lazy. It's unprofessional.
It's jumping on a bandwagon!
You, my darling, can do better. Much better.
You ain't no bandwagoneer, baby.
HRC was just a cheerleader for bill at the NIPP, was she? Hrmm.
I can imagine Hilary's response, actually...although not wearing a majorette uniform, no. "I heard that you were talking shit and you didn't think that I would hear it.
People hear you talking like that, getting everybody fired up..."
Meanwhile, her staff clusters around her in support, "Let me hear you say this shit is bananas!"
"B-A-N-A-N-A-S!"
Yeah. Um. Anyway. Whatever else the criticisms might be, Hilary -does- have a wealth of experience in diplomacy, policy making, and did a lot of good work. Given the histories of all candidates, I would say this is a fairly level playing field - close numbers in regards to years served within the American senate, etc.
Well first off, on hardcore proof.
It's a bit of a mangle, because the only way to prove (to whatever extent) the validity of statements along the lines of "I did this while I was working that over there" is to ask the other participants to backup the claim.
It's not as if she or anyone from the US were direct participants in any written accord or agreement that had to do with the core terms of the peace.
In that context, I think people like the gentlemen mention in that article are pretty authentic sources, and at least to me, it's very difficult to support the idea that she had anything substantial to do with the NIPP if the actual participants/negotiators on either side claim otherwise.
On the policy experience thing though... It's never been my contention that Senator Clinton is inexperienced. That's not really on debate here.
What provokes posts like these is the claim (infinitely repeated, by the by) by the Clinton camp, to superior policy experience, which hasn't been substantiated, and attempts do so go along the lines of false claims such as this NIPP thing which she's tagging onto her resume.
If the statement were: Senator Clinton has policy experience.
Then that's just fine.
However, the statement is: Senator Clinton has policy experience, furthermore, she has much greater policy experience than her counterpart, to the extent that even the Republican nominee is more capable of handling the job than her Democratic opponent, and in citation of Senator Clinton's experience, we present the NIPP (among others) in which she played an integral role.
Now THAT statement... just isn't factually accurate.
Post a Comment