• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Hillary as Secretary Of State? Change?

BeAChooser

Banned
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
11,716
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/clinton-to-accept-secretary-of-state-job/?hp

November 21, 2008, 2:35 pm

Clinton Is Said to Opt for Secretary of State Position

By Peter Baker


Hillary Rodham Clinton has decided to give up her Senate seat and accept the position of secretary of state, making her the public face around the world for the administration of the man who beat her for the Democratic presidential nomination, two confidants said Friday.

... snip ...

As secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton will have a powerful platform to travel the world and help repair relations with other countries strained after eight years of President Bush’s policies.

... snip ...

Mrs. Clinton would bring a distinctive background to the State Department. As first lady, she traveled the world for eight years, visiting more than 80 countries, not only meeting with foreign leaders but also villages, clinics and other remote areas that rarely get on a president’s itinerary.

Consider this, folks ...

Hillary was co-President (that's what Clinton called her) during an administration that saw over 100 people flee the United States just to avoid questioning in a scandal (called both Chinagate and also CampaignFinanceGate) involving the selling of access to US secrets and technology in exchange for millions of dollars in illegal foreign campaign contributions ... much of it from Red China. Hillary was directly implicated by Johnny Chung in receiving some of the illegal funds (in brown paper bags, no less). Nolanda Hill testified that Ron Brown, who was killed in a plane crash during a trade mission to Bosnia, admitted to her that Hillary Clinton conceived of the scheme to sell trade mission seats.

Hillary was directly implicated in a scheme (called FileGate) to illegally access thousands of raw FBI data files on political opponents (mostly republicans) and illegally transfer that information into DNC computer data bases (presumably for use in blackmailing and smearing those opponents). She publicly denied knowing Craig Livingstone who was head of White House Security at the time and who was involved in obtaining the files from the FBI. Yet there are numerous photos of her in friendly and close proximity to Livingstone and there is sworn testimony by an FBI agent that Nussbaum said Livingstone was recommended for the job by Hillary. Deborah Perroy, a White House staffer, also testified to this. And Livingstone himself later admitted she hired him. Yet Hillary claimed she didn't even know him.

Sworn testimony also indicates Hillary was the mastermind behind this highly illegal scheme (FileGate) and was present at many points during the transfer of the material to the DNC and White House computers. Linda Tripp testified she overheard William Kennedy, former Rose Law Firm partner of Hillary Clinton and then associate White House counsel, and Marsha Scott, the first lady's confidante, discussing Hillary Clinton's plan to share the FBI files on a computer database with the Democratic National Committee.

To this day we don't know what happened to the material that was transferred to those computers. We only know that Kennedy even took FBI files home (another violation of the law, by the way) and was seen loading them onto his laptop at the kitchen table (according to sworn testimony by his wife). In fact, according to Special Prosecutor Ray, the illegal files were still in White House hands years after Kenneth Starr told the public they'd been returned to the FBI.

And just to illustrate how serious this scandal really was, prior to Filegate a person went to jail for 10 years for illegally accessing a single FBI file. Of course, under the Clinton DOJ (what a misnomer), no one went to jail even lost their job, and Hillary was hardly even questioned.

Hillary was directly implicated in a coverup involving the possible murder of Vince Foster. The day Vince Foster was found dead, it was Livingstone who was dispatched to the morgue along with Associate White House Counsel Bill Kennedy to identify Foster's body. Circumstantial evidence certainly suggests Livingstone planted Foster's car keys in one of Foster's pants pockets during the morgue visit. The keys were retrieved later by Park Police who had already searched Foster's pockets at the scene and found nothing. Livingstone was also spotted at the White House the next morning by Secret Service agent Bruce Abbott, who claims he saw Livingstone and an unidentified partner removing a box of files and a briefcase from an area near Foster's office. It is known for a fact that her personal secretary went into Foster's office after his body was found and it was sealed by Park Police to remove boxes of material. Hillary was also the one of the first to see the so-called suicide note and there is testimony that she ordered staff not to tell Bill about it.

And of course, that isn't all. I could list MANY other scandals she was personally involved in both before, during and after Clinton's Presidency.

Yet this women is going to be Secretary of State? Oh yeah, CHANGE. :rolleyes:
 
Poor Vincent Foster. If he had known his corpse was going to be gnawed by zombies, he might have picked a more secretive way to commit suicide.
 
Why, was she Secretary of State before? If not, then yes, it's a "change."

I've heard similar defense statements before by Obama supporters, when his appointments up to this point have been criticized for being too "inside the beltway".

I think that the majority of Obama supporters were looking for genuine change in the way executive branch politics and politics in general are done, not just a simplistic change of personnel.

I fear that Obama will give supporters a bit of a letdown if his "change" only involves nameplates and business cards.
 
I think that the majority of Obama supporters were looking for genuine change in the way executive branch politics and politics in general are done, not just a simplistic change of personnel.

And you don't think having Democrats in the Cabinet would be a change from the way George W. has been doing things?
 
Clinton era retreads are all over the Change. There hasn't been one bold selection yet that has made anyone go "wow, things are really shaking". I don't envy Obama. The economy has been relentlessly talked down for 8 years and it happened - we have flipped over to the lose-lose Nash equilibrium (Prisoners Dilemma). What's it going to take to move back to the win-win equilibrium?

It might take 8 years to bring the economy back, and he only has 4 to make Change. If the game hasn't Changed much in 4 years, he will have to deal with a tough reelection and massive democrat losses in Congress.

I've got to go now and fill out my bank holding company application to get in line for my TARP CPP bailout money :)

Application for TARP CPP
 
And of course, that isn't all. I could list MANY other scandals she was personally involved in both before, during and after Clinton's Presidency.
Please do. We are fascinated.
Yet this women is going to be Secretary of State? Oh yeah, CHANGE.
Clearly, you haven't seen the connection:

Circumstantial evidence certainly suggests Livingstone planted Foster's car keys in one of Foster's pants pockets during the morgue visit.

The planting of the car keys were simply a ploy to cover up Livingstone stealing Foster's...CHANGE.

A quarter, two nickels, and four pennies, for anyone interested.
 
I've heard similar defense statements before by Obama supporters, when his appointments up to this point have been criticized for being too "inside the beltway".
Look, if you take the same players but add a new coach and a new playbook you may end up with dramatically different results. Or if you take the same computer and load new software.
I think that the majority of Obama supporters were looking for genuine change in the way executive branch politics and politics in general are done, not just a simplistic change of personnel.
I think the majority of Obama supporters are looking for a return to the high growth, low unemployment, effective foreign policy, budget surplus days of the Clinton administration. Give me 5% unemployment, 3% growth, 13000 DJIA, and budget surpluses and I don't care if you call it "change", "more of the same", or "tomato soup". I'm in.

I fear that Obama will give supporters a bit of a letdown if his "change" only involves nameplates and business cards.
The average citizen probably can't name a single Bush cabinet officer. I think people are looking for results, not names. Get them affordable, accessible health care and they won't care if it comes from Hillary, Barack, Daschle, or Oprah.
 
Why, was she Secretary of State before? If not, then yes, it's a "change."

So Cleon, I take it you aren't going to argue that any of the facts I noted about Hillary's involvement in Chinagage, Filegate or FosterGate are wrong?
 
I think the majority of Obama supporters are looking for a return to the high growth, low unemployment, effective foreign policy, budget surplus days of the Clinton administration.

Well in that case, the next four years may be a BIG disappointment.

Because you don't create growth through welfare, socialism and communism. What you get is an illusion that in the end collapses.

And you won't bring honesty to our foreign policy by putting a basically dishonest person (meaning Hillary) in charge of that foreign policy.
 
Well in that case, the next four years may be a BIG disappointment.
Quite possibly. I have high expectations. The question is, if Obama doesn't turn out to be the boogyman you predict and is successful in cleaning up the messes left by Bush, will you be happy or disappointed? How far does your hatred of Obama go?

Because you don't create growth through welfare, socialism and communism. What you get is an illusion that in the end collapses.
Good. Since Obama is not advocating any of those solutions.

Oh, and BTW. You also don't create wealth through allowing the free market to create opaque financial instruments that no one understands and trade them in a giant pyramid scheme that finally collapses like a house of cards. Or are you still arguing that the feds put a gun to the mortgage originator's heads and forced them to make these risky loans, rather than placing the blame where most of it belongs, on the people who made billions repackaging and reselling these loans?
And you won't bring honesty to our foreign policy by putting a basically dishonest person (meaning Hillary) in charge of that foreign policy.
Hillary is a politician. No more or less honest than most, IMHO. Putting an honest person like Colin Powell in the job certainly didn't avoid the use of the office to spread lies.
 
Last edited:
I am disappointed in her being chosen as Secretary of State... for a couple of reasons... mainly because I don't find her very charismatic or persuasive, and I think we need better, but also because it means more Clinton bashing. I'm just tired of rehashing the same old discredited stories. I was looking forward to her exit from presidential politics.
 

Back
Top Bottom