Hillary’s “Experienced Leadership”
January 2nd, 2008 at 02:10am Mark Noonan
From Powerline:
Sunday morning, ABC’s This Week ran an interview George Stephanopoulos had done with Sen. Clinton on Friday.
The interview produced this gem:
Referring to a possible delay in the elections, Sen. Clinton said: “I think it will be very difficult to have a real election. You know, Nawaz Sharif [leader of the PML-N, an opposition party] has said he’s not going to compete. The PPP is in disarray with Benazir’s assassination. He [President Pervez Musharraf] could be the only person on the ballot. I don’t think that’s a real election.”
And then it hit me:
Sen. Clinton really didn’t know that the upcoming elections were for individual seats in Pakistan’s parliament. She actually believed that Bhutto, Nawaz and Musharraf would be facing off as individual candidates for leadership of the country in the upcoming elections.
Sen. Clinton didn’t know that Nawaz Sharif isn’t allowed to run for office in Pakistan because of a felony conviction. She didn’t know that President Musharraf won’t be on the ballot because he’s already been elected.
Sen. Clinton, a candidate for the leadership of the free world, apparently doesn’t know the first thing about the country referred to by some as “the most dangerous place on earth.”
To be sure, probably not one American in a hundred knows the ins and outs of Pakistani politics. But Hillary Clinton isn’t one in a hundred - she is aspiring to be one in three hundred million. She has a vast staff able to keep her informed of all the crucial issues of the day, but as Powerline notes, that quoted bit was the second time she referred to a mythical Presidential election in Pakistan. Once is an excusable error - twice is evidence that Hillary just doesn’t care what is happening in Pakistan.
Why does this matter? Because in a little more than a year, Hillary might be getting sworn in as President of the United States and thus it is her basic duty to keep well-informed of major global events. She doesn’t need to know who is Prime Minister of Croatia, but she does need to know the details of the crucial issues. Pakistan is a crucial issue - everyone who is running for President should be up to speed on what is going there.
The indication here is that Hillary is just entirely focused on the act of becoming President - and indicators indicate that this is all she’s done since some time in 1999. People who get that obsessed about a goal are in an unhealthy state of mind. The very state of mind which should make a person entirely disqualified for a position of power.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, Foreign Affairs, War on Terror
9 Comments
1. Huck Fillary | January 2nd, 2008 at 4:34 am
I see a “botched joke” excuse coming…
2. extramedium | January 2nd, 2008 at 4:41 am
“…Hillary might be getting sworn in as President of the United States and thus it is her basic duty to keep well-informed of major global events. She doesn’t need to know who is Prime Minister of Croatia, but she does need to know the details of the crucial issues.”
You’ve got a point there. We’ve already seen with Iraq what can happen when a President invades a country without a basic understanding of their internal politics and culture - a total disaster that we’ll be babysitting for 20 years.
3. Huck Fillary | January 2nd, 2008 at 4:55 am
Ah, extramedium, just when I thought there was hope for you. What should we have done, wait this tyrant out? Like Carter and Clinton did with Arafat?
You may not like reading this, but when Kay put out his report on Saddam’s WMD, or lack thereof, he also reported that Saddam had full intention of reinstituting his WMD and nuclear programs as soon as the sanctions were lifted. IOW, Saddam was “waiting us out.”
Do ya really think dipolmacy and weapons inspections would’ve worked? Maybe, if the U.N. weren’t in charge of the inspections, but they were in bed with Saddam–Oil For Food.
Yeah, Iraq’s gonna be a “mess” for years to come. But what was it before the invasion, Disney World?
4. extramedium | January 2nd, 2008 at 5:15 am
Let me try to make the same point in a less contentious way. Mitt Romney is facing the same sort of criticism leveled by Mark and he responds:
Likewise, I don’t think anyone would say that Bush was a foreign policy expert coming into the presidency but he’s revered here as a visionary statesman.
I don’t like Hillary either, but Mark’s assertion is unfair.
5. Kahn | January 2nd, 2008 at 5:50 am
extra, well that makes it allright then. Claiming one of our candidates is as stupid as Hillary.
6. js | January 2nd, 2008 at 7:55 am
Oh, look, Billary won another award!!
Judicial Watch Announces List of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” for 2007
http://www.judicialwatch.org/judicial-watch-announces-list-washington-s-ten-most-wanted-corrupt-politicians-2007
Quit a few others of interest as well…..
7. neocon | January 2nd, 2008 at 10:09 am
extra,
For a candidate who claims to have extensive international experience, wouldn’t it be expected that she know a little more about Pakistan politics?
I found the following from Michael Moore:
>>>Her inauguration would be a thrilling sight, ending 218 years of white male rule in a country where 51% of its citizens are female and 64% are either female or people of color.<<<
Evidently, race and gender are qualifiers for Michael. The article is great insight into the distorted thinking of the left.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm
8. kjstrouble | January 2nd, 2008 at 10:53 am
js - loved the Judicial Watch link. They cover both parties, which is only fair. Reading the ones on the Dems reminded me of a book I purchased earlier this year “Caucus of Corruption”. Very good reading.
9. tom | January 3rd, 2008 at 1:54 am
With the major focus on the middle east for the next 10-20 years. With thier cultures treating women with no respect, I am wondering how they would treat a woman as president in the US?