Friday, October 12, 2007

Politics of Attack

As much as I dislike Hillary Clinton, there comes a time to display just how slimy the media can get when they dislike her. She was asked whether or not she would sanction the use of torture and the Washington Post referenced her reply thusly,

Clinton was similarly vague about how she would handle special interrogation methods used by the CIA. She said that while she does not condone torture, so much has been kept secret that she would not know unless elected what other extreme measures interrogators are using, and therefore could not say whether she would change or continue existing policies.

"It is not clear yet exactly what this administration is or isn't doing. We're getting all kinds of mixed messages," Clinton said. "I don't think we'll know the truth until we have a new president. I think [until] you can get in there and actually bore into what's been going on, you're not going to know."

Doesn’t sound very definitive, does she? Here’s what she actually said.

Well I think I’ve been very clear about that too, we should not conduct or condone torture and it is not clear yet exactly what this administration is or isn’t doing, we’re getting all kinds of mixed messages. I don’t think we’ll know the truth until we have a new President. I think once you can get in there and actually bore into what’s been going on, you’re not going to know. I was very touched by the story you guys had on the front page the other day about the WWII interrogators. I mean it's not the same situation but it was a very clear rejection of what we think we know about what is going on right now but I want to know everything, and so I think we have to draw a bright line and say ‘No torture – abide by the Geneva conventions, abide by the laws we have passed,' and then try to make sure we implement that.

Considerably different than the ”Clinton was similarly vague” as reported by the Post, isn’t it.

But notice that she devoted 53 words to answering the question and 111 words attacking a sitting president against whom she is not and will not be running. The only answer that was needed was the first 17 words. The final 36 words were also on point, but the rest of it was in no way responsive to the question that she was asked.

This is her style, though: attack politics. Never open your mouth without attacking someone. She criticizes “the right” for their attacks on the S-CHIP representative, but no one in politics is more ruthlessly and continuously on the attack than Hillary Clinton. Asked what she will do, she spends more time attacking the sitting president than she does telling us what she will do, and then there are complaints when her answer about her projected action gets lost in the din of her attack politics.

Had she answered that question with nothing more than the initial 17 words it would have been difficult to misquote or twist her words against her later.

It’s by no means unusual that her answers do not, in fact, answer the question at all but actually consist of nothing other than her attack politics methodology. If she doesn’t like the question, she will attack the person who asked it, as the guy in the audience found out not too long ago.

Who else do we know as an attacker, who accuses lack of patriotism if one disagrees with him?

Hillary supporters have accused me of disliking her because of the machinations of the “right wing smear machine” but such is not the case. I dislike her because I have heard her speak. I fear her because I have heard her speak.

She is not only an attacker, coldly calculating and ruthlessly ambitious in her lust for power, she is relentlessly vindictive. We had one of those in the White House, manipulating the president, for more than six years.

We do not need one of those being the president for the next four years.

No comments:

Post a Comment