Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 2:52 PM ET, 03/17/2008

Hillary's Balkan Adventures

By Michael Dobbs


Visiting refugee camp in Macedonia, May 1999.

."There is no doubt that I played a major role in many of the foreign policy decisions."

--Hillary Clinton, interview with NPR, March 13, 2008.

Hillary Clinton has cited her experiences as First Lady as preparation for those 3 a.m. phone calls that she expects to receive as commander-in-chief. It is true that she traveled to some eighty foreign countries, including troublespots like Northern Ireland, the Balkans, and Rwanda. But did she play a "major role" in the foreign policy decision-making of the Clinton administration, as she has been claiming on the campaign trail?

The Obama campaign has accused the New York senator of "gross overstatements." The Clinton camp has responded with "fact sheets" defending her record on northern Ireland and Kosovo.

Let's try to sort it all out.

The Facts

I dealt with Clinton's claim to have been "intimately involved" in the northern Ireland peace process a few weeks ago in this posting. The former northern Ireland peace negotiator, George Mitchell, told me that Clinton was "not involved directly" in the diplomatic negotiations that led to the landmark April 1998 Good Friday agreement on power-sharing. On the other hand, Mitchell credited Clinton with taking an intelligent interest in the issues and getting acquainted with many of the key players.

A former northern Ireland chief minister, David Trimble, described Clinton as a "cheerleader" for the peace process rather than a "principal player." I think that is accurate. During her six trips to northern Ireland as First Lady, Clinton gave speeches and met with women from both sides of the ethnic divide. Her time in northern Ireland certainly gave her first-hand insights into the complexity of ethnic disputes that will come in useful if she is elected president, but she was hardly a "major" player in the peace process.

The issue of Macedonia and Kosovo is slightly more complicated. During a televised debate in January, Clinton claimed that she had "negotiated" with the Macedonian government to persuade it to re-open its border with Kosovo during the NAT0 air war against Yugoslavia in May 1999. The Macedonian had effectively sealed off the border at the beginning of May to curb a massive influx of Albanian refugees who were being driven out of Kosovo by Serb militiamen.

A detailed look at the chronology shows that Clinton misspoke when she talked about getting the Macedonian authorities to "open their border again." Contemporary news accounts show that the border was re-opened on May 13, the day before Clinton arrived in Macedonia, but only a handful of refugees crossed over. As news spread of the border re-opening following Clinton's visit, thousands more refugees crossed over into Macedonia

In her most recent remarks on the subject, to NPR, Clinton backed away from the border "negotiation" claim. Instead she said that she had met with Macedonian leaders and "helped to persuade them - there were other factors at work - that it would be in their interest and it would be the right thing to do to let more refugees in." This is a more accurate statement of what took place. During her one-day trip to Macedonia on May 14, Clinton toured a refugee camp and held discussions with Macedonian leaders, at which she encouraged them to maintain an open-door policy toward Albanian refugees. Other governments, notably the European Union, were exerting similar pressure on the Macedonians.

Clinton's former chief of staff, Melanne Verveer, told me that the Clinton party flew into the Macedonian capital Skoplje from Naples aboard a military C-130. For security reasons, they had to be back in Naples by sundown. Verveer sat in on the talks with Macedonian president Kiro Gligorov. She says Clinton pressed Gligorov "to keep the borders open" and brought along a "package of economic assistance" for Macedonia. Verveer described Clinton's role in foreign affairs as "unprecedented" for a First Lady, particularly on human rights issues.

I also spoke to the former Macedonian ambassador to the United States, Ljubica Acevska, who encouraged Clinton to visit the refugee camps. Acevska recalled "a very, very chaotic" situation on the border with Kosovo. She said the border had been "closed temporarily" because of the chaos, but "reopened" shortly before Clinton's arrival in Macedonia on May 14. "Once we got the refugee situation under control, the border was re-opened," she told me.

Acevska said that Clinton's offer of economic assistance "encouraged" the Macedonian government to keep the border open.

The Pinocchio Test

As is often the case, this dispute boils down to a question of semantics. Hillary Clinton certainly did play a "role" in U.S. foreign policy during the 90s that went somewhat beyond the role traditionally assumed by First Ladies. She can fairly claim to have picked up a lot of knowledge about the world that will help to inform her decisions as president. On the other hand, she was hardly a "major" player in the foreign policy of her husband's administration. In contrast to the health care issue, her influence on foreign policy was largely peripheral.

(About our rating scale.)

By Michael Dobbs  | March 17, 2008; 2:52 PM ET
Categories:  2 Pinocchios, Candidate Record, Candidate Watch, Other Foreign Policy  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Truth-telling on Iraq
Next: Iraq Truth-Telling, Part II

Comments

Of course Hillary also said she would have the nomination wrapped up by super tuesday, that she would win Ohio and Texas by large margins, and that after Ohio the remaining states would show a continued movement toward her and away from Obama...and if you believe that, even though her campaign hasn't managed to win the democratic nomination where here husbands contacts and presence are a much bigger asset than in the general election she will still claim that she is the more electable candidate and the one ready on day one.

Posted by: amccoy1 | March 17, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

As with the Clintons, it is always the semantics, n'cest pas?

Posted by: LABC | March 17, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Well, now that depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.

Posted by: Bob | March 17, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

2 Pinocchios?

Hillary's claim that she was "intimately involved" with the peace negotiations
has been disputed by everyone who WAS "intimately involved"...

Hillary's claim that she "negotiated" the reopening of the Macedonian border
to refugees has been disputed by fact. The border was reopened before Hillary
arrived for her photo-op tour.

Hillary's misstating of fact is NOT a "question of semantics"...it is a deliberate
attempt to submit a fraudulent resume for the job of President.

And for this, you give her 2 Pinocchios?

You must have as much use for the truth as Hillary does.

Posted by: Stonhinged | March 17, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

If this article is correct, then Hillary is taking credit for something which occurred in the Balkans the day before she arrived on the scene. Well, at least she can take credit for not screwing it up. I guess that is a positive.

Posted by: nette2 | March 17, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

If Mrs Clinton wants credit for her husband's foreign policy successes, then it seems only fair that she also accept responsibility for his failures. How quickly we seem to forget that it was Clinton's 8 years of weak foreign policy that led up to the tragic events of 9-11. He did not actively and effectively pursue terroists and sadly passed on an opportunity to have Osama Bin Laden handed to him on a silver platter. He/she also failed to maintain a strong homeland defense that could respond to an air attack within our own borders. Once again, the teflon Clinton's escape unscathed, but this is certainly not the team that I would want answering the Whitehouse phone at 3am!

Posted by: Dr. S. David Stadler | March 17, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Elenor Roosevelt and Edith Wilson are thought to have been the most "presidential" of the first ladies based on the incapcity of their President husband.

While the position of First Lady has been (for some historically) significant, in most instances the position is largely ceremonal.

Hillary Rodham Clinton may have had some unique opportunities to be Presidential during Bill's tenure as president, but in the end, I think she should be a bit more honest to the extent of her participation. At some level and degree I would agree she has slightly more experience the Mr Obama, but nowhere near the amount she and her campaign would have you believe.

The continued "stretching of the truth" is just another reason why many blogers and others are so critical of the Clinton campaign.

PTTT

Posted by: PLEASETELLTHETRUTH | March 17, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Only a two Pinocchio Candidate? Seems like it should be at least a 10 considering how much she still keeps harping on the same message.

Posted by: Dana | March 17, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

I am married to a teacher, and have done about 30 days of subbing over the last year to supplement my income. According to Senator Clinton's logic, I am qualified to be your child's teacher, right?

Posted by: corridorg4 | March 17, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

They all hoodwink, but one thing is for sure, the public is seemingly more into Hillary now than Barack;

Hillary vs. Barack:
The Google Factor...

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=57

Posted by: David | March 17, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Am I the only one having a Dukakis tank flashback? Hillary--Walk away while you still have some dignity, stop helping the R's.

Posted by: gmundenat | March 17, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

David: I wonder what type of people are now more into Hillary. Maybe its now her turn to be Googled and vetted.

Posted by: nette2 | March 17, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

I think it would rate 3 Pinocchios or more, since this is the crux of her supposed experience advantage over Obama.

Let's face it - if she had to do the actual negotiation, who is to say that it wouldn't end as acrimoniously as the health care debacle? Bill is not Hillary, and she can't take credit for things she didn't actually do. The media let her get away with this for far too long.

Posted by: only two? | March 17, 2008 7:38 PM | Report abuse

Just a hypothetical. Say I padded my resume as much as Hillary Clinton has padded hers, and used it to get a regular job.

Later on, my employer learns the exact truth of what I have done and said.

How many people believe I would be summarily dismissed for outright lying?

I honestly believe I would be fired for doing this. I certainly do not think that any employer would continue the interviewing and hiring process if it was discovered before I starting working.

So why on earth do people still want to hire Clinton to be CEO of the entire country? Because they 'like' her?

Posted by: reussere | March 17, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

I hate the fact checker.

You should be the BS checker that might work better.

Here is one. WP is in the tank for Obama go check that one.

Posted by: mul | March 17, 2008 8:02 PM | Report abuse

I used to be a Clinton supporter, but I've been continually disappointed by Hillary's willingness to say anything to get elected. Its very Bush-like, and worse in some respects. Bush's philosophy was tangible, even if wrong. Hillary insists on being everything to everyone. I've had enough.

Posted by: maq1 | March 17, 2008 8:49 PM | Report abuse

I am glad that Michael Dobbs at least took a little more time to do his fact checking.

I guess my main point is this: whether she was "pivotal" in the foreign nations' actions or not, she still exerted some influence on the major decision makers.

What has Obama done? What experience does Obama have in foreign policy? IF the 3 am call did happen -- what qualifies Obama to handle it better than Clinton?

Mr. Fact Checker -- why don't you research this?

Posted by: IllinoisVoter | March 17, 2008 9:07 PM | Report abuse

While I appreciate your effort at digging deeper, you still fail to include in your commentary ALL of the dates she has traveled to these countries. And the few interviews you conducted still leave your rating in my mind as questionable.

Why not include in your commentary that the women of Macedonia presented Hillary with the Mother Theresa award? Just because Hillary did not significantly change foreign policies does not mean she did not have any INFLUENCE.

Posted by: IllinoisVoter | March 17, 2008 9:10 PM | Report abuse

This comment is in response to the commentary provided by S. David Stadler:

If I had to pick who to "blame" for our homeland security crisis right now, I would consider the following facts:

Clinton administration - provided full funding for HS efforts;
Bush administration - keeps cutting HS efforts - did you see how many security officials are assigned to a complex of federal buildings on Lou Dobbs last week?

Clinton administration - considered viable options to securitize our borders, such as tighter I9 and greencard regulation;
Bush Administration - spent billions of dollars for a real, live, 8-foot chicken wire fence --

HMMM.. thats a tough call who is to blame for our Homeland Security, or lack thereof.

Posted by: IllinoisVoter | March 17, 2008 9:15 PM | Report abuse

Here she goes again. The Great Hillary Clinton: peacemaker unrivalled; legendary troubleshooter; conqueror of Yugoslavia. And she forgets to add: initiator of Kyoto!

It is not only ridiculous that Mrs Clinton is making this exaggerated (unsubstantiated is the right word) but it is unfortunate to see someone claiming credit for the collective efforts of dedicated men and women of the diplomatic service of many countries.

Mrs Clinton did no good to her campaign by claiming (unashamedly) to be in the forefront of policy initiatives during her husband's administration. Of course she took a keen interest in international affairs and hobnobbed with the most puissant of this world on the strength of her being the First Lady rather than performing a constitutional role. But this is what being close to the corridors of power means.

Anyone who has been or is a wife or husband (even concubines) of a Head of State will readily tell you that they know one or two things about state affairs as a result of their proximity and privilege. But no one will ever claim, at least publicly, to be the man or woman behind the scenes. Not even the legendary Lady Macbeth has ever own up to knowing so much.

To test the veracity of Mrs Clinton's statement, she only need to respond to one question: how many cabinet meetings (where top decisions concerning the country are taken) did she attend during her husband's administration? The answer to this will unlock the mystery connected with this so-called exaggerated claims.

The privity of the bedroom and the privilege of being an automatic travel mate around the world does not confer any special status of 'member of delegation' on anyone. If this were not to be so, many people (including pilots of Air force 1, Cooks, bodyguards, stewards, chambermaids etc) can claim credit for nothing more than their serendipitous presence at momentous occasions.

Posted by: slyfas | March 17, 2008 9:19 PM | Report abuse

IllinoisVoter questioned:
"What has Obama done? What experience does Obama have in foreign policy? IF the 3 am call did happen -- what qualifies Obama to handle it better than Clinton?"

The same can be said of most presidents that have no national-level experience prior to assuming the office, INCLUDING Bill Clinton. What foreign policy did Bill Clinton have as a young governor from Arkansas?

It's not entirely relevant, and having some exposure does not equate the ability to negotiate or exert the kind of influence to actually make any of those things HAPPEN.

Posted by: only two? | March 17, 2008 9:25 PM | Report abuse

only two? My word, Hillary Rodham Clinton spoke of being involved in the Good Friday accords in Northern Ireland, and you only give her two??? HRC deserves at least twenty-two for telling the same lies!

Posted by: meldupree | March 17, 2008 9:32 PM | Report abuse

No matter what the lady sys the left of center the "New So Called Democrats" of the Democratic Party will fault Clinton any way they can, this is just another example of the sexiest campaign that has been under way since the presidential race started a year ago.Irregardless of the racist Bastard that is trying to win the nomination while using racist taunting and background noise he still can't shake the image of an empty suit,

This is one old democrat that will vote for McCain if he gets the nomination for the democrats ("OBLAPIE THE BLACKIE") from ILL-I_NOISE, he is neither qualified Emotionaly, Ideologically,Philosophically.

McCaine will rip him a new ass on the campaign trail all he has to do is start playing the race card that Oblapie has been playing and it's all over with the preacher that he has singing his praises, it will be a no brainer, if it takes another four more years of hell to finally get the populace pissed enough to start rioting in the streets again, then four more years it is then.

Posted by: nightslider | March 18, 2008 1:24 AM | Report abuse

HILLARYS EXPERIENCE AMOUNTS TO WHAT YOU SAID IN THIS STATEMENT "SHE TRAVELED TO ABOUT 80 COUNTRYS"....SHE WAS ONLY IN THE WHITE HOUSE 8 YEARS.....SO BASICALLY HER EXPERIENCE BOILS DOWN TO THIS: TRAVELING THE WORLD, DINING , SIGHTSEEING, SHOPPING AT TAXPAYERS EXPENSE.....I AM SO SICK OF HER CRAP................................GIVE ME A PRESIDENT THAT WILL RULE AMERICA AND TRAVEL AMERICA.........
NO MORE CLINTON
NO MORE CLINTON
NO MORE CLINTON

Posted by: linda | March 18, 2008 2:58 AM | Report abuse

TO NIGHTSLIDER , SO GLAD YOU ARE ON MCCAINS SIDE, AS A DECENT WHITE , GOD FEARING AMERICAN WOMAN, I AM MORE SURE THAN EVER THAT I AM IN THE RIGHT PARTY........
RACISM IS A BLIGHT AND SIN....THAT STILL LINGERS ON THE SIN...AND I AM NOT PROUD OF A COUNTRY THAT IS SO HATEFUL.......TO MY BLACK BROTHERS AND SISTERS..............

Posted by: LINDA | March 18, 2008 3:04 AM | Report abuse

TO NIGHTSLIDER , SO GLAD YOU ARE ON MCCAINS SIDE, AS A DECENT WHITE , GOD FEARING AMERICAN WOMAN, I AM MORE SURE THAN EVER THAT I AM IN THE RIGHT PARTY........
RACISM IS A BLIGHT AND SIN....THAT STILL LINGERS ON THE SIN...AND I AM NOT PROUD OF A COUNTRY THAT IS SO HATEFUL.......TO MY BLACK BROTHERS AND SISTERS..............

Posted by: LINDA | March 18, 2008 3:04 AM | Report abuse

TO NIGHTSLIDER , SO GLAD YOU ARE ON MCCAINS SIDE, AS A DECENT WHITE , GOD FEARING AMERICAN WOMAN, I AM MORE SURE THAN EVER THAT I AM IN THE RIGHT PARTY........
RACISM IS A BLIGHT AND SIN....THAT STILL LINGERS ON THE SIN...AND I AM NOT PROUD OF A COUNTRY THAT IS SO HATEFUL.......TO MY BLACK BROTHERS AND SISTERS..............

Posted by: LINDA | March 18, 2008 3:04 AM | Report abuse

Everybody knows the devil is in the details.
If Hilary Clinton claims to have wrestled with the devil in Northern Ireland or Bosnia, she has to prove she at least directed the diplomatic troops enmeshed in the details. Your piece shows that she did not come remotely close to any substantive influence on the negotiations and eventual outcome of these crises.
Still, the Clinton team knows the big lie works precisely because it is big --and simple. The average voter doesn't have time to sort through a nuanced, reasoned exploration of whether Clinton's visits to Northern Ireland or Bosnia actually mattered. Our motto tends to be: Give me the headlines, don't bother me with the details.
And that's how the devil gets his due.

Posted by: Christopher Swan | March 18, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Everybody knows the devil is in the details.
If Hilary Clinton claims to have wrestled with the devil in Northern Ireland or Bosnia, she has to prove she at least directed the diplomatic troops enmeshed in the details. Your piece shows that she did not come remotely close to any substantive influence on the negotiations and eventual outcome of these crises.
Still, the Clinton team knows the big lie works precisely because it is big --and simple. The average voter doesn't have time to sort through a nuanced, reasoned exploration of whether Clinton's visits to Northern Ireland or Bosnia actually mattered. Our motto tends to be: Give me the headlines, don't bother me with the details.
And that's how the devil gets his due.

Posted by: Christopher Swan | March 18, 2008 10:52 AM | Report abuse

It is clear that Hillary Clinton has more foreign policy experience than Barack Obama who has none. He has been so busy running for President that he hasn't even bothered to call a Committee hearing of the Committee of which he is chair which deals with NATO and Afghanistan.

The Northern Ireland issue of Hillary's involvment has been disputed by many people but the truth is that there are as many people in the know who say she was very involved as those who say she wasn't. So when one quotes both sides it is really hard to claim she isn't telling the truth.

As to Masedonia maybe you should contact the regugees who got to cross the border after Hillary's visit to see how much they think her involvement with the Macedonian government trying to keep the borders opened meant to them?

The reality is that great or little involvement in foreign policy- Hillary traveled to over 82 countries and met with their leaders and the people. She understands dipolmacy and what each word means when speaking on a world stage. Obama hasn't had that experience. He is saying things that most agree are naive about foreign policy and then having to explain what he really meant. That won't necessarily work as President.

I think that you waste time trying to parse these statments and do a disservice to your readers with the entire column.

Posted by: peterdc | March 18, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

It is clear that Hillary Clinton has more foreign policy experience than Barack Obama who has none. He has been so busy running for President that he hasn't even bothered to call a Committee hearing of the Committee of which he is chair which deals with NATO and Afghanistan.

The Northern Ireland issue of Hillary's involvment has been disputed by many people but the truth is that there are as many people in the know who say she was very involved as those who say she wasn't. So when one quotes both sides it is really hard to claim she isn't telling the truth.

As to Masedonia maybe you should contact the regugees who got to cross the border after Hillary's visit to see how much they think her involvement with the Macedonian government trying to keep the borders opened meant to them?

The reality is that great or little involvement in foreign policy- Hillary traveled to over 82 countries and met with their leaders and the people. She understands dipolmacy and what each word means when speaking on a world stage. Obama hasn't had that experience. He is saying things that most agree are naive about foreign policy and then having to explain what he really meant. That won't necessarily work as President.

I think that you waste time trying to parse these statments and do a disservice to your readers with the entire column.

Posted by: peterdc | March 18, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Clinton has a habit, like her predator husband, of being dishonest about nearly everything. That's why no one trusts either of the Clinton scags. They are a classless, dishonest couple, neither of whom have ethics, integrity or morals. Not what we want in a President. Perhaps they could work for the UN with the rest of the crooks.

Posted by: LarryG62 | March 18, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Why do you write NAT0 with a zero?! :D

Posted by: OrR | March 19, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse


Hillary is sooooo generous to offer HER campaign a loan of more than $5,000,000 ...seems to have a surplus of wealth. How about seting an example for her UNIVERSAL HEALTH and donate this amount to children who need it now for health care.. Perhaps even a tax write-off
(of course she knows all angles)

Posted by: myv | March 19, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse


Hillary is sooooo generous to offer HER campaign a loan of more than $5,000,000 ...seems to have a surplus of wealth. How about seting an example for her UNIVERSAL HEALTH and donate this amount to children who need it now for health care.. Perhaps even a tax write-off
(of course she knows all angles)

Posted by: myv | March 19, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Clear and irrefutable proof of "Factchecker"'s bias and dishonesty in any Hillary exam is this: they link to the Nobel Peace [co-]winner, Lord Trimble in his dismissal of Clinton's work for N.I. peace. BUT, not a word is given us of the OTHER sharer of that same orize, John Hume. Here's what Factchecker doesn't want you to hear:

"I am quite surprised that anyone would suggest that Hillary Clinton did not perform important foreign policy work as first lady. I can state from firsthand experience that she played a positive role for over a decade in helping to bring peace to Northern Ireland," said former SDLP leader and Nobel laureate John Hume is a statement responding to critical press reports.

"She visited Northern Ireland, met with very many people and gave very decisive support to the peace process. In private she made countless calls and contacts, speaking to leaders and opinion makers on all sides, urging them to keep moving forward," said Hume.

"Anyone criticizing her foreign policy involvement should look at her very active and positive approach to Northern Ireland and speak with the people of Northern Ireland who have the highest regard for her and are very grateful for her very active support for our peace process," Hume concluded in his defense of Hillary's Irish legacy.

I award FACTCHECKER two Pinnochios for lying about Clinton's role in Nortern Ireland's search for peace. Shame!

Posted by: donald169 | March 22, 2008 12:31 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Rodham Clinton, ready to lie on day one!

Posted by: Katy | March 22, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

peterdc, you said "(Obama) has been so busy running for President that he hasn't even bothered to call a Committee hearing of the Committee of which he is chair which deals with NATO and Afghanistan."

This commonly repeated lie from the Clinton campaign is really getting under my skin.

For the real story, go read this at the George Mason University History page: http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/48434.html

It says "the Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on European Affairs doesn't have primary jurisdiction over the campaign in Afghanistan. The Armed Services Committee (on which Senator Clinton serves) does.
The Subcommittee on European Affairs doesn't have secondary jurisdiction over the campaign in Afghanistan. The full Foreign Relations Committee (which has held hearings on Afghanistan) does.
The Subcommittee on European Affairs doesn't even have tertiary jurisdiction over the campaign in Afghanistan. The Subcommittee on Near East and South and Central Asian Affairs does."

Do the research and find the truth, peterdc.

Posted by: Dawn in NC | March 24, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Hillary has opened another worm she'll wish she hadn't.

Bills infamous "cigar" tryst with Monica was on 3/31/1996, only 5 days after her trip in Bosnia, and while she was still in Europe.

Do the Clintons really want to remind voters of that?

Posted by: Mike | March 25, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

n'est-ce pas? por favor!!!

Posted by: Gini | March 25, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

An important point by amccoyt:

"her campaign hasn't managed to win the democratic nomination where here husbands contacts and presence are a much bigger asset than in the general election"

Posted by: FirstMouse | March 25, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

How can someone act effectively as Commander-in-Chief if she has made herself the laughing-stock of much of the world?

Posted by: FirstMouse | March 25, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

With more than thirty years to hone her lying, deceiving tactics, Hillary will be ready on day one to replace George W Bush; McCain and Obama will not. We need four more years of W, so Go Hillary!

Posted by: Roger Wehage | March 26, 2008 6:56 AM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton's comments on her trip to Bosnia, concerning sniper fire and mortar attacks, confirm in this voter's mind why I would not want her answering the phone in the White House at 3 a.m.! Both she and her husband have a long history of distorting the facts. This latest example should come as no surprise. Sadly, she squeaked out a victory in Texas and Ohio based in part on her 3a.m. add about leadership and who you can trust. Her Bosnia comments should lay to rest the issue of trust.

Posted by: retvet | March 26, 2008 7:45 AM | Report abuse

Re the Bosnia brouhaha, HRC could learn from the master and simply reply "I did not have sexual relations with that sniper."

Posted by: I.M. Salmon | March 26, 2008 9:33 AM | Report abuse

Re the Bosnia brouhaha, HRC could learn from the master and simply reply "I did not have sexual relations with that sniper."

Posted by: I.M. Salmon | March 26, 2008 9:33 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company