As the Obama administration begins to take shape, "change" has become little more than a bag of recyclables from the Clinton years. On a near-daily basis, it seems, Barack Obama has stocked his shelves with Clinton retreads or other longtime Swamp-dwellers. The next attorney general, for one, will be Eric Holder, Bill Clinton's deputy attorney general from 1997-2001. Holder was instrumental in returning young Elian Gonzales to Communist Cuba at gunpoint, and in processing that rogue's gallery of Clinton pardons in January 2001. Nothing like the smell of change...
The post that everyone is talking about, however, is that of secretary of state. Swamp gossip points to Hillary Clinton as the prime candidate, but despite some wishful thinking, it is not a done deal. History has proven that the best secretary of state is the one who acts as the mouthpiece of the president. Think Henry Kissinger or James Baker III. Those who do not promote the president's ideological stance tend to be failures, pushing America's foreign policy off the rails. Think Colin Powell. With that in mind, it's hard to picture Hillary Clinton as the person charged with acting as the international mouthpiece of President Obama.
On the campaign trail, these two held strongly opposing views on American foreign policy. It could be said that Obama wants Clinton on board precisely because she can make up for his own inadequacies in foreign policy. If that is the case, then what does one do about the elephant in the room -- i.e., Bill? As we all know, he has made a cottage industry of the ex-presidency, raking in millions of dollars from overseas speeches, consulting and philanthropy. As a private citizen, he's of course allowed to keep many of his dealings secret, but how many of those secret deals will run into direct conflict with the interests of the United States if his wife is secretary of state? Clintonistas say this is not an issue, which means it's a huge issue.
Furthermore, Hillary still has a future to consider. She has made a name for herself in the Senate, and another run for the White House isn't out of the question. However, if she is tied to Obama's administration and it falters, then she is likely to absorb a share of the blame. Perhaps the best advice came from former UN ambassador John Bolton: "Obama should remember the rule that you should never hire somebody you can't fire."
Meanwhile, what happened to John Kerry, who was openly vying the secretary of state post? He was recently named chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- ironically, the very committee to which he testified in 1971 that U.S. soldiers in Vietnam were committing war crimes. According to Kerry, our military personnel in Vietnam "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, [blew] up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to ... the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country." Kerry then added, "There are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed." So now we have a confessed war criminal in charge of the Foreign Relations Committee. That's a change, all right.
The post that everyone is talking about, however, is that of secretary of state. Swamp gossip points to Hillary Clinton as the prime candidate, but despite some wishful thinking, it is not a done deal. History has proven that the best secretary of state is the one who acts as the mouthpiece of the president. Think Henry Kissinger or James Baker III. Those who do not promote the president's ideological stance tend to be failures, pushing America's foreign policy off the rails. Think Colin Powell. With that in mind, it's hard to picture Hillary Clinton as the person charged with acting as the international mouthpiece of President Obama.
On the campaign trail, these two held strongly opposing views on American foreign policy. It could be said that Obama wants Clinton on board precisely because she can make up for his own inadequacies in foreign policy. If that is the case, then what does one do about the elephant in the room -- i.e., Bill? As we all know, he has made a cottage industry of the ex-presidency, raking in millions of dollars from overseas speeches, consulting and philanthropy. As a private citizen, he's of course allowed to keep many of his dealings secret, but how many of those secret deals will run into direct conflict with the interests of the United States if his wife is secretary of state? Clintonistas say this is not an issue, which means it's a huge issue.
Furthermore, Hillary still has a future to consider. She has made a name for herself in the Senate, and another run for the White House isn't out of the question. However, if she is tied to Obama's administration and it falters, then she is likely to absorb a share of the blame. Perhaps the best advice came from former UN ambassador John Bolton: "Obama should remember the rule that you should never hire somebody you can't fire."
Meanwhile, what happened to John Kerry, who was openly vying the secretary of state post? He was recently named chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- ironically, the very committee to which he testified in 1971 that U.S. soldiers in Vietnam were committing war crimes. According to Kerry, our military personnel in Vietnam "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, [blew] up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to ... the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country." Kerry then added, "There are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed." So now we have a confessed war criminal in charge of the Foreign Relations Committee. That's a change, all right.
1 comment:
The left is mad as hell that Obama's considering Hilary for SOS. They (radical left) don't like her because she's too conservative!
Post a Comment