If Hillary Clinton had been any less supportive of the Obama admin's decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Manhattan, she might have had to quit her Secretary of State job . . .
Clinton damned the decision with faint praise during her Meet The Press appearance today.
Asked by moderator David Gregory where she stood on the matter, her response was the ultra-tepid: "I'm not going to second-guess any decision the Attorney General made." Translation: I'd love to second-guess it. I pretty much just did. But I'm not about to end my Obama admin career by saying so outright.
And a bit later: "If the Attorney General and veteran prosecutors think this is the best way to achieve [the desired] outcome, then I think that they should be given the right to move forward as they see appropriate."
Thanks for nuthin'! Consider that Yale-lawyer Hillary did not say she supports the decision. She did not say that she thinks it's the best way to achieve the desired outcome.
Is Hillary keeping her powder dry for possible use against PBO down the road? Will the MSM report this potential rift within the Obama admin?
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I'll give Mrs. Clinton a
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 12:58 ET by Guapo DiabloI'll give Mrs. Clinton a pass on this. There's probably no profound observation to make and she could have caused problems by saying anything.
Handsome devil: normally,
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 13:00 ET by Mark FinkelsteinHandsome devil: a senior administration official would normally be expected to express clear support for a decision of this magnitude, especially since it touches on her responsibilities as Sec. of State.
She gets it
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 13:00 ET by Gat New YorkWith her comment it is clear that the only two reasons for Obama to be putting on this media circus is:
1. He intends to place the Bush Administration in the media crosshairs for the 2010 and 2012 election.
2. He is sending a clear message to radical Islam that he is not at war with them and regards this as a single, solitary criminal felony.
Unfortunately this will not work for him and will be the Waterloo for Democrats and Obama. No one will forget this disgraceful act.
This is the Secretary of State
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 13:15 ET by KC MulvilleYou're entirely correct, Mark, she is clearly distancing herself from the decision.
But then, consider the circumstances here. She isn't the Secretary of Labor, a person who has no official interest in the decision. She's the Secretary of State, and the decision to abolish the "war on terror" (be definition, any war is a matter of foreign policy) is within her jurisdiction.
If the Obama administration decided that there is no foreign entity that's engaged in war with the United States, then that's a foreign policy judgment, and therefore Hillary is inevitably involved. If she refuses to take ownership and/or support that decision, then that's a clear sign that the White House made a foreign policy decision without her involvement.
I think this is Hillary's way of telling the world that she wasn't consulted, and she isn't very happy about it.
I am not even sure that
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 13:26 ET by d1carterI am not even sure that Hillary is the Sec. of State. I think she was brought into this administration to keep her from sniping from the outside. It seems to me that BHO has others that he assigns the tasks that the Sec. of State would normally do. He sends Hillary off to do nothing. At some point, Hillary is going to have to make a decision about her future.
I expect Broom Hilda will be exiting Foggy Bottom...
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 13:17 ET by R D Helm...sometime early next year.
I believe she intends to run against Obama in 2012, and as such, probably needs to start distancing herself from him.
And the sooner the better, as President ACORN is turning out to be a bigger disaster than even I had thought possible.
LOL-And that's a pretty major disaster.
The only question is, will enough voters actually catch on to what is happening before it's too late to do anything about it?
-Dave
Our elected representatives have failed us.
She wants no part of it
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 13:37 ET by iveseenitallIf this goes badly, and it might, Hillary wants nothing to do with it. Even she is smarter and less ideologicallly driven than Obama and his henchmen. She is also older and more mature. She's still a sickola, but not half as sick as this crew. This has the potential to go down as the worst presidential decision ever in history and she wants to be there to pick up the pieces when it explodes in their faces.
P.S. I have to express my personal disgust at what Obama and Holder are doing. Beyond the incompetence is the revolting motivation for it. It is politics at its worst, evincing a blatant disregard for our nation. Obama should be impeached for this.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
We'll put you down as
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 13:41 ET by Mark FinkelsteinWe'll put you down as "undecided." ;-)
Re Hillary's Return
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 14:14 ET by slickwillie2001At one time I thought that Hillary was smarter and would be more trustworthy than the Bamster in the area of foreign affairs, but lately I am not so certain. Some of the Bamster's fumbles are entirely his doing, and Hillary can blame some of them on simply following his orders, but not all. She has revealed herself to be shockingly inept in the art of diplomacy. One example:
Clinton's Mideast Pretzel: http://www.politico.com
I guess tagging along as a wife to a President isn't really such great experience.
Slick
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 14:56 ET by FranksamGiven a pick between the two of them, I also thought that HRC would be a better President than the Bamster, but we know now that is not a very high standard. Unfortunately, the other alternative of John McCain was hardly attractive either. Three hundred million people and these are the best we can come up with? I'm getting depressed.
An absolute disaster
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 16:07 ET by KC MulvilleUnderstand that we have been at war in Afghanistan for eight years, as a response to what these defendants did. How can you justify soldiers attacking a foreign government as a response to a mere crime? If these defendants are merely guilty of a crime, and they didn't commit an act of war, then we've publicly admitted that we had no justification for going to war.
In the case of KSM, we already know that he wasn't acting on the orders of the Taliban. Therefore, if KSM was merely committing a crime, we had no justification under international law to attack and dislodge the Taliban. That's why this decision is a huge disaster. It destroys our justification for going to war. If these are merely crimes, then under international law we're conducting unjust wars.
I don't know which would be worse ... that Obama didn't understand that, or that he didn't care.
Do-Over?
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 18:23 ET by miss911ninja"And she wants to be there to pick up the pieces when it explodes in their faces."
Unfortunately the explosion could be an actual one on the streets of New York before the trials even begin. The Islamists will not be appeased because Gitmo is closing. And since the left wing media rejected Islamic terror as motivation for the Fort Hood massacre, no points were scored for jihad. Major Hasan's fellow jihadists may feel the need for a "re-do." They might try to pull it off in New York City before security tightens. The cells are already there, and they've been biding their time.
She realizes that nothing
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 14:23 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonShe realizes that nothing she does will get her the nomination to replace this cowardly illegal alien Arab in 2012.
IF she really wanted to make the effort to straighten out this 'administration' she could go on record as this being the stupidest move ANY administration could make, and ensure her position in the democrat leadership during the next election cycle.
"no matter how low you set the bar, liberals can never quite measure up." -Me
http://gjresult.com
If HRC---
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 14:37 ET by matthewdeanIf, (a big if right now maybe) Sec. of State HRC decides to go for it against the posprez in 2012:
It will be the most vicious, nasty, in your face and bloody fight between two politicos in history.
And I will revel in every single nanosecond of the battle.
MD
"There is no distinctly American criminal class - except Congress."
Mark Twain (1835-1910)
HC voted herself a raise as a Senator
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 14:27 ET by Nortoand then took the SOS job.. Some amendment made that a no-no.
But they are paying her
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 14:29 ET by Nortoat the old rate, sidestepped that one. This is not a constitutional bunch.
Blubber summit?
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 16:02 ET by acumenMaybe if Governor Palin invited Barry and Hill up to the Wasilla House for a teachable moment over some Alaskan Amber....
Make NYC the biggest terror
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 16:08 ET by 10ksnookerMake NYC the biggest terror target in the world. What could go wrong.
Do you notice our dear reader always does something like this when he loses? Like your 2 year old does?
2 words
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 19:03 ET by JWFLouis Pepe
Worst President EVAH.
BARBARIAN!
Sun, 11/15/2009 - 22:57 ET by miss911ninjaIf these cut throats could have slit Louis Pepe's throat with the sharpened comb, they would have.
The 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed is the confessed killer of journalist Danny Pearl. He made Pearl "confess" that he was a Jew before slitting his throat and beheading him.
And Obama and Holder want this barbarian in our midst!