Posted on 11/24/2008 11:38:08 AM PST by swordfishtrombone
It was apt in a small way that the first endorser of Hillary Rodham Clinton for secretary of state should have been Henry Kissinger. The last time he was nominated for any position of responsibility—the chairmanship of the 9/11 commission—he accepted with many florid words about the great honor and responsibility, and then he withdrew when it became clear that he would have to disclose the client list of Kissinger Associates. (See, for the article that began this embarrassing process for him, my Slate column "The Latest Kissinger Outrage.")
is possible that the Senate will be as much of a club as the undistinguished fraternity/sorority of our ex-secretaries of state, but even so, it's difficult to see Sen. Clinton achieving confirmation unless our elected representatives are ready to ask a few questions about conflict of interest along similar lines. And how can they not? The last time that Clinton foreign-policy associations came up for congressional review, the investigations ended in a cloud of murk that still has not been dispelled. Former President Bill Clinton has recently and rather disingenuously offered to submit his own foundation to scrutiny (see the work of my Vanity Fair colleague Todd Purdum on the delightful friends and associates that Clinton has acquired since he left office), but the real problem is otherwise. Both President and Sen. Clinton, while in office, made it obvious to foreign powers that they and their relatives were wide open to suggestions from lobbyists and middlemen.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
Hitchens is a flake who I don’t take seriously, but I don’t mind seeing his guns firing with full force at the Witch.
You supported the idiot, fool. You deserve everything he brings this world. We’re the innocent ones who will suffer.
Hitchens is such a misanthrope that he would even attack Mother Theresa.
Such an incredible concentration of smarts and savvy wouldn't be foolish enough to put a Clinton in his cabinet, would he? Or if he did, it will be ok, because his towering intellect and vast executive experience will be able to guide and control all that Clinton craziness and sleazery and wheeling and dealing and embarrassments.
Just you wait: With Hillary and 0 in charge, the Mullahs will shape up, Putin will be begging for mercy, bin Laden will give himself up, and Kim Jong Il will resign to begin a second career as an entertainer in Vegas.
Hitchens has an uneasy soul.
Amazing. What did you expect, Chris? “Change?”
BTTT
I think Hitchens supported Obama mainly because he doesn’t like McCain, actually thought he was going a bit batty, and thinks Palin is an intellectual lightweight. He actually said that NONE of the 3 main candidates at the time, Hillary, Obama and McCain should be within spitting distance of the White House. So while he was stupid for endorsing Obama, he also didn’t think he was qualified in the first place.
I actually think he thinks McCain is in the beginnings of Alzheimer’s.
Both President and Sen. Clinton, while in office, made it obvious to foreign powers that they and their relatives were wide open to suggestions from lobbyists and middlemen.
Say what you will about Hitchens’ policy flights of fancy, but he certainly has the Clintons pegged.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.