I wrote about this a month ago and I was HOPING that Hillary was smart enough to avoid the potential conflict of interest. I was wrong.
Hillary Clinton is now being advised by Sandy Berger.
Sandy Berger is the same guy who stole classified documents, lied to investigators, and got off.
“It shows poor judgment and a lack of regard for Berger’s serious misdeeds,” said law professor Jonathan Adler of Case Western Reserve University, who nonetheless called Clinton “by far the most impressive candidate in the Democratic field.”
Poor judgement? It's down right criminal to have a guy like this around. But her "poor judgement" is completely ok because she's the "most impressive candidate"?
Adler told The Examiner that it is “simply incomprehensible to me that a serious contender for the presidency would rely upon him as a key foreign policy advisor.”
He added: “If Senator Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee, at some point she will begin to receive national security briefings that will include sensitive information. At such a point, continuing to keep Berger on board as a key advisor, where he might have access to sensitive material, would be beyond incomprehensible.”
The Clinton campaign declined to comment.
Of course they declined. They know that they're in deep over this idiotic move on her part. If Bush did the same thing with say "Scooter" Libby, it would be on the front page of every major newspaper in America tonight.
So why does Hillary get a pass? Probably the rabid hatred of Republicans by many in the press is one reason. It could be that they don't want other candidates to gain from this dumb move? It could really be anything, but unless she gets rid of Sandy in a hurry, I would urge Republican Presidential candidates to use this against her in every way imaginable. Use it to show she's corrupt. Use it to show her lack of judgment. Use it to show her contempt for the rule of law.
Berger lost his security clearance for 3 years and that punishment will expire literally RIGHT BEFORE the Presidential elections. So it is entirely conceivable that he would be her security advisor.
Republicans: Don't let it happen. Bring up Sandy Berger at every opportunity. Hammer home Hillary's inexcusable behavior. Let them know that she's corrupt. Do that, and you'll edge her out quicker then you can imagine.
Of course, I'm not a Republican strategist, so they may be holding onto this for a reason. Perhaps they hope she wins the nomination, but THEN will bring up Sandy Berger. If they hammer her now, she may lose it to Obama or Edwards. If that happens, they have less ammunition to work with.
Tough call really. :)
Travis
2 comments:
I know, Sandy should have just refused to hand over documents like Bush and Cheney do. Hell, who needs to even honor a subpoena. Apparently all you have to do is not show up, that's what Bush advises.
You and I will probably disgree on everything.
But we can agree on Hillary. I'm no fan. I think if the Democrats nominate her as their candidate they will lose because people like you, right wing lunatics, will burry her, and rightfully so.
But what gives? There are no good Rethug candidates?
I like the title of your blog. I respect the fact that you're not trying to come off all moderate and warm and fuzy about your view of politics.
Well thanks!...I think...:) We can certainly disagree on many things, but I at least respect someone who can make an argument for their point of view without resorting to name calling and such. :)
I do agree that there aren't any good Republican candidates thus far. My biggest problems is Hillary's complete lack of clear standing on issues. She seems to sway any way the wind blows. I can't have that in the leader of my nation.
Also, with Bill's history of appeasement and "do nothing" attitude towards terrorism, I can't imagine Hillary's attitude would be that much different. No one, Democrats or Republicans, can have that with the threats we get against us almost on a daily basis from various terrorist groups.
I'm pretty opinionated when it comes to my views, but I'm always open for an opposing view and indeed, there are times when I'm wrong. But why lie to my readers? It's best to put out my views and get a ton of hate mail, then try to play the "middle of the road" and appease everyone.
Post a Comment