Posted on 11/15/2009 9:03:33 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
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 host David Gregory where should stood on the matter, her response was the ultra-tepid: "I'm not going to second-guess any decision the Attorney General made." 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.
View video here.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Hillary won’t say she supports decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in NYC. Ping to Today show list.
She was against it before she was for it, and even now she’s not fond of it (unless people like it later).
If it doesn't work out (I mean, what could possibly go wrong with this horrible move?), Holder will be the fall guy.
Hillary knows that this is a foreign policy disaster in the making.
I can’t believe that I think Hillary would have been a much better choice as president than the Anti-American we ended up with. How sad is that!
“I can’t believe that I think Hillary would have been a much better choice as president than the Anti-American we ended up with. How sad is that!”
Yes. She would have been tougher on terror, and she and her hubby were burned so badly by “healthcare reform” in 1994, they probably never would have tried it again.
She sure sounded like she was “campaign ready” to me.
If there is a terrorist attack in NYC while this “trial” is underway, I am thinking that there will be a primary challenge in 2012. Or even a third-party ticket.
Maybe she can team up with Lieberman... stranger things have happened.
“Note well that she attributes the decision to AG Holder, when we know dang well it came from the WH.If it doesn’t work out (I mean, what could possibly go wrong with this horrible move?), Holder will be the fall guy.” ~ browardchad
Hillary and her husband relied on Holder’s ‘judgement’ when they were in the WH, too. (see below)
B.O. could try and run, but he can’t hide - he knew exactly what he was doing and ‘why’ when he appointed Holder, and all well-informed people know it.
Bombshell: Obama bringing KSM to NYC for trial; former Bush AG Mukasey responds: “High risk of attack”
November 13, 2009 09:04 AM by Michelle Malkin
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/11/13/bombshell-obama-bringing-ksm-to-nyc-for-trial/
<>
Pay attention to Eric Holder’s law firm and Gitmo detainees
By Michelle Malkin • January 23, 2009
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/23/pay-attention-to-eric-holders-law-firm-and-gitmo-detainees/
Eric Holder is a senior partner with Covington & Burling, a prestigious Washington, D.C. law firm, which represents 17 Yemenis currently held at Gitmo.
The fact that Mr. Holder, while Deputy Attorney General, pushed for the release of 16 violent FALN terrorists against the advice of the FBI, the US Attorneys who prosecuted them and the NYPD officers who were maimed [....]
<>
“...We need not speculate, however, about whether Holder was involved in what had to be one of his office’s most significant civil cases. It should go without saying that if he hadn’t beenif underlings were permitted to run rampant, using his name and his authority without his permissionHolder would have some explaining to do about how he ran his office and about what such inattention would say about Obama’s wisdom in selecting him to run the Justice Department. But it is clear that Holder was personally involved. Here’s how the Wall Street Journal reported his determination to accept the Clarendon settlement in lieu of further charges: “U.S. Attorney Eric Holder said the agreement ends an investigation into the company’s contracts to supply $45 million in coinage metal to the U.S. Mint.” Holder, not an underling, is the reported source of that statement.
At Holder’s confirmation hearing last week, senators seemed to accept his claim that he just didn’t know that much about Rich when he pushed the pardon through in 2001. For some reason, Holder’s own case against Rich was never brought upit was certainly never mentioned by the nominee, nor did senators use it to impeach Holder’s implausible claims of ignorance. Why not? And in light of that 1995 case, how should the Judiciary Committee and the Senate judge Holder’s testimony last week, and his testimony in 2001, that Marc Rich was “unfamiliar” to him in 1999, when he began intervening on behalf of the fugitive, ultimately ensuring that Rich escaped justice?” - Excerpted from:
NRO
Unpardonable: Holder’s Marc Rich Shuffle
The AG nominee’s 1995 lawsuit refutes his claims of ignorance about the fugitive.
By Andrew C. McCarthy
http://tinyurl.com/93cb8d
Eric Holder’s intercession on behalf of fugitive Marc Rich[] is so inexplicable that he has always viewed ignorance as his best defense. It’s as though Holder believes that a deputy attorney general looks better for having remained studiously unaware of critical facts in a criminal case before throwing his weight around. But that’s Holder’s story, and he’s sticking to it: even if it turns out not to be true.
Holder is President Obama’s choice to become attorney general. That means the Rich case is a big problem for him todayjust as it was in 2001, when an outraged Congress demanded an explanation of the controversial affair. President Clinton had pardoned the fugitive financier on the recommendation of Holder, who was then deputy attorney general. The only feeble response Holder could muster was that he didn’t really know much about Rich’s case and that, as Justice’s number two official, he was simply too busy to learn about it.
[....snip....] bttt
“I can’t believe that I think Hillary would have been a much better choice as president than the Anti-American we ended up with. How sad is that!”
It was all pretty obvious 18 months ago, but the train-wreck election still happened.
Hillary has to tread a fine line here - she doesn’t want to veer too far off the Obama reservation, but neither does she want to offend millions of her former (and maybe future) constituents in NY.
So true - and Obama's people know it. That's why Ayers and Dohrn came out with that article accusing Hillary of 'white supremacy' in order to make her "fine line" thinner and sharper and ever more impossible to stand on.
Ratfight.
It is sad; because she is not a better choice.
“Hillary has to tread a fine line here”
Hillary’s statement shrewdly leaves all her options open. No one can say she undercut the president on this decision. If things go badly, she’s made clear whom to blame (and by implication, called into question the judgment of the person who appointed Holder). If in the less likely case that things go well, she won’t have to retrospectively explain any rash prediction to the contrary. Moreover, the sub-text is that just as she is giving Holder wide berth to play in his own sandbox as he sees fit, she as SOS should be accorded the same respect and freedom of action in making decisions in her bailiwick.
This is the same attorney general who has pardoned terrorists in the past. Obama and Holder are terrorist sympathizers.
I don't think Clinton is distancing herself, but she just doesn't have the guts to say what she really thinks. Or maybe she is just happy with the decision.
BO basically cheated in the primaries. Hillary supporters were older and they could not make it to the caucuses. It is crazy to think that Hillary won ALL of the big primary states, but still lost the nomination. Ugh, it makes my blood boil...still!
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.