Hillary plays loose with the truth

In late March of this year, the Clinton campaign said that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton may have “misspoken” when she said she had to evade sniper fire when visiting Tuzla, Bosnia, exactly 12 years earlier as First Lady. “Misspoke” it would seem is political jargon for “lied”.

She milked the “sniper” episode to illustrate her foreign policy bona fides. But her account of that incident was challenged, first by Sinbad, the comedian, who travelled with her, and then by a forest of newspapers including the Washington Post.

This is merely the most recent example of how Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton plays loose with the truth. Her focus on power, her drive to dominate and her limitless capacity to deceive, are the pistons that relentlessly drive her to the highest office in the land. Exposing her lust for power, stretching over two decades, but best illustrated by her single-minded tilt at the presidency, is the subject of this book, Hillary: The Politics of Personal Destruction.

In the build-up to Election ’08, what is most telling of the last three candidates standing is Clinton’s polarising effect on the electorate. Folk either love her or loathe her. There are very, very few straddling the middle ground. And of those who love her, many, many, are buying her fiction that the race is all about making a woman - and not a man - the Commander-in-Chief. These voters have been duped. Regrettably they are disinterested in the pros and cons of one particular woman running for office - Hillary Rodham Clinton. They have been successfully persuaded that the election is all about women.

And that’s just the way Mrs Clinton wants it.

David N. Bossie, a former chief investigator for the US House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, exposes a host of facts that have been concealed or woefully under reported by the media over the years. Details about Clinton's life and her career are recounted by those who worked with her or with her husband. Both within 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and outside those august gates.

Bossie interviews many who came into contact with Hillary Clinton and exposes her parcelling of favours to lobbyists and reveals how her time in the White House was steeped in controversy as well as sleaze.

Bossie cites example, after example, of Clinton sidestepping the law; lying; deceiving and intimidating. For instance, former White House operator Mr Dick Morris explains her well documented track record of saying what she does not believe in, if she feels it is politically expedient to do so.

The book opens with an account of corrupt financial dealings in relation to a fundraiser for Hillary Rodham Clinton’s US Senate Campaign. A large donor to her campaign, Mr Peter F. Paul is mentioned in the context of being leaned on to keep contributing way above what he agreed to, lest Mrs Clinton cancels the proposed function and blackballs him. Her campaign team’s failure to report such donations is exposed for the criminality inherent in such a breach of Federal Election Commission laws.

When the matter went to trial, the judge - a (Bill) Clinton appointee - made a mind blowing statement to the jury, saying that Hillary Rodham Clinton had no role whatsoever in this matter. And that the contributor in question, Mr Peter F. Paul was no more than a totally corrupt con man.

Mr Paul’s account of his interactions with Mrs Clinton makes for Godfather-like reading. She has used the power she has amassed since leaving the White House to compromise all three branches of government. She has thwarted investigations by the Senate, the Federal Election Commission as well as the Department of Justice. She has induced a federal judge to throw a criminal trial by making false statements to a jury and caused a prosecutor to exonerate her with the full knowledge that evidence existed.

Ultimately her campaign was fined US$35,000. The largest fine ever handed down for such criminal behaviour. And in the (northern) summer of 2007 she was forced to return US$900,000 from colourful identity, Mr Norman Hsu.

Amanda Carpenter, author of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy’s Dossier on Hillary Clinton, has tallied up the legions of her operatives who ran afoul of the law, beginning with Clinton herself. In Congressional hearings into Bill and Hillary’s campaign abuses, the First Lady set a record in the number of times she answered “I do not know” in relation to questions dealing with controversies about her personal finances and her husband’s transgressions. A whopping 250 times!

It’s worth remembering that she is the only First Lady to have come under criminal investigation, in both Little Rock and in Washington D.C. The numerous scandals reveal her extraordinary ability to obfuscate, to refuse to answer questions and to avoid scrutiny.

In relation to campaign fundraising irregularities, Ms Carpenter’s account of just how many of Bill and Hillary’s associates pleaded guilty, were indicted, or who fled the United States with the police on their tails is mesmerising. There were 47 individuals and businesses affiliated with the Clintons who pleaded guilty or were convicted of crimes. There were 61 indictments or misdemeanour charges. Another 122 Congressional witnesses took the Fifth Amendment (that is, they refused to answer a question because the response could form self incriminating evidence).

These numbers are more than staggering. They are unprecedented.

"The politics of personal destruction" was a phrase popularised in the 1990s by the Clintons to describe the attacks by the so-called "vast right wing conspiracy". But an incident early in Bill Clinton’s presidency, the Travelgate episode, raises a key question: were the Clintons more conversant with practicing that fine art than being its victim?

Former Washington Times editorial director, Mr Tony Blankley, recounts the Travelgate episode, a winning example of the contempt in which Hillary Clinton holds working Americans and simultaneously highlights the viscousness and the scheming that are bywords for her innate personality.

In 1993, upon settling into the White House, as is the right of every incoming administration, the Clintons could have sacked the head of the White House Travel Office, Mr Billy Dale, in order to shoe horn their lackey, Ms Catherine Cornelius. Twenty-four-year-old Catherine was President Clinton’s third cousin.

But no. Accepted behaviour was beyond the capacity of the Clintons who set to annihilate Mr Dale, by accusing him - with neither witnesses nor evidence - of embezzling $14,000.

The ruthless Mrs Clinton took the lead in butchering the career public servant’s reputation by dragging him to court, where much to her annoyance; the jury took under two hours to find him innocent on all charges. The case was virtually dismissed out of hand, like the rind of an orange, given there was no evidence. While Billy Dale and his staff were indeed vindicated, their lives were ruined.

Three points should be mentioned in relation to Travelgate. First, that a procession of high end White House reporters including Mr Brit Hume and Mr Sam Donaldson volunteered to be character witnesses for Mr Dale. Second, that in its report following the court case, the Office of the Independent Council concluded that Hillary Rodham Clinton’s testimony was “factually incorrect”. And third, that the media was so light on mentioning this incidence they virtually gave her a free pass.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton claims that what sets her apart from her immediate contender Senator Barack Obama, is the experience she has garnered through the indispensable time she spent in the White House as First Lady. Her intimate involvement in her husband’s presidency (as co-presidents perhaps) is what she holds to be the defining difference between her and the senator from Illinois.

But what experience exactly? Is she referring to foreign policy, where she defends Bill Clinton’s idleness in the hunt for Osama Bin Laden?

In the book as well as in the accompanying DVD - Hillary, the Movie - Bossie relates that the Clintons’ contempt for the intelligence community and the military manifested itself in a disinterest in foreign affairs, as well as the sidelining of the CIA. For instance, in the two years in which Mr James Woolsey was Director of Central Intelligence, the Clintons had a total of no more than two meetings with him.

And what about her role in pardoning terrorists? Such behaviour is acceptable, if it aids her campaign for the Senate.

In 1975, Puerto Rico FALN terrorists murdered Mr Frank Conner of New Jersey. FALN are the Spanish initials for Armed Forces of National Liberation). Mr Conner was a clean living, decent family man who as killed when a bomb was set off by the FALN in Lower Manhattan. The objective of FALN, after setting off 107 bombs in Chicago, Washington and New York City was made clear: to break Puerto Rico free from the US and turn it into a socialist nation.

At the time of their sentencing the terrorists were unrepentant and even promised to kill the judge. Americans were relieved when they were caught and incarcerated.

But in 1999 everything changed.

Mr Dick Morris recalls that when Hillary Rodham Clinton was considering running as a New York senator, she realised that she had no ties to the Empire State. Waking up and smelling the enchiladas, it dawned on her that there were 3.5 million Hispanics in the state. Voters she was so keen to capture, she warmly embraced a request from Mr Jose Rivera, a mouthpiece for Hispanic New Yorkers. Mr Rivera wanted her to convince her husband to grant clemency for the incarcerated terrorists.

Forty-eight hours later the pardons were granted.

While all intelligence and law enforcement agencies vehemently opposed any release of these murderers, President Clinton claimed that they were not violent criminals and that they deserved a second chance. Let’s not forget that the terrorists never sought clemency and neither did they offer to nor were they asked to co-operate with law enforcement agencies following their release.

The United States Senate in a rare exhibition of near unanimity across the aisles voted 95 to two condemning the actions of President Clinton in releasing the terrorists. Not that either Clinton lost sleep on account of that vote. And who - apart from the terrorists themselves - benefited from releasing the terrorists? Given Bill Clinton couldn’t run again for office, you be the judge.

It seems that if the happy couple had to pardon a few terrorists to get Mrs Clinton elected, then the end justified the means. When she was grilled about the pardons, she replied that she knew nothing about this. Quite laughable really given Mr Dick Morris’ recollection of the events. Events he was party to.

Clinton’s current campaign is grounded in remaking her as a “moderate” when the facts show her to be very left wing. What message was she sending to the world with the pardoning of the FALN? That the United States will negotiate with terrorists? That everything’s for sale in a Clinton White House if enough pesos are deposited?

Part of that reinvention involves her biggest volte-face to date: revising her position in relation to the liberation of Iraq. She has changed her position so as to maximise her chances with the centre of American electorate. Witness her record:

1998: Hillary Clinton claims that Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons against his people;

1998: She claims that action against Hussein is in the interests of the United States;

2002: She said “facts of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction are not in doubt … Saddam obstructed the weapons inspectors’ work … Saddam has given aid to al-Qaida … the authority to use force is inherent in the original 1991 United Nations Resolution, as President Clinton recognised when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998”;

2005: Mrs Clinton rejects calls for a rigid timetable for exit from Iraq; and

2007: She claims that “this is George Bush’s war and the troops should come home”. She moves to de-authorise the war and to repudiate all of her earlier votes.

When she feels that it’s politically expedient, she flags her distrust of the military. The US military that is. She comes to Iraq and belittles the US effort. In so doing, just what message to the world is she sending on foreign affairs? What is she telling Iraqi Prime Minister Noori al-Maleki? Prepare to be raped, pillaged, occupied and slaughtered by the Iranians and their Syrian brothers?

Her two radically opposing positions on Iraq beg the question: was Hillary Rodham Clinton lying in the past, or is she lying now?

Unfortunately for Hillary Rodham Clinton, more and more Americans are realising that her political influence is not necessarily proportional to her political worth, especially in the age of celebrity and the phenomenon known as Obamania. Mrs Clinton knows, consciously or unconsciously, how to claim the first while unsuccessfully stressing the second.

The tragedy is that in order to do so, she had to demonstrate what an impostor she is: rewriting history with every stroke of her pen.