What Did Hillary Think about McChrystal’s Firing?

There’s a lot that’s interesting in this tick-tock of General McChrystal’s firing. It’s a finely crafted narrative, down to the foregrounding of Joe Biden, in spite of the way that the chronology appears to belie that narrative (that is, the chronology appears to start when the White House Press Office learns about the article). And note the way the normally cowardly anonymous source, Rahm Emanuel,  is on the record, as the story’s official narrator?

“He likes Stan and thinks Stan is a good man, a good general and a good soldier,” Mr. Emanuel said. “But as he said in his statement, this is bigger than any one person.”

But I’m most curious this paragraph:

On Tuesday, while General McChrystal was making the 14-hour flight to Washington, the White House was involved in a whirl of meetings about his fate. Along with Mr. Gates, aides say, four other senior officials were influential: Vice President Biden; the national security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones; the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Adm. Mike Mullen; and Mr. Emanuel.

Compare this paragraph with the picture, above, of the Afghan strategy meeting held after Obama canned McChrystal, conveniently arranged  by protocol in proximity to the President: Joe Biden, James Jones, Bob Gates, Hillary Clinton, Mike Mullen, Rahm Emanuel, David Petraeus, Tom  Donilon, John Brennan (here’s the official description of the Pete Souza WH picture).

That is, if the decision were made according to seniority, then someone is missing from the list of five important decision-makers counseling Obama (which include Gates, Biden, Jones, Mullen, and Rahm): Hillary Clinton.

Rahm, the official narrator here, says Hillary wasn’t one of the five advisors most central to the decision to can McChrystal.

There are a number of reasons why I find that interesting. First, as has been noted by a number of people, Hillary was one of the few top Obama advisors not slagged by McChrystal’s aides in the Rolling Stone story. On the contrary, the article specifically singles out Hillary for a compliment from McChrystal’s aides.

Only Hillary Clinton receives good reviews from McChrystal’s inner circle. “Hillary had Stan’s back during the strategic review,” says an adviser. “She said, ‘If Stan wants it, give him what he needs.’ ”

Nevertheless, McChrystal’s inability to cooperate with two people in Hillary’s portfolio–Richard Holbrooke and Karl Eikenberry–is one of the chief complaints McChrystal’s aides had.

Then there’s the fact that perhaps the biggest reason why Barack Obama is President right now and Hillary is Secretary of State instead is that she refused to fire her incompetent advisors during the campaign. Was she out of the loop on this firing as well?

Of course, Rahm and Hillary have their own history, and if Rahm was the narrator here, it might explain why Hillary was not depicted as one of the power players.

All of this is just Kremlinology, of course. But it says something that the White House chose to deploy Rahm to give an on-the-record account of Obama’s decisiveness here. And that that official record left out Hillary, either because she wasn’t involved or her involvement didn’t serve the overall narrative.

image_print
96 replies
  1. phred says:

    Has the WH ever not deployed Rahm to deliver the narrative? Mostly he does it anonymously, but there is a reason Obama and Rahm have become synonymous (e.g., Obrahma).

    • prostratedragon says:

      Hasn’t Axelrod been more out in front on the Gulf disaster?

      I think they have bailiwicks, though what they are is not clear to me yet. Maybe DA just steps in when RA has too many embarrassing ties.

      As to subject, does Hillary have anything operational to gain by showing prints on this one? After all, State is still trying to recover from the short-sheeting it got from the Bush-Cheney crew, isn’t it?

      • phred says:

        You may be right about Axelrod. I don’t follow the MSM (TV in general, Sunday bobbleheads in particular, the NYT, nor WaPo), so perhaps my first comment was too glib.

        You raise an interesting point though. I think it was in the Rahm might be leaving rumor piece (was it last week?) that suggested their were divisions in the WH. Perhaps Rahm and Axe are bickering and each trying to assert a different image.

        I haven’t seen much that suggests any substantive shifts in policy, but we’ll see.

        As for Clinton, I’m not much of a Kremlinologist, but fwiw, one can easily imagine that there might be those on the Obama team who worry that Clinton retains Presidential ambitions. Given the rumbling on the left that Obama needs to be primaried, perhaps there are those in the WH who do not want to enhance her stature in any way.

        Or maybe she really is a McChrystal fan girl and so she got left out. Or maybe she supported keeping him and lost the argument, hence she wasn’t “influential”. I dunno…

        • seeker561 says:

          “Given the rumbling on the left that Obama needs to be primaried,…”

          There is certainly a hard core cadre of Clintonistas that would love to see her back in play but it is hard to imagine that she could mount a credible primary challenge to Obama from the left. And I don’t think the “rumblers” have reached “the anybody but Obama ” atage yet

          • Cujo359 says:

            I supported Clinton in the primaries, once Edwards and most of the others were knocked out. I still think she was the better choice. I suspect there are quite a few of us. I don’t doubt for a second that there are also many progressives who don’t want Clinton as President, but never forget there were plenty of us who don’t mind so much when making those calculations.

  2. phred says:

    By the way, thanks for that link EW… the “coldly decisive” bit made me snort with laughter. Sheesh who writes such tripe? Those anonymous senior officials should take some writing courses.

  3. readerOfTeaLeaves says:

    But it says something that the White House chose to deploy Rahm to give an on-the-record account of Obama’s decisiveness here.

    Yes, it does. Although I’m not clear exactly what it says. Time will reveal all, no doubt.

    • NorskeFlamethrower says:

      AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…

      Citizen emptywheel and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:

      I think that, while there are a lot of movin’ parts in the entire warthing, in the case of this melodrama I think we are expendin’ too much energy lookin’ at parts of the engine and missin where the car is goin’. Now I am certainly no fan of Mrs. McClinton and I think that Rahm is a stinkin’ pile of toxic puke but Obama put together his administration with the purpose in mind to use each member’s strengths while balancing them politically against another advisor in the inner circle. I think Mrs. McClinton has performed beyond certainly my expectations and has been “handled” beautifully by Obama who has allowed her to do what she does best which is to bring folks together for a common purpose and keepin’ her people moving in the same direction. She has done a terrific job of rebuildin’ the State Dept. and NOT bein’ a target for the military cowboys…she has also been shrewd in steppin’ back in some areas, particularly Israel, and lettin’ other professionals attract the cameras and the flies.

      Havin’ said that, I think we are best served to look at the McCrystal thing as to what it says about where Obama is goin’ with the war. Remember that McCrystal’s folks were quoted as sayin that there would be no “victory” in Afghanistan and evrybody knows it, so when we get out of that shit hole (hopefully a year from now) neither McCrystal nor Obama wants to be accused of “losing Afgahnistan”, that burden has fallen where it belongs – right on Gen Petraeus!

      KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION, IT’S ALL ABOUT THE WAR, STUPID!

  4. klynn says:

    First graph needs a “ve” added:

    appears to belie that narrative

    Thanks for an insightful post.

        • klynn says:

          Sheesh, I need more coffee. Went back and reread, and yes, THAT makes sense! Sorry.

          Sent you something EW.

          And the list of names along with Hillary being left out states volumes to me about the view of diplomacy and state department strategy.

          Didn’t I read recently that Hillary had the highest poll ratings of anyone in politics right now? Hmmm…

  5. maxfisher says:

    I think it’s worth considering that the official White House story seems weird and full of odd little holes because, like many such carefully orchestrated accounts, it’s designed to cover over what may be the slightly more complicated truth of events. I’m a little skeptical that the White House canned the top man in their primary foreign policy initiative over a few inartful comments to Rolling Stone. Bottom line, they saw an opportunity to replace McChrystal without acknowledging that the war had taken a turn for the worse. There’s a good reason Obama name-checked “unity of effort” in his statement.

    • emptywheel says:

      Oh, and I thought the point of the fiction was just to get as much play out of “President wins dick-waving contest with hardass General” narrative.

      • Leen says:

        Need a laugh or a deep cry
        One of George Carlin’s best
        “the whole thing in the Persian Gulf was nothing more than a big prick waving dick fight” “War is a lot of prick waving” “bigger dick foreign policy” “fucking with people” “fuck em to death”

        “We Like War” “I don’t believe anything the government tells me”

  6. Jim White says:

    Seems to me there’s another big dog that Hillary never got around to “firing” but right now I can’t remember who that “is”.

  7. Broadstreetbuddy says:

    Emptywheel, I think you are looking for something that isnt there. One explanation why she wasnt there is that maybe she was busy and could not get back to DC in time to discuss the options. In this case the President, did not have time to wast and needed to make a decision or else he would look incredibly weak.

    But more importantly, her advise does not have any bearing on this matter at all. The President is the Commander in Chief of the Army and it is his job to maintain discipline and order in the ranks. The State Department, though they work with the Dept of Defense, should have input who gets fired in another agency. How would it look if a general in the Army asked the President to fire Hilary Clinton? In a beauracracy where roles are clearly defined one does not have to dig deep to see why a Clinton was not in on this decision.

    • phred says:

      By that logic, what possible rationale is there then for Rahm’s input? He’s not in the military, nor is he a Senate confirmed secretary.

        • phred says:

          Which puts him in the chain of command how exactly? Can you elaborate on why his opinion matters in this instance when the Secretary of State’s opinion is irrelevant? Since we’re nation-building over there — political solution and all that — I’m not sure how you can get away with writing her off so easily.

          • Broadstreetbuddy says:

            His opinion matters because he is the number one advisor and confidant of the President. We may not like Rahm very much but he is in a position to advise the President on anything and everything he likes as long as the persident is willing to listen.

            • phred says:

              Right, but your whole argument is predicated on a chain of command logic. It fails with Rahm, so I don’t know why it should apply to Clinton, especially when she clearly has Afghanistan in her portfolio.

          • liberalarts says:

            Because that’s the way they wanted to do it. Tiny little world they live in, hermetically sealed.

    • Knut says:

      Exactly. Her supposed support for McChrystal and her non-participation in the final decision is a spurious correlation. There’s no there, there.

      • emptywheel says:

        I think you both are missing the plain English in the post.

        I start with a question: What does Hillary think about the decision.

        That’s relevant bc (as the post notes) 1) She is the one top Obama official who was complimented in the RS article, and 2) She has authority over the people causing some of the trouble here, Eikenberry and Holbrooke (who WERE criticized badly).

        Now you may think that’s not an interesting question. I do.

        • msmolly says:

          And it’s not explained or observed about anywhere I’ve seen, despite reams of commentary about the McChrystal situation. Curious, I agree.

        • kyeo says:

          Yeah I don’t really get what you’re driving at. Why does it matter what Hillary thinks? If she agreed with him being fired, fine. If she disagreed, she was overruled. I’m not getting the relevancy here, or what, if anything, it means for a bigger picture.

          • kindGSL says:

            I figured since McChrystal was big in all the illegal activities, and Hilary knows way too much about, or is too involved in that too, she wouldn’t want her fingerprints anywhere near it.

            You all keep forgetting to factor in the drug war and the FACT that a lot of our leaders are war criminals and or married to war criminals. How are they going to walk all that back?

            EXCLUSIVE VIDEO INTERVIEW: Ex-CIA Official Reveals New Details About Torture, Plame Leak
            http://www.truth-out.org/interview-with-former-cia-officer-john-kiriakou59396

        • bmaz says:

          Not to mention that she is the person – along with Gates – in the upper administration that is the most respected by pretty much all the military. If you are making such a huge decision on the military, that is a person you might well want to have an imprimatur on it.

          • emptywheel says:

            Particularly since Gates–or someone in his immediate vicinity–has already been out leaking that he counseled against keeping McC.

            Then again, w/Hillary they might have had the votes in favor of keeping him.

            • bmaz says:

              Right. Then again, having been attached at the hip to a previous CIC you would also think she would have an understanding of the bad precedent that would be set by keeping him. I almost wonder if she just bagged out of being involved in the decision because why mess up her record with the military if she didn’t need to?

        • scribe says:

          You’re looking for something that might not (lkely isn’t) there. The way the firing was handled and the way the message was crafted was that this was all about military discipline and nothing about policy. I don’t know how many times it was said that this is just a change of people, and not a change of policy.

          Since it was advertised as purely a matter of military discipline, the Department of State would only have had input insofar as the military personnel and their indiscipline afected the Department of State. Their contempt for State personnel was pretty clear but, in the heirarchy of contemptuous acts reported, they lay far below hte contempt for the President, Vice President, and NSA Jones. So any input HRC might have had would have been on the aftermath – the successor and whether and how to change policy.

          I think McChrystal’s praise for HRC (and scorn for her subordinates) was more an attempt to sow some division in the Admin. Whether that attempt was on the part of McChrystal (to save his own hide, curry favor, or serve his Cheney & Co. masters – pick ’em) or on the part of the editors/publishers of Rolling Stone, I dunno. Either is likely and I would not exclude the possibility that Jann Wenner and Co. might have an axe to grind over other admin policies and saw this as an opportunity to fling some PUMA-turds into the Obama punchbowl.

          And, of course, Rahm is just an obonxious turd himself and maybe couldn’t resist the possibility of (a) pulling HRC’s pigtails (he’s about that mature) and/or (b) getting the blogosphere and Village scribes’ knickers in a twist over the possibility of there being an inernal dispute in the admin and/or (c) sticking one into HRC just because she’s a girl and he’s on his way out anyway.

          • bmaz says:

            Whether she was “there” or not is a fun gossipy discussion point; what she truly thought is actually a pretty interesting question. And i believe the question actually posed by the post.

  8. ekunin says:

    The problem with Obama’s governance style is that he needed consultation to do what had to be done. Consultation has uses. In this instance it did not.

    Still it’s difficult to understand what went down. Sometimes the obvious is the explanation. Sometimes it’s what you’re supposed to believe. Did McChrystal consult with anyone? He didn’t seem surprised or upset by the outcome.

    I have a paranoid, conspiratorial world view. I don’t think Oswald shot Kennedy.

    • NorskeFlamethrower says:

      Citizen ekunin:

      “Did McCrystal consult with anyone?”

      McCrystal was and is, of course, all tied up in the loop of sniveling, knuckl-draggin’, sadistic military bureaucrats who have been runnin’ this country into the ground since the Korean War and ultimately he saw the handwriting on the walls of the outhouse and got his ass out without bein’ associated with the coming defeat in the Middle East. I think that if anything, McCraystal’s exit and the way he orchestrated it is a signal that the rats are leavin the leaky dinghy that is the Afgahn War.

  9. alank says:

    They did dragoon McChrystal to the WH woodshed from across the world, so Hillary would’ve been in the mix if they thought she was needed, no matter where she was at the time. I expect she was against the firing. She wants all Muslims dead if possible.

  10. sonofloud says:

    Um Hillary lost the nomination because Obama was allowed to smear her and Bill as racists and because Obama refused public financing for his campaign, choosing instead to let Goldman Sachs and Wall St. pay his way.
    As for Gen. Betrayus……..there was a reason he was removed from command in Irag. The fact that the Obama propagandists are falling all over themselves congratulating Obama for giving him command in Afghanistan highlights their complete and utter hypocrisy.

    • Leen says:

      Clinton’s vote for that 2002 war resolution sure did not help. No way I would have supported her based on that vote. She more than likely knew the endlessly repeated WMD claims were bullshit.

      “Um Hillary lost the nomination because Obama was allowed to smear her and Bill as racists and because Obama refused public financing for his campaign, choosing instead to let Goldman Sachs and Wall St. pay his way.”

      I was in Charleston South Carolina during that time. The ads claiming that the Bill Clinton was racist were all over the place. More bullshit. It worked for a while

      • liberalarts says:

        It was reported, can’t remember where, that Hillary admitted not reading the report. Diane Feinstein, OTOH, did read it, was skeptical and privately called it “thin,” but voted for the war, anyway. Lots of Democrats and probably some Republicans voted to kick the shit out of Iraq because the American public was boiling mad and wanted somebody punished. I think Hillary was directed by the professional zionists, the lobbyists that are very strong and very monied in NY politics. More than one pol listens and obeys.

    • NorskeFlamethrower says:

      Citizen sonofloud:

      “Hillary lost the nomination because Obama was allowed to smear her and Bill as racists and because Obama refused public financing for his campaign, chosing instead to let Goldman Sachs pay his way.”

      Awe come on, you think that the McClintons aren’t creations of Goldman Sachs and the Wall Street oligarchy??!! No, dear, Mrs. McClinton lost because to the larger base of the Democratic Party she was a loser and couldn’t win and represented everything that regular folks wanted to get way from in the “Clinton years”. She is where she can do some good and provide an entree without bein allowed to fuck up the entire dinner

    • liberalarts says:

      Everything I read, and there was a lot to read, detailed the choas and incompetence of Hillary’s campaign operation. I found it embarrassing and I wasn’t part of it. Now, maybe I’m belaboring the obvious, but it’s a fact that a well run campaign does not a good office holder make. Also. However, given the utter disarray of Hillary’s shop, it’s hard to imagine her as at all effective in the presidency.

      The thing that especially struck me was how similar Hillary’s and McCain’s campaign shops were. I mean, in terms of disorganization and lack of discipline and direction, you wouldn’t have known which you were in.

      • Cujo359 says:

        Based the examples folks reminded me of earlier in this thread, I think Hillary Clinton, in contrast to Bill, has a hard time firing people. She strikes me as the more compassionate of the two, and is perhaps too compassionate in this regard. I don’t know whether either Eikenberry or Holbrooke are doing a good job where they are, but if either is not, it will be interesting to see how that plays out.

        • liberalarts says:

          I wonder if Hillary, unlike many politicians, needs real friends and that need betrays her. People in her circumstances don’t have friends, they have opportunity seekers and hangers-on and status seekers, that sort of thing. Not to mention, but I will, back stabbers and their ilk. Friends, I think, are terribly difficult to come by. So, when Hillary felt she had a friend, she suspended her critical objectivity, the way we all do with people we’re attached to.

          You have to be a cold blooded SOB to operate effectively at the top. Everyone is usable and if someone isn’t usable or screws up, she’s done. Only, you don’t do the throat slitting, you have a skilled assassin whose job that is. The top guy needs to always maintain the good guy image. You want the troops to have good feelings about you and your leadership.

          Temperamentally, Hillary may not be suited to the presidency. America needs a president who understands both the uses and the limits of power in a democracy. Rare individuals. What we get are people who, frustrated in one area, reach for democratically inappropriate power in another area. As thwarted ego compensation.

      • bmaz says:

        Losing campaigns always are painted as terminally disorganized or poorly run and winning ones as overly smooth or brilliant. Neither necessarily has any relationship whatsoever to governing ability.

        • scribe says:

          Nor does either description necessarily have any relation to the truth.

          If you win, you’re a genius. If you lose, you’re not.

        • liberalarts says:

          Actually, I believe campaigning and executiving, pardon the use, are antithetical skill sets.

  11. Cynthia says:

    Let me see if I’ve got this straight. McChrystal leaves his crappy job in a sand-box hellhole in Afghanistan and is headed back to the States to land a cushy gig in DC. Petraeus leaves his cushy gig in DC and is now headed back to the Muslim World to land a crappy job in a sand-box hellhole in Afghanistan. Who’s being punished here?

  12. TarheelDem says:

    The simple explanation. All of the five who dealt with the personnel matter were either advisors on the military side of national security or in the chain of command.

    The picture is from the follow-up meeting about what to do next in terms of overall national security policy in the area, given the change in personnel.

    Had the personnel involved Holbrooke or Eikenberry, Hillary would have been involved but not Gates and Mullen. Most likely Biden and Jones would have still been involved.

  13. TalkingStick says:

    Ir would have been unseemly for the Secretary of State to be involved in decisions regarding the conduct of war. They are the negotiating, diplomatic branch of government,.

    • spanishinquisition says:

      That would actually be a reason for her input rather than a reason to exclude her. What general is in charge does impact diplomacy. Militaries don’t wage wars in bubbles, which because there isn’t a bubble does mean that they do have an impact on diplomacy. Do you think it would be wrong if Secretary of State Clinton said that Gitmo was harmful? Afterall, Gitmo has impacted international relations even though it is run by the military, not the State department.

      • TalkingStick says:

        State needs to be informed. There are proper venues of input from the Secretary of State. Personnel appointments, strategy and tactics are not among them. If Hillary Clinton is involved in the war making in Afghanistan the credibility of state including the ambassadors is compromised. An example of the awful results of confusing roles has been the use of State by the CIA, Folks I am not making this up.Check the Constitution etc,

        • scribe says:

          Sorry – strategy is one of State’s proper baliwicks because strategy determines how we deal with furrin countries and populaces, clearly part of State’s job. Similarly, tactics (particularly as in Rules of Engagement) are one of State’s bailiwicks, insofar as State brings to the table the reactions of furrin countries’ governments and populaces to extant or proposed US ROE. Given that McChrystal was both sanctioning atrocities and making a mockery of the US international obligations to not torture or commit war crimes (those international obligations being State’s bailiwick), it was and is State’s duty to communicate those facts to the President.

          Those two are policy – which has not been changed, according to the President.

          The assignment, discipline, promotion and demotion of military officers only comes within State’s bailiwick if and when the particular officer in question has, as a part of the questioned conduct, interacted with State department personnel or (adversely) affected State’s carrying out its duties. Since the contempt by McChrystal and his staff was also directed at the President and others, State’s involvement might have been considered as something supplemental, piling on.

          • TalkingStick says:

            The channels for State are or should be different. Otherwise to be seen as an instrument of war disempower’s State as negotiator and peace maker. Yes the photo is offensive, not to just little me but other nations. The past 60yr of State’s increased involvement in war-making is perhaps why the US has come to be so hated and mistrusted,

            • TeresaInPa says:

              I am not sure the US is as hated and mistrusted as some of my fellow liberals would like to think. It is kind of like the myth about our failing schools. We don’t so much have failing schools as we have failing communities.
              We are not that hated and mistrusted around the world, only in the middle east and not even most of the people there, just the fanatics.

  14. phred says:

    Ir would have been unseemly for the Secretary of State to be involved in decisions regarding the conduct of war.

    So why is Secretary Clinton in the photograph hanging out with all the cool kids discussing the conduct of the war?

  15. SouthernDragon says:

    Gates wanted to keep McChrystal.

    Defense Secretary Robert Gates backed keeping Gen. Stanley McChrystal on the job because he was vital to the war effort in Afghanistan, but Gates was overruled, a senior Pentagon official told CNN’s Barbara Starr.

    CNN

    • phred says:

      That’s interesting. So, Gates made the influential list of 5, but was on the losing side? Interesting definition of influential, and it certainly is misleading to those reading the story in the NYT.

      • scribe says:

        You’re forgetting that Powell’s patron – as Powell himself admitted in his autobiography – was Cheney.

        Before Cheney came to his headquarters to check him out and put him forward to Reagan as a deputy National Security Advser and later NSA, Powell was a mere three-star, commanding V Corps in Frankfurt.

        Regardless of Powell sorta finding a conscience and quitting service of Bushco, he didn’t do squat to stop it. He’s still Cheney’s man.

        That, and he’s too old now.

  16. b2020 says:

    The key piece here is Clinton’s invisiblity, period.

    Obama made several appointments to sideline potential 2012 primary competitors and to eviscerate rival power centers. Clinton could have been both a prominent opposing voice in the Senate (imagine if she had, out of calculation or heartfelt conviction, taken up the cause of the rule of law) and a potential contender for 2012. By co-opting her into his dminstration, Obama not only paid off any deals made during the primary, he effectively muzzled her, and removed a powerful force from the Senate. The point is not how unlikely it is that she would have effectively and successfully opposed him, it’s that she conceivably could have.

    I suspect she is out of the loop on more than just firings. Why, by portfolio alone cabinet discipline ensured that she would not be able to interfere with the preemptive health insurance bailout.

    • bmaz says:

      I do not think she is all that out of the loop on much and I don’t think he is concerned about her primarying him in 2012.

      • joel1954 says:

        That won’t happen. for one thing she would never beat him and would pretty much assure a republican victory. I think it’s possible Obama just says screw it and doesn’t run again with all the problems he was handed.
        Still if it looks like he couldn’t get re-elected probably no democrat has a chance unless the GOP nominated Palin or some other idiot right winger.

  17. joanneleon says:

    Thanks for catching and pointing out the supposed absence of Hillary from the decision making process. I would have missed that, especially since she’s at the table in the photo op WH meeting.

    Wow, there’s a lot to speculate on in this situation. The Politico and NYT articles are infuriating pieces of crap, IMHO, but very telling. And as it happened, I watched this thing play out on tv and online starting in the very early AM on Tuesday, pretty much on bedrest for the past few days.

    Just my opinion, FWIW: I don’t know that I believe that Hillary was left out of this decision. I think it’s possible that she didn’t want to be named as one of the primary “deciders” or, I also think it’s possible that she didn’t agree with the way this whole thing was orchestrated. Maybe she said that she wasn’t on board with the whole Rolling Stone writer taking down a key General and a (most likely) Rahm-brained political scheme built around it. Who would have thought?

    I guess I also wonder if she’s just becoming marginalized. Maybe she always was, I don’t know. It didn’t look that way before. Now I wonder.

  18. Mary says:

    I think this was Obama’s moment to try to look important and historical and a) he only wanted military/Pentagony guys in the picture loop (and Rahm as the chronicler who could say f*ck enough to look tough) & b) he didn’t want a woman in the narratives or photo ops either, messing up his “I warrior” messaging. fwiw

  19. wirerat1 says:

    Who cares what Hillary thinks? Oh that’s right, the lemmings do. They want to disregard all the misdeeds of the Clinton administration and that of its continuation in the current administration. After all that was “Bill’s” administration and she doesn’t run the show currently.

    Give me a break, you think she’d do anything differently? Wake up and realize that she is just as privileged and as much an aristocrat as any of the current lot of New Democrats.

    She hasn’t done anything other than be the President’s wife and ride that fame to the Senate and on to the Department of State. Great, wow. She’s a famous wife who got cheated on, congrats.

    One of my professors in college was an Arkansas State Trooper who pulled over Mrs. Clinton. Needless to say, she was full of posturing and holier than thou attitude. She believes she is as much above the law as the next aristocrat.

    Wake up, she’s not your savior. Any of the Democrats currently on the stage are all as bad as the next. You guys go ahead and idolize her. She’ll save us in 2016. Lol, yeah right.

    • bmaz says:

      Who the hell said anything about being a savior?? That is a fine whiny rant you got there, but there was nothing in it germane to this post or discussion. Jeebus.

  20. Watson says:

    “[Hillary] said, ‘If Stan wants it, give him what he needs.’ ”

    In the testosterone-charged world of foreign/military policy, an effective strategy for a woman is to be the most hawkish person in the room.

  21. TeresaInPa says:

    this sort of opinion of Hillary Clinton was crap during the primries and is worse crap now because you have had time to figure a few things out.
    As far as your teacher in Arkansas, did he ever tell you that they state police admitted being paid to lie about BC in 1992 election and afterwards? I would not take the word or opinion of a cop from Arkansas very seriously.

    Hillary Clinton is exactly who she appears to be, a very smart women who grew up in a blue collar to shop owner family. She is not an elitist and is someone who will tell you what she thinks whether you like it or not. Evidenced by her appearance at Ykos where she talked about lobbyiests and admitted to taking their meetings while Obama lied and told us he was against lobbyists and some people where dumb enough to believe him.

  22. TeresaInPa says:

    Then there’s the fact that perhaps the biggest reason why Barack Obama is President right now and Hillary is Secretary of State instead is that she refused to fire her incompetent advisors during the campaign. Was she out of the loop on this firing as well?

    Yes they were so terrible that she got more vote and would have won the primaries (as opposed to Obama being selected by super Delegates) had the votes of people in Florida and MI not been dumped by the DNC.
    The RBC meeting of the DNC in 2008 is the most shameful excercise in vote rigging that I have ever seen short of Bush and Gore 2000.

  23. TeresaInPa says:

    I am not sure she wanted to be in the loop. She supported giving McC the troops he asked for as long as we were going to escalate the war anyway. Why not make it work if you aren’t going to get out.
    I am not sure how that makes her more “hawkish” according to a commenter above. I think it makes her more practical.

Comments are closed.