Of all places, the New York Timeshas taken a look at the claims made by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on the campaign trail about the experience she has that makes her, in her words, “the most qualified candidate” running.
On the most important issue facing the world, The Times writes:
Associates from that time said that she was aware of Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden and what her husband has in recent years characterized as his intense focus on them, but that she made no aggressive independent effort to shape policy or gather information about the threat of terrorism.
Hell, if knowing about Al Qaeda and bin Laden is what qualifies as the experience necessary, we’ll throw our hat into the ring – we watched the 20/20 interview with him, too. And since Hillary didn’t have security clearance, that’s about all she knew too; unless the Clintons broke the law and spoke with each other about top secret intelligence, which they aren’t crazy enough to admit.
That hasn’t stopped Hillary from claiming a role in damn near everything that happened in those 8 years, except the obvious things she won’t talk about, like all the scandals and, well, you know. History has a funny way of wiping memories…
Hillary could take credit for everything, including the Apollo space program, if she would simply release the millions of pages of documents she refuses to allow access to, even papers dating back to her days as First Lady of Arkansas. Ironically, while she and her comrades on the Left decry the Bush Administration as “the most secretive in history,” a direct plea from her husband could shine a light on what she actually did do as First Lady.
The truth, however, may well differ so dramatically from the verbal resume she is attempting to sell voters that the prospect of that seems remote, at best. Were a Republican trying this, rest assured Woodwards and Bernsteins would be all over Little Rock and the National Archives like a rash looking for a leak. They would also probably find one. But it’s difficult to find what you’re not looking for. Especially when the paper of record makes a simple, casual reference to a cover-up in plain sight.