"Voters will have to judge if living in a foreign country at the age of 10 prepares one to face the big, complex international challenges the next president will face,"’ Clinton said. "I think we need a president with more experience than that, someone the rest of the world knows, looks up to and has confidence in."(Voters will also have to judge whether being First Lady is the kind of experience we need.)
ADDED: I see now that I'm not the only one to read Hillary's mockery and think yeah, right, First Lady.
AND: It's the point of Maureen Dowd's column too: "Is living in the White House between the ages of 45 and 53 foreign policy experience?"
Come on, Barack: Attack! Of course, she'll push you back with that stern reminder that you promised to be Mr. Hopeful Sunny Dreams, but you've got to get over that.
And, by the way, I think the quote — "Probably the strongest experience I have in foreign relations is the fact I spent four years overseas when I was a child in Southeast Asia" — was meant as a kind of witticism, a play on the words "foreign relations." He developed relationships with people in a foreign country. If there were a novel titled "Foreign Relations" — you'd instantly get it.
Posts
127 comments:
Voters will also have to judge whether being First Lady is the kind of experience we need
I'm not a Hillary fan, but I do think her 8 years in the White House gave her useful experience. While they played down the "two for one" aspect of their marriage after the Health Care fiasco, she was involved in what went on, for better or worse, during the Clinton administration.
In some respects, her relation with Bill was more of a sibling relationship than a traditional marriage relationship in the White House. More JKK-RFK than LBJ-Lady Bird. Bill couldn't appoint her to the AG post, but did the next best thing in picking nominees to her liking. And like RFK she carpetbagged a NY Senate seat after her relative left the oval office.
Wow - these two are really leaving scars on each other. The scars will be great fodder for the Rep candidate.
Obama beats my own experience - my sole foreign experiemce is my family subscribed to National Geographic when I was growing up.
Reminds me of Jimmy Carter's moment in the 1980 debates when he said Amy, his daughter, thought that arms control was the #1 issue.
It's important to know about and preferably to have lived in other cultures.
Plus, as he pointed out in his response to Hillary, he knew better than to support the Iraq War.
Plus, as he pointed out in his response to Hillary, he knew better than to support the Iraq War.
That may come back to haunt him as Iraq appears to be 'turning'
"preferably to have lived in other cultures"
Why "preferably"?
This claim to foreign relations competence by Obama makes him seem hollow and clueless. When I read this yesterday in the paper, I laughed and said to my husband that if living in a "foreign" country from one's birth at age 10 is what it takes to make a good president, we have lots of illegal aliens who will be contenders in the future.
Ouch. He walked into that one.
Wasn't John McCain born in a foreign country? Anyway, he also experienced some foreign relations in Southeast Asia. More than four years, I think.
Speaking of foreign, Hillary spent nearly eight years in a foreign relationship right here in the White House.
I think this blog should become "On Demand". We the commenters demand something and the queen responds.
My "on demand" request is a vlog....NOW.
Gee Pogo I guess you're right, reading about foreign countries from the comfort of the US is the same as living there.
A vlog with a cowboy hat and a gun would be especially hot. I also see fringe. Maybe Annie Get Your Gun playing in the background.
All this gun talk go with a theme and make a vlog about guns in western gear (think Madonna in her western stage) a gun and gun music.
Please consider it. It will be the talk of the blog world.
Also, if you shoot the guns and little flags project out saying "BANG" would be very hot.
What about the blase way in which people seem to be reacting to his repeated acknowledgements that he "experimented" with drugs as a teenager?
There's a euphemism....experimented!
Yes, the unsupervised depressed (?) teenager experimenting!
I'm still waiting for some super-duper reporter to find his high school friends/teachers/relatives to tell us more about his drug use. Just get that high school yearbook and start making phone calls. Journalism 101...
What about the blase way in which people seem to be reacting to his repeated acknowledgements that he "experimented" with drugs as a teenager?
Must have something to do with the fact that people aren't idiots. People got over W's cocaine use, didn't they?
"People got over W's cocaine use, didn't they?"
Based upon the number of times I've seen it referred to over the past 8 years, no, they didn't.
It's important to know about and preferably to have lived in other cultures.
I . . . actually, I agree, although I wouldn't consider it a particularly important qualification for the presidency. It's just enriching to have cultural competence, as it were, in something other than your native culture, sort of like learning foreign languages.
But a person whose strongest experience in foreign relations is the fact he spent four years overseas as a child is basically conceding that he has no experience in foreign relations at all.
someone the rest of the world knows, looks up to and has confidence in.
``Looks up to'' : laughter bursts out.
Obama at least wasn't so tone deaf as to produce that reaction, instead going for fixed and eternal cliches that he's heard.
So far, personal destruction has been self inflicted.
And Hillary Clinton's foreign affairs experience consists of what, exactly?
Kissing Soha Arafat? Supporting the UN's push to make "reproductive services" available to girls as young as eight? Trying to implement the worst aspects of British and Canadian medical systems?
Fair enough. There are plenty of candidates on both sides with limited foreign affairs experience.
What I want is a candidate --from either side -- who is absolutely and unquestionably committed to American interests and is willing to take immense amounts of $#|+ from the rest of the world to defend them vigorously.
Presently, in addition to the current occupant of the White House, that might include Giuliani, McCain, and Lieberman. Of course we all know what happened to Mr. Lieberman in the Democrat Party, and their current crop of candidates merely reflects that rot.
Well, not that many jobs entail negotiating with foreign governments (including mayor of NYC and governor of MA).
I think when he said it was his "best" qualification he means it in the sense that people say traveling abroad was their best education.
Obviously you need to know stuff and not just lived places, but Obama's also a pretty smart guy, by all accounts.
And Hillary Clinton's foreign affairs experience consists of what, exactly?
Kissing Soha Arafat? Supporting the UN's push to make "reproductive services" available to girls as young as eight? Trying to implement the worst aspects of British and Canadian medical systems?
Fair enough. There are plenty of candidates on both sides with limited foreign affairs experience.
What I want is a candidate --from either side -- who is absolutely and unquestionably committed to American interests and is willing to take immense amounts of $#|+ from the rest of the world to defend them vigorously.
Presently, in addition to the current occupant of the White House, that might include Giuliani, McCain, and Lieberman. Of course we all know what happened to Mr. Lieberman in the Democrat Party, and their current crop of candidates merely reflects that rot.
And Hillary Clinton's foreign affairs experience consists of what, exactly?
Kissing Soha Arafat? Supporting the UN's push to make "reproductive services" available to girls as young as eight? Trying to implement the worst aspects of British and Canadian medical systems?
Fair enough. There are plenty of candidates on both sides with limited foreign affairs experience.
What I want is a candidate --from either side -- who is absolutely and unquestionably committed to American interests and is willing to take immense amounts of $#|+ from the rest of the world to defend them vigorously.
Presently, in addition to the current occupant of the White House, that might include Giuliani, McCain, and Lieberman. Of course we all know what happened to Mr. Lieberman in the Democrat Party, and their current crop of candidates merely reflects that rot.
I see now that I'm not the only one to read Hillary's mockery and think yeah, right, First Lady.
Do you find that comment sexist?
First Ladies are women. They gain a lot of experience because their husbands are in positions of power -- not just as President, but also in the positions husbands hold previously (Governor, Senator, whatever).
I think they gain more or less the same amount of experience as any (male) Vice President. But just because she's a women you cast it aside as just a wife thing and not deserving being noted?
and is willing to take immense amounts of $#|+ from the rest of the world to defend them vigorously.
Does taking $#%= include more acts of terrorism on our soil? Just curious.
reading about foreign countries from the comfort of the US is the same as living there
Right on..... and living in an insular bubble (as the wife of a governor and wife of a president) where you never have to talk or interact with anyone other than paid sycophants is just like living in the US with the rest of us working stiffs.
Uh uh... that gives the politicians real insight into the foreign country of "fly over" America.
They are all a bunch of narcissistic, disconnected, power hungry boobs who are just pretending that they have a connection with the people of the US.
First Ladies are women. They gain a lot of experience because their husbands are in positions of power -- not just as President, but also in the positions husbands hold previously (Governor, Senator, whatever).
So, by that reasoning, if my husband is a heart surgeon you are willing to let me crack your chest and fiddle with your valves?
Pretty weak analogy, DBQ.
(Voters will also have to judge whether being First Lady is the kind of experience we need.)
Apart from Clinton II's heavy involvement in her husband's administration, it's also worth noting that "First Lady" is a position that seems to carry a lot of diplomatic obligations in America. Not in the sense of hammering out the provisions of the next free trade agreement or getting hornswoggled by the North Koreans for the upteenth time, but in the sense of going around and kissing babies to promote good will and comity of nations and all that. And -- under the Democrats' account -- that whole sweet-nothings side of diplomacy has been neglected under Bush II, so that experience with it as First Lady is potentially more than usually helpful.
Re: Bart Hall:
What I want is a candidate --from either side -- who is absolutely and unquestionably committed to American interests and is willing to take immense amounts of $#|+ from the rest of the world to defend them vigorously.
Well . . . Clinton might not be a terrible choice there. I think her husband may not have had an ideal foreign policy, but he stood up for American interests. That might not be what he told other countries, but he was just lying to them. As usual. Kyoto, for example -- he signs and then never bothers to do anything to make it into actual binding law in the US. He just plays gullible foreigners for fools there (and, to be fair, most of them seem to have been trying to do the same to us). The mine-ban issue -- he came out strongly in favour of America's right to put mines wherever it likes, no matter how many third world children get their arms and legs blown off in horrific accidents. And even on Korea -- what I think was the most obviously boneheaded move in his entire administration -- it does appear, from a certain light, that he was just lying to the North Koreans, and had absolutely no itention whatsoever of living up to America's obligations re: the construction of the light water reactors (we were supposed to begin in the 90s, but under Clinton we didn't lift a finger; we seem to have taken our obligations under the agreed framework seriously only after Bush II took office).
Telling lies to foreign governments and playing them for fools may not be as satisfying as telling them forthrightly when they're wrong, but it's not incompatible with American interests. Sometimes it's in our interests to lie shamelessly.
Doyle--
Ok.
I'd like to see the story explored the way the media tried to look into the history of Bush's purported drug use.
(Not sure, though, if it was ever confirmed that he used illegal drugs, though it's clear he was either an alcoholic or close to it and wasting his life away.)
Anyway, where does a teenage boy get money for cocaine? Not cheap. And if he was smoking pot and doing coke, odds are he was "experimenting" with other stuff. Good story. Who's dug into it?
MoDo skewers HRC on this issue today.
Mary:
So Chelsea is different from the twins because Chelsea chose a very high-paying job on Wall Street while the twins chose to teach children?
If that is what you meant, I agree with you.
Perhaps Senator Obama was being tongue in cheek when he said that? Thats my take.
Moreover, I dont believe any job other than perhaps Secretary of State would prepare any candidate for the foreign policy arena. This is a total non-issue and is yet another characterisitc of an interminable campaign.
DBQ: I agree with Doyle, it's a horribly weak analogy.
Do you think it's sexist to disregard any experience a first lady might acquire from her position, but not disregard the experience a Vice President might acquire?
Obama only spoke the truth, which is that he essentially has no foreign relations experience. Mrs. Clinton, also lacking, evaded the issue [as usual] by ridiculing Obama. Dem candidates give one a warm feeling, do they not? Such statesmanship, such keen insight, such personal integrity, such grand accomplishments, such wealth of experience...
So, by that reasoning, if my husband is a heart surgeon you are willing to let me crack your chest and fiddle with your valves?
Good point. Remember the Indian doctor couple who let their kid perform surgery (a Caesarian, I think)? Simply living in the same household is not the same as actual training and experience.
DBQ- not sure why Doyle and MM don't like your analogy.
Maybe they think being a bad president isn't as disastrous as being a bad surgeon.
Pundit automatically equals instant retard.
So my sophomore year abroad qualifies me as a foreign policy expert?
Obama is so weak he can't even compete with someone who claims knowing where the china is stored in the White House qualifies her to be president.
If you had to have your heart surgery -- or Caeasarian -- done by someone who'd never done it before, who would you prefer do it: someone who has observed them being done, or someone who hasn't? That is the more appropriate analogy.
I am a dem and don't think that either Obama or Clinton have any experience with forign dipolomicy. This is why Richardson is the most qualified candidate. Next Hillary and Obama will get into an arguement about who has more experience being the executive of a large organization (like a governor or mayor or CEO).
You will end up with Junior Mints in your chest cavity with thinking like that.
Ricky Ricardo: Lucy's actin' crazy.
Fred Mertz: Crazy for Lucy, or crazy for ordinary people
Ricky Ricardo She wants to go on stage at Club Babalu and conduct the band. She can’t do that, just because she is my wife doesn’t me she can do my job.
Lucy Ricardo: But Ricky I learned a lot after all these years.
Fred Mertz: That’s right, Ethel couldn’t handle my job.
Ethel Mertz Being a tightwad is pretty easy.
Lucy Ricardo: Come on Ricky, being married to a Cuban for ten years means I know all about the Cha-Cha-Cha! Just yesterday I taught them how to play Gershwin with a Latin beat. I even sang! They threw all your arrangements away, they know that it takes a woman to make beautiful music.
Fred Mertz So that’s why all those cats are out in the alley. I thought Ethel’s mother Maxine was in town.
Ricky Ricardo: Lucy, you got some 'splainin' to do.
(I Love Lucy, 1951)
Why no discussion of this:
The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
So I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.
There was one problem. It was not true.
I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice President, the President's chief of staff, and the president himself.
Or this:
Huckabee: "It's stunning. It's one of those moments where I'm glad to not be a Washington insider...they are serious allegations but we don't know whether they're true...they deserve to be thoroughly investigated and the truth brought to the American people."
Or this:
Shortly after news of the McClellan excerpt broke, Politico caught up with Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper, two reporters who received information about Valerie Plame's identity and were caught up in the subsequent legal proceedings.
"You're only as good as your sources," Miller, who was a reporter at the New York Times when the imbroglio broke, said with a mischievous laugh.
Miller, now an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute, spent 85 days in jail by not revealing her source. "Nothing surprises me about Washington during this administration anymore," she said.
Or this:
Valerie Plame issued this a statement:
"I am outraged to learn that former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan confirms that he was sent out to lie to the press corps," Plame said. "Even more shocking, McClellan confirms that not only Karl Rove and Scooter Libby told him to lie but Vice President Cheney, presidential Chief of Staff Andrew Card and President Bush also ordered McClellan to issue his misleading statement."
McClellan turned down interview requests Tuesday.
Trooper,
I see you've given up masturbation for the holidays.
C'mon...give us something..."original."
Ricky Ricardo: Did he give you a tough day?
Lucy Ricardo: No, just the same as any other day: after breakfast, I put on his snow suit. I pull on his galoshes. I slip on his mittens. I walk him to the park. He chases the pigeons. I chase after him. He runs after the squirrels. I run after him. He get's on the swing. I push the swing. We go on the teeter-totter. He teeters, I totter. Then we leave the park and we walk home. I pull off his galoshes. I pull off his mittens. I pull off his snow suit. I tell him to go into his room and play with his teddy bear. But he insists on going on the computer and posts obscenities and demands for oral sex. He has the reading comprehension of a rock and the vocabulary of crack whore. It’s very difficult to have a slack jawed moron as a son. And that is why you find me sitting here with my coat and my boots on.
Ricky Ricardo: Whew! I'm worn out from just listening.
(I Love Lucy, 1951)
Heh. trooper killing me.
AFAIK Obama's drug use is in the distant past, so who cares? If he admitted doing it yesterday that's one thing, but 20 years or more ago? Don't care. As far as the first lady getting as much OJT as the VP, I think that would have been true Pre-Carter but since then the President has been delegating more and more authority to the VP. The first lady has experience as an important councilor to the President, but (hopefully) not the experience as the one that HAS to make a decision that could effect millions of people. I'm not sure you can get that experience without some executive history in your background.
L0S thinks Bush is running for reelection. Just keep on thinking that.
Agree with Jeff's take on drug use--I appreciate Obama's honesty on the issue. I know not everyone uses drugs in their youth, but I suspect more kids than I care to think about have experimented in their youth. It isnt a big deal as far as I am concerned.
Isn't it fascinating that Lucy and her fellow-travellers in the leftosphere never believed a word out of McClellan's mouth when he was Press Secretary, and yet are now canoninzing him. They apparently think that a man is more likely to lie for his boss's hide than for his own enrichment.
Well, Simon, do you believe him?
Why no discussion of this:
I'll bite. Probably cause no one gives a shit.
Isn't it fascinating that Lucy and her fellow-travellers in the leftosphere never believed a word out of McClellan's mouth when he was Press Secretary
Even more fascinating is the faux outrage over the 'outing' of a covert agent of the CIA, that nasty organization that spies on people and locks up people in secret prisons in places like Romania. Probably in Vlad the Impaler's dungeons no less.
Amen, Simon. The other funny part would be Valerie Plame being "outraged to learn" about the "lies".
Seeing as she was central to this whole debacle, you would think she would have said something like "surprised he admitted".
Guess she forgot her notes.
MM, I didn't believe a word out of his mouth when he was WHPS, and I certainly don't believe a word out of his mouth now that there's a buck to be made from throwing Bush under a bus.
Lucy used to tend bar at Big Al’s Whiskey and Hooters Emporium. She told everyone that she was part owner but no one really believed her. Lucy was contract help. Later she would tell people she had been an independent contractor but that’s not what the temp agency had called her. They called her Looney Lucy and she hated it. She wasn’t crazy; she just had a different sense of humor. It had been really funny when she had tasered that Jehovah’s Witness fifteen times. The police didn’t like it though and she had had to spend the night in jail. Those bastards were certainly republicans and she hated them all.
From Chapter Nineteen of “Hate Me, Hate You, A Tale of Despair and Loathing in The 21stCentury.)
Please dont let Lucy hijack the foreign policy thread with a rehash of Plame!
Roger--
Your reaction is exactly what the handlers hope for.
Lots of kids do it, 'preciate the honesty, let's move on.
No...let's not...lots of questions here...was the Sen. "experimenting" daily, every other day, weekly? How often and for how many years? Did he buy drugs? Sell them? Where'd the money come from? How old was he? Then...you ask...Hmm..what was his family life like...didn't his parents notice? What else didn't they notice? What values did he learn at home? Etc.
If one candidate was a high school class valedictorian, Eagle Scout, and active in church and the other was smoking pot, if those are the only criteria one has upon which to base a vote, then I'll take the Boy Scout.
"if those are the only criteria one has upon which to base a vote,"
I don't think you will ever see that.
Distant past. People change. They grow up. I am not going to condemn someone for a lifetime for doing something that millions of other Americans have done. It's only relevant if it is either current or in the very recent past.
Isn't it fascinating that Lucy and her fellow-travellers in the leftosphere never believed a word out of McClellan's mouth when he was Press Secretary, and yet are now canoninzing him.
Alternate narrative: Liberals didn't believe a word out of McClellan's mouth and now he admits that in fact he was passing along falsehoods.
No one is canonizing him, but to the extent he can provide prosecutable information his self-serving, too-little-too-late admissions are still better than nothing.
Plus he can sell books!! Not likely that was any kind of factor huh?
Ha ha LUCY- now everyone is calling you LUCY. Dipshit.
Btw, your unauthorized biography (Hate me, Hate You .. 21st Century Despair...) is up to number 50 on NYT bestseller list.
When did Hillary Clinton drop out of the race and endorse Bill Richardson?
Never mind that he's a bilingual former member of the State Department, staff member for the Senate Foreign Rleations Committee, Congressman with a special care for foreign affairs, and UN Ambassador who speant years living in Mexico. He's done more foreign-policy work in the last five years as Governor of New Mexico than Clinton, Edwards, and Obama combined have done in their whole lives.
I lived in Miami when I was 9 through 11 years old. Get me to Cuba. I understand the Cuban people better than Obama. Let me at Fidel.
Millions of Americans have never felt the need to experiment with drugs and never did. Wouldn't know pot if they smelled it.
The idea that "everyone does" is a bad message to send young people. Sort of like "everyone in high school has sex" and "everyone shoplifts" or "everyone tells self-serving white lies." Firstly, it's not at all true. Secondly, those things are not things that contribute to strong communities and healthy lives. Even figuring that nearly all drugs should be legalized, (coming from a libertarian standpoint), drug use is STOOPID. It shows a severe lack of wisdom and self-control... and the idea that young people are off the hook for self-rulership is dangerous and detrimental to themselves and to communities. "Kids" used to take on adult roles and responsibilities during teenage years. It's not unreasonable to expect "kids" today... freaking college students!... to do what teenagers did in past centuries.
Even so, someone *could* admit drug use in such a way that emphasized the foolishness of doing so and the pain, either experienced or thankfully avoided, that can result.
I don't know how Obama expressed himself.
Here in NM the lady challenging Heather Wilson did it like this, "Well, ha ha, I went to college in the 60's, ha ha ha..."
Which was stooopid, because like her or *not*, Wilson went to college at about the same time but she went to the Air Force Academy where drug use was not "ha ha". And she said as much.
Drug use is not "ha ha". It's not a joke of youthful normalcy.
Listening to Clinton and Obama argue over who has more experience is like listening to Beavis and Butthead argue over who is better at picking up chicks.
Hey, I never touched the stuff. My drug is sold in bars. But I know millions of others have. Again, as long as its in the past, who cares?
Synova -
Do you think a somewhat ancient history of drug use is sufficiently bad that it makes sense to shrink the pool of potential US presidents to those who don't have one? Because I think you'd be cutting the field at least in half, conservatively.
And again, our current president was an unrecovering alcoholic well into adulthood.
Conservatives couldn't care less about foreign policy experience, they elected someone who wouldn't know a Cuban from a Muslim, twice. Thee only thing they care about is they talk some smack at muslims, and liberals. That's it. It's why they hate McCain, and why they love a Mayor who looks like Dracula, even though he has no real experience, has articulated no solutions other than saying he'll "get the bad guys". And Draculani knows this is enough.
Rudy looks like Dracula? Wow--I don't see the resemblance, but it does explain why we never see Rudy during the day! Keen analysis, there Garage--you are in contention for Krugie's job at the NYT with insightful commentary like that.
Yeah "Fred Thompson" is also a pretty good rejoinder to conservatives who pretend to care whether the president knows what he's talking about in terms of foreign (or domestic) policy.
Conservatives couldn't care less about foreign policy experience
I voted for George H.W. Bush over Bill Clinton in 1992. Seems like that man had an overwhelming amount of foreign policy experience. Something conservatives do care about.
George W. Bush is his son, so apparently had the foreign policy experience of both Hillary and Obama going into his tenure as president.
Madison Man - First Ladies are women.
Wow! How perceptive!
They gain a lot of experience because their husbands are in positions of power -- not just as President, but also in the positions husbands hold previously (Governor, Senator, whatever).
Generally, the wife of a powerful man gains respect. Recognition that she was probably a factor in his success. Knows things, enhances the "network" of people on the implementation or social side of weilding power. In the military, it is the Admiral's wife or General's wife that has great respect.
But...but...
The experience they gain, just as with wives and now male spouses of powerful government sector or highly skilled private sector execs does not translate into successful executive experience of their own.
When the Congressman or Senator goes down in a plane, so to speak, many times the spouse will be named to fill their shoes until an emergency election is held. Rarely to those caretakers last...and obviously, no such indulgence is done in the military or private sector because those exec jobs are just too important.
Maureen Dowd and Tony Blankley weighed in on Hillary being "experienced". Dowd calls Hillarys claims "Nepotism masked as feminist (accomplishment) and notes the last thing Hillary ever accomplished on her own was getting admitted to Yale Law School. The rest - all the NGO Boards, her almost no-show featherbedding jobs at U of Arkansas Law School Fayettville, Rose Law, Tyson Foods "consulting", First Ladyhood and Senator jobs at came through connected people and Big Bill.
Tony Blankley wisely notes that many of his fellow DC media insiders have a pretty good idea of just how "executive" she was. There should be a massive paper trail of all the policy memos that circulated on issues she claimed she was "executive-leading on" - thousands of memos that had her name in routing or making policy recommendations and decisions on the margins.
There should be records of how many critical meetings and daily foreign intelligence Morning Report, Joint Chiefs of Staff briefings, economy dicussions Bill had that also included the "Co-President" - as well as well-placed leakers that could confirm or deny as well as the executive paper trail just how "executive" and how influential Hillary was pre-1994 when the Clinton Presidency almost imploded, and post 1994.
Both Blankley and Dowd appear to believe Hillary has incredible gall going after Obama as ineperienced when, effectively the "Takes a Village" woman is a walking Potemkin village.
More Madison Man - I think they gain more or less the same amount of experience as any (male) Vice President. But just because she's a women you cast it aside as just a wife thing and not deserving being noted?
No one casts aside the "wife thing". But a discussion of nepotism vs. merit is just as applicable as when discussing how the talented lawyer Melinda Gates became the youngest woman ever to be offered a seat on Duke University's Board of Trustees.
There must be some reason why First Ladies are not run as VPs. Could it be that they may not be credible, lacked credentials if FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Carter,Reagan,HW, Bubba, and Dubya had chosen Eleanor, Bess, Mamie, Jackie (or a concubine), Lady Bird, Pat, Roslynn, Nancy, Babs, Hillary!, or Laura as VP instead of First Lady?
Even if many had "served" near excutive people as Governor's wives, General's wives, Senate wives?
The VP "experience" is very different than the 1st Lady "experience" - which has only recently been glamourized in the Press or allocated a separate budget at the White House.
Of modern VPs, only Truman has truly out of the loop as VP, but he was an accomplished executive leader before being VP. He had a resume in his own right.
The other VPs were involved parties in executive proceedings. That makes the Constitution with its elected VP provision contain a whole lot more sense than rules of European royalty in family succession to power no matter how much "experience" the royal son, daughter, or wife got at the Castle.
*******************
I think the story on Hillary that isn't being told is a fascinating story in its own right. As she has gone after poor little Obambi, the inexperienced fawn - on his lack of exec experience compared to her vast "hands on" work...no Democrat has counterattacked as hard as they could or asked "Where's the Beef, Hillary??" because to attack her is to attack the now-revered Statesman Bubba.
The Republicans have not gone after her, except when Mitt Romney, Huckabee, and Giuliani justly claim they have true executive credentials gained on their own merit compared to her...as a way of helping themselves in their own primaries. But no major, sustained attacks like Blankley and Dowd suggest to explore how phony or not she is based on her paper trail and interviews with past major operatives in Arkansas and the White House. Records and operatives that could detail just just how executive and influential Hillary! actually was.
That suggests that the Republicans strongly want to run against Hillary and are muting their attacks while she knocks off or blocks last minute entry to people they do not want to run against with her vast hoard of campaign money -(Warner, Bayh, a noted General who is a Democrat, Obama, Napolitano, Gore).
And the media still embraced the PC aspects of the "1st woman in the land ready and qualified to be President. A woman who is one of the ablest lawyers and smartest people alive. Who will return America to the good era the media now remembers fondly."
Nevermind she could be the Potemkin
Lady, that she failed the DC Bar exam and never litigated a noted case, and was a major contributor to what the media criticized as the "bad spots" of the Clinton years - the scandals and the health care fiasco.
I tend to discount the value of HRC's White House experience. Had she logged any significant time int he West Wing, surely she would have noticed Monica crouching under Bill's desk.
Brad de Long, most certainly not a member of the VRWC, skewers HRC's executive ability based on her work with the Health Care Bill of 1993: here
Yeah "Fred Thompson" is also a pretty good rejoinder to conservatives who pretend to care whether the president knows what he's talking about in terms of foreign (or domestic) policy.
Yeah it's not like Sen. thompson actually served time on the Council on Foriegn relations actually formulating foriegn policy....oh wait.....
Doyle, I'm pretty sure that I said that how a candidate expresses the information matters more.
But the fact of it still matters. Just how much? To act like everyone does it isn't something I'd like to see and I hope that people think about that when they say "so what."
On the one hand it is "so what" old news and shouldn't matter much. On the other hand, it ought not to be expressed as though drug use in college or experimentation or anything else is "okay, because everyone was young and stupid once."
Not everyone young is stupid.
I don't have a problem with a candidate who says they did take drugs in the past so long as it's expressed as, I suppose, a regret. I have a rather significant problem with, "Ha ha, well, I went to college in the 1960's you know, ha ha ha..."
Doyle said...
"Alternate narrative: Liberals didn't believe a word out of McClellan's mouth and now he admits that in fact he was passing along falsehoods.
By characterizing his recent claim as an "admission," you're assuming the answer: that statements he made as WHPS were false and that his claim now that his statements then were false is in fact true. Which leaves you precisely where I accused you and your pals of being before: you didn't believe him then because what he said didn't comport with your predetermined view of the Bush administration and thus had to be false, but now what he's saying does comport with your predetermined view of the Bush administration, and so it must be accurate.
So having been incredulous of just about every WHPS, we're now supposed to be equally incredulous when one claims to have been spouting BS?
I'm sure you have us all in a tight logical net, Simon, I'm just having a hard time seeing it.
Also, how can you possibly still be accusing us of holding "predetermined" views of the Bush admin?
We've all gotten a pretty long look at it over these past 7 years.
Very simple to compare the experience of growing up in a foreign country vs. real foreign policy experience.
Here's the pudding:
Another candidate, Bill Richardson, lived for several years in Mexico, and also has a lot of real foreign policy experience, having so much that earlier this year even the Bush administration asked him to go to North Korea to negotiate on their behalf.
Now, does Richardson discuss his years as a kid in Mexico, or does he discuss his years doing real foreign policy work? The answer is the latte, in fact he rarely mentions living in Mexico, not even when he is talking to spanish-speaking audiences.
Doyle, your burden is to posit an explanation of why McClellan's claims now are to be deemed more credible than his claims then, and an explanation that rests on how much you want to believe them based on your a priori assessment of the Bush administration doesn't cut the mustard. The credibility problem you have is that you have assumptions about what the truth is, when McClellan made claims athwart those conclusions you didn't think he was trustworthy, while now he's making claims that align with your assumptions you're totally credulous. Your mistake's encapsulated by that one word: admit. You're assuming far too much of what you're seeking to prove.
The answer is the latte
Innocuous typo, or stealth marketing for Starbucks? You be the judge.
Doyle, your burden is to posit an explanation of why McClellan's claims now are to be deemed more credible than his claims then
Umm... He's no longer employed by the White House?
Doyle said...
"Also, how can you possibly still be accusing us of holding "predetermined" views of the Bush admin?"
I'm saying that you're making assumptions about the facts that underpin the veracity of McClellan's claims then vs. his claims now, facts that we don't yet know and which do not turn on how much you think Bush is an incompetent ass. At best, you're attempting to infer specific facts from a general proposition that doesn't permit it.
Thee only thing they care about is they talk some smack at muslims, and liberals. That's it. It's why they hate McCain, and why they love a Mayor who looks like Dracula
You've got to love the lack of self-awareness in those three sentences. All they do is talk smack! That's why they support a guy who looks like Dracula!
As for foreign policy experience, in seven out of the last ten Presidential races the Republican candidate had more foreign policy experience (the exceptions were 1980, 1996 and 2000). In all seven, the majority of Democrats voted against the experienced guy. So claiming that Republicans are the ones who "don't care about experience" is quite silly -- obviously NEITHER party cares that much.
This time around it won't matter. Unless Richardson wins the Democratic nomination there won't be anyone with foreign policy experience running for office for either party.
Doyle said...
"Umm... He's no longer employed by the White House?"
And? He wasn't then in a position to make a lot of money by advancing claims of a type that have a track record of selling a lot of books. The market for Bush bashing books is virtually bottomless. People are generally more willing to lie for their own advantage than for someone else's, but your position is forcing you to assume that McClellan was willing to lie for Bush but is unwilling to distort the truth or dissemble for personal enrichment.
Very simple to compare the experience of growing up in a foreign country vs. real foreign policy experience.
Sure, and Richardson (as you note) has the latter.
Hillary doesn't. She's just a wife who was brought along on trips to exciting foreign countries while her husband dealt with foreign policy. She, herself, didn't do jack. She didn't negotiate with North Korea. She didn't sign the Kyoto treaty. She didn't spar with the UN or put together a coalition of nations to wage war in Kosovo. She had tea parties with the wives and husbands of the people who did those things. That's all.
Doyle,
Either McClellan lied then, to protect his job, or he's lying now, to sell books. Either way, the fact that he's a dishonest person willing to lie to promote his own self-interest is a given.
Since we know for sure that the man can't be trusted to tell the truth, assuming that he's telling the truth -- unless he's got actual hard evidence backing him up, which he doesn't -- is silly.
I'm sure the WH records from the Clinton years would confirm her experience in foriegn relations. Oh wait, they are not released for pubic viewing and probably won't until after the election.
Your argument is ridiculous Simon, sorry. I'm not a big Scott McClellan fan. Never have been. Am not now. Won't be in the future.
But liking him or believing every word he says isn't a precondition for wanting to hear more about who knew what when, etc.
If he's lying about Karl Rove or the president, then let them defend themselves. No matter who's telling the truth, it reflects badly on Republicans not Democrats.
Looks like the quotes were cooked. The publisher now claims McClellan didn't intend to say Bush lied, but something more along the lines of passive complicity, i.e. "I don't want to know what happened".
I will be waiting anxiously for the screaming hordes response, but since this doesn't fit the narrative, there will not be one.
Are any of you republican bloggers going to say anything about McClellan calling Bush a liar?
As a republican we need to defend our great president and attack Scotty but before we do that someone, anyone in the right blogosphere needs to at least mention it. McClellan only worked for Bush most of his professional life so he is obviously a traitor and liar to the amazing president. Also, he is selling a book, which is why he had done this. Pure propaganda. But nothing no Instapundit, Malkin, Althouse, anyone discussing it. The wingers have kept this under wraps but we must expose it and refute every damming charge.
If this was Hilary Clinton it would be front page highlights on every wingnut blog. Now lets get it out in the open refute it and attack and destroy that bumbling idiot Scotty. Let's Go. Victory.
Don't really know he did, titus. As stated above, these are publicity blurbs. Wait until the book comes out and see what he actually did say.
Revenant said...
"Either McClellan lied then, to protect his job, or he's lying now, to sell books. Either way, the fact that he's a dishonest person willing to lie to promote his own self-interest is a given."
Exactly. Thankyou. And that's my reply to Doyle's 3:40 PM comment; the only thing we know is that McClellan either lied then or is lying now, and the only basis Doyle has for assuming he was lying then is because that assumption fits better with Doyle's opinion of the Bush Administration.
Former White House spokesman Scott McClellan does not believe President Bush lied to him about the role of White House aides I. Lewis Scooter Libby or Karl Rove in the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity, according to McClellan's publisher.
Peter Osnos, the founder and editor-in-chief of Public Affairs Books, which is publishing McClellan's book in April, tells NBC from his Connecticut home that McCLellan, "Did not intend to suggest Bush lied to him."
Osnos says when McClellan went before the White House press corps in 2003 to publicly exonerate Libby and Rove, the problem was that his statement was not true. Osnos said the president told McClellan what "he thought to be the case." But, he says, McClellan believes, "the president didn't know it was not true."
You can now ignore this titus, and return to titillating us with stories about securing some really good "hog".
McClellan is already back-pedaling from that excerpt
Link goes to John's quote on MSNBC.
MadisonMan said..."'I see now that I'm not the only one to read Hillary's mockery and think yeah, right, First Lady.' Do you find that comment sexist?"
Absolutely not. I'd say the same thing if the sexes were reversed and the woman was President and then the man tried to run on his status as spouse of the President. Do you think Laura Bush is qualified to be President? Nancy Reagan? It might be sexist that "First Lady" is considered an official position and the wife doesn't continue to pursue her own career, but questioning the significance of First Lady experience as a qualification for President isn't at all sexist.
questioning the significance of First Lady experience as a qualification for President isn't at all sexist.
Especially since it isn't an office one has to run for, or prove one's qualifications for. Your spouse gets elected and, poof, you're in. It isn't much better than claiming that you're suited for public office on the grounds of your superior breeding.
Matthews is most likely impotent and or closeted.
Ugh. Could we not do the "attack the person's sexuality" thing, please? It is bad enough when the lefties do it to right-wingers.
the only basis Doyle has for assuming he was lying then is because that assumption fits better with Doyle's opinion of the Bush Administration.
This is a joke, right?
First of all, I'm not "assuming" he was lying. He is explicitly "claiming" that he was given false information and repeated it.
Now, as for the second part of your statement, can you imagine how a person might find this claim credible?
I'll give you a hint, it's because the Bush administration has a bit of a history of passing along false information to the public. I know, I must be deep in the throes of BDS to be saying something that outrageous. But there was that WMD thing, the bit about getting warrants to eavesdrop on Americans, and, oh yes, the conviction of Dick Cheney's chief of staff for perjury and obstruction of justice... after getting caught lying about the same subject McClellan says he lied about.
But yeah it's probably much more likely that his statements from the White House podium are true and now he's just trying to sell books.
Do you think it's sexist to disregard any experience a first lady might acquire from her position, but not disregard the experience a Vice President might acquire?
No, I don't. There is no "offical" position of First Lady and we have no idea of what Hillary's experience is since she won't allow release of any of the documentation pertaining to her time in the White House. Were her duties those of a hostess? Who knows?
Comparing the experience of someone who happens to be screwing the President in her unoffical capacity as wife to that of the Vice President of the United States who was voted on by the people is to put it nicely ludicrious. It has nothing to do with her sex. It has to do with the fact that we don't have a fucking clue what her actual experience is.
So, you don't like the analogy of the doctor. How about this one. I'm a financial advisor. In my career I have discussed the markets, portfolio development and economic theory with my husband who has a plumbing business. Do you think these discussions between us will allow him to manage your company retirement plan with out knowing his capabilities?? Would you like for me to try to repair your plumbing...after all we have discussed these issues between ourselves.
The mere proximity to experience doesn't grant knowledge or competence. If that were true, we would all be paying to sit next to the smartest kid in class.
Simon said..."Isn't it fascinating that Lucy and her fellow-travellers in the leftosphere never believed a word out of McClellan's mouth when he was Press Secretary, and yet are now canoninzing him."
It's funny how people who are no longer of afraid of losing their jobs, pensions, etc...will tell the truth.
Maybe the man just got religion and wanted to tell the truth...at last.
Better late than never...right?
Huckabee's Fiscal Record
November 21, 2007
Under fire from conservatives, the former Arkansas governor misrepresents his tax hikes, and cuts.
Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has been hit with criticism over his record on taxes as governor of Arkansas. The faultfinders have been members of his own party, who take issue with tax increases he enacted.
In recent interviews on Fox News, Huckabee responded to some of these questions, but we found him to be misleading and incorrect on several points:
Huckabee claimed that a speech in which he implored the state Legislature to raise taxes was in response to a state Supreme Court order to increase education funding.
But he specifically said in that speech that he would address the education matter at a later date.
He said a tax on beds filled in nursing homes was a "fee" not a tax, despite the fact that he himself has called it the "bed tax."
Huckabee claimed a gasoline tax was only passed after 80 percent of voters approved it. Not true. The tax was enacted before a referendum vote on highway repairs.
He frequently says he cut taxes "almost 94 times" but leaves out the 21 taxes raised during his tenure. In the end, he presided over a net tax increase.
Also, we find that former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson stretched the truth in claiming that Arkansas' spending had doubled under Huckabee.
"Outrageous" Exaggerations
November 20, 2007
McCain's ad revisits some oft-mentioned examples of pork, but is he really the one who rooted them out?
Republican presidential candidate John McCain cites three absurd-sounding examples of pork-barrel spending in a recent ad: a "bridge to nowhere," a study of the DNA of bears and a Woodstock museum.
McCain is known for fighting against earmarks, the other term lawmakers use for funding of pet projects back home.
But he appears to have chosen these three because they're easy to mock, not because he had significant involvement in removing them from the budget.
He never specifically went after the "bridge to nowhere," and he was absent for key votes on its funding.
While he tried to cut money for several other projects in the same bill, he never proposed cutting the bear study and voted for the final bill containing it.
He wasn't present for the most important votes on the Woodstock museum, including one on an amendment he co-sponsored to kill the earmark and divert some of the funds.
De Ja Vu - "ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN"
WASHINGTON — Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan blames President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for efforts to mislead the public about the role of White House aides in leaking the identity of a CIA operative.
In an excerpt from his forthcoming book, McClellan recounts the 2003 news conference in which he told reporters that aides Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby were "not involved" in the leak involving operative Valerie Plame.
"There was one problem. It was not true," McClellan writes, according to a brief excerpt released Tuesday.
"I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest-ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice president, the president's chief of staff and the president himself."
Bush's chief of staff at the time was Andrew Card.
The excerpt, posted on the Web site of publisher PublicAffairs, renews questions about what went on in the West Wing and how much Bush and Cheney knew about the leak.
For years, it was McClellan's job to field _ and often duck _ those types of questions.
This is for you John.
Hot hard big juicy hog. Yum, Yum, Yum.
The publisher also said that the reader can take away from that quote whatever they like....interesting.
Still let's destroy Scotty. He is unamerican, unpatriotic, a traitor, a liar, wanting to sell books and a stooge.
The guy, Buzz whatever from the Clinton admin who wrote Conduct Unbecoming, he was a true American.
DBQ -
While conceding that being the first lady is not the same as being president, I also think it's substantially different from being the spouse of a heart surgeon or a financial advisor. Those are both very specialized professions, and ones where one's spouse doesn't have a real front row seat to observe how the job is done.
The job of president, on the other hand, is an unusually public one. Without inviting too many jokes about the closeness of her marriage, I do think that being married to the president did afford her a fair amount of insight into how the office works, as well as a fair number of personal contacts in various federal, non-governmental and international institutions.
I'm an Edwards/Obama undecided, but I do think that in terms of who is the most "ready" to assume the presidency she has a leg up on all the other candidates.
WASHINGTON - Former White House spokesman Scott McClellan does not believe President Bush lied to him about the role of White House aides I. Lewis Scooter Libby or Karl Rove in the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity, according to McClellan's publisher.
Peter Osnos, the founder and editor-in-chief of Public Affairs Books, which is publishing McClellan's book in April, tells NBC from his Connecticut home that McCLellan, "Did not intend to suggest Bush lied to him."
Osnos says when McClellan went before the White House press corps in 2003 to publicly exonerate Libby and Rove, the problem was that his statement was not true. Osnos said the president told McClellan what "he thought to be the case." But, he says, McClellan believes, "the president didn't know it was not true."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21917188/
AJ Lynch-what we do without the homophobic slurs on this site.
Thanks for that. Noted and appreciated.
Now I have got to get ready I am going out tonight fellow republicans.
Dindin, drinks and yes John HOG!!!!
Three cheers for hog everyone.
As Tom Cruise's character says in Magnolia, worship the cock.
Tara, unfortunately what you posted will just be ignored. Doesn't fit the narrative. Not much we can do about it.
Doyle said...
" I'm not 'assuming' he was lying. He is explicitly 'claiming' that he was given false information and repeated it."
Like it or not, you are making an assumption. It's clear that he either was lying then or is lying now, that either what he claimed then was a lie or what he's claiming now is a lie. Both sets of assertions can't be true, so by accepting his claim now, you are making assumptions as to which statement(s) are truthfull.
"[C]an you imagine how a person might find this claim credible? I'll give you a hint, it's because the Bush administration has a bit of a history of passing along false information to the public."
This statement and the examples you offer further proves my point upthread. You claim that the admininstration "has a bit of a history of passing along false information to the public," but that claim is basically useless for your purposes unless it's a coy way of accusing the administration not of merely "passing along" in all good faith and innocence information later found to be false, but disseminating information that it knew to be incorrect. And the proofs you offer simply don't support that. To pick on only the first, you cite "that WMD thing," but that commits an entirely typical BDS fallacy: whereas the administration claimed that there were WMD then because none were found, the administration lied. This is not only a non sequitur, it doesn't even intuitively feel truthy: it runs totally athwart Hanlon's Razor.
The bottom line is that between two statements, one of which is known to be false, your determination as to which is true breaks the tie based purely on which of them supports your thesis about the Bush administration, which is an untenable position.
so by accepting his claim now
When did I do this?
Without inviting too many jokes about the closeness of her marriage, I do think that being married to the president did afford her a fair amount of insight into how the office works, as well as a fair number of personal contacts in various federal, non-governmental and international institutions.
Quite the opposite. Many of the details of a Presidency are classified and may not legally be shared with people who don't have both the appropriate security clearance and a need to know the information. Information which does NOT fall into that category is generally available to everyone. In other words, unless Bill Clinton committed quite a few felonies -- which, admittedly, isn't much of an "if" -- his wife wasn't given access to the underlying reasons for most of his decision-making. She only legally has access to the public side of his foreign policy decision-making, which is the same thing the rest of us have access to.
so by accepting his claim now
When did I do this?
When you said he "admits" he was lying. You can only "admit" something which is true. If it isn't true, or is of questionable veracity, you can only "claim" or "say" it.
Simon, I don't know with any certainty that McClellan is telling the truth in his book. His teaser statement or whatever isn't nearly specific enough, for one thing.
I just think your outrage over people simply taking the claim seriously is kind of funny given the circumstances. My personal objection to McClellan while he was Press Secretary was not that he was an immoral, pathological liar. It was that he was the White House Press Secretary and his entire job was misinforming the American public by arguing that the war was going well, Bush was awesome, there was nothing to the Plame case, etc. It's what he did for a living.
What's your excuse?
Doyle said...
"My personal objection to McClellan while he was Press Secretary was not that he was an immoral, pathological liar. It was that he was the White House Press Secretary...."
Substitute "amoral" for "immoral" and one might say there's a distinction without a difference. And as to the rest of it, refer to Rev's 7:01 PM comment.
I wonder if Doyle is really unaware that every Press Secretary in American history has repeatedly lied on behalf of his President.
Probably. After all, we've had Democratic Presidents, and everyone knows only Republicans -- and "Democrats in name only" like Lieberman -- do bad things.
Nonsense. The democratic press secretary farts potpourri. I thought everyone knew that.
Revenant/ Titus:
I apologize for my comment re Chris Matthews. You were correct in calling me on it.
I crossed the line, which is no excuse and it won't happen again.
Iraq's foreign militants 'come from US allies'
Around 60% of all foreign militants who entered Iraq to fight over the past year came from Saudi Arabia and Libya, according to files seized by American forces at a desert camp.
The files listed the nationalities and biographical details of more than 700 fighters who crossed into Iraq from August last year, around half of whom came to the country to be suicide bombers, the New York Times reported today.
In all, 305, or 41%, of the fighters listed were from Saudi Arabia. Another 137, or 18%, came from Libya. Both countries are officially US allies in anti-terrorism efforts.
AJ Lynch said..."Ha ha LUCY- now everyone is calling you LUCY. Dipshit."
Let me guess: You're ten years old.
And yet another un-American traitorus lefty rears his ugle head:
Ex-Iraq commander says bring troops home
Retired Iraq Commander Sanchez Backs Democratic Proposal to Bring Troops Home
Retired Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top commander in Iraq shortly after the fall of Baghdad, said this week he supports Democratic legislation that calls for most troops to come home within a year.
His comments come as welcomed ammunition for the Democratic-controlled Congress in its standoff with the White House on war spending. This month, the House passed a $50 billion bill that would pay for combat operations but sets the goal that combat end by Dec. 15, 2008. The White House threatened to veto the measure, and Senate Republicans blocked it from passing.
"The improvements in security produced by the courage and blood of our troops have not been matched by a willingness on the part of Iraqi leaders to make the hard choices necessary to bring peace to their country," Sanchez said in remarks to be aired Saturday for the weekly Democratic radio address.
"There is no evidence that the Iraqis will choose to do so in the near future or that we have an ability to force that result," he said.
Sanchez added that the House bill "makes the proper preparation of our deploying troops a priority and requires the type of shift in their mission that will allow their numbers to be reduced substantially."
The U.S. Military is demanding that thousands of wounded service personnel give back signing bonuses because they are unable to serve out their commitments. To get people to sign up, the military gives enlistment bonuses up to $30,000 in some cases.
Now men and women who have lost arms, legs, eyesight, hearing and can no longer serve are being ordered to pay some of that money back.
Jordan Fox’s case is appalling:
In Jordan Fox’s case, he was seriously injured when a roadside bomb blew up his vehicle, causing back injuries and blindness in his right eye. He was sent home, unable to complete the final three months of his military commitment. Last week, the Pentagon sent him a bill: Fox owed the government nearly $3,000 of his signing bonus.
“I tried to do my best and serve my country. I was unfortunately hurt in the process. Now they’re telling me they want their money back,” Fox said.
Post a Comment