Hillary Clinton: Truth or Consequences

Hillary Clinton has many admirable qualities, but candor and openness and transparency and a commitment to well-established fact have not been notable among them. The indisputable elements of her Bosnian adventure affirm (again) the reluctant conclusion I reached in the final chapter of A Woman In Charge, my biography of her published last June:

"Since her Arkansas years [I wrote], Hillary Rodham Clinton has always had a difficult relationship with the truth... [J]udged against the facts, she has often chosen to obfuscate, omit, and avoid. It is an understatement by now that she has been known to apprehend truths about herself and the events of her life that others do not exactly share." [italics added]

As I noted:

"Almost always, something holds her back from telling the whole story, as if she doesn't trust the reader, listener, friend, interviewer, constituent--or perhaps herself--to understand the true significance of events..."

The Bosnian episode is a watershed event, because it indelibly brings to mind so many examples of this tendency -- from the White House years and, worse, from Hillary Clinton's take-no-prisoners presidential campaign. Her record as a public person is replete with "misstatements" and elisions and retracted and redacted and revoked assertions...

When the facts surrounding such characteristic episodes finally get sorted out -- usually long after they have been challenged -- the mysteries and contradictions are often dealt with by Hillary Clinton and her apparatus in a blizzard of footnotes, addenda, revision, and disingenuous re-explanation: as occurred in regard to the draconian secrecy she imposed on her health-care task force (and its failed efforts in 1993-94); explanations of what could have been dutifully acknowledged, and deserved to be dismissed as a minor conflict of interest -- once and for all -- in Whitewater; or her recent Michigan-Florida migration from acceptance of the DNC's refusal to recognize those states' convention delegations (when it looked like she had the nomination sewn up) to her re-evaluation of the matter as a grave denial of basic human rights, after she fell impossibly behind in the delegate count.

The latest episode -- the sniper fire she so vividly remembered and described in chilling detail to buttress her claims of foreign policy "experience" -- like the peace she didn't bring to Northern Ireland, recalls another famous instance of faulty recollection during a crucial period in her odyssey.

On January 15, 1995, she had just published her book, It Takes a Village, intended to herald a redemptive "come back" after the ravages of health care; Whitewater; the Travel Office firings she had ordered (but denied ordering); the disastrous staffing of the White House by the First Lady, not the President -- all among the egregious errors that had led to the election of the Newt Gingrich Congress in 1994.

On her book tour, she was asked on National Public Radio about the re-emergence of dormant Whitewater questions that week, when the so-called "missing billing records" had been found. Hillary stated with unequivocal certainty that she had consistently made public all the relevant documents related to Whitewater, including "every document we had," to the editors of the New York Times before the newspaper's original Whitewater story ran during Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign.

Even her closest aides -- as in the case of the Bosnian episode18 years later -- could not imagine what possessed her to say such a thing. It was simply not true, as her lawyers and the editors of the Times (like CBS in the latest instance) recognized, leading to huge stories about her latest twisting of the facts. "Oh my God, we didn't," said Susan Thomasas, Hillary's great friend, who was left to explain to the White House lawyers exactly how Hillary's aides had carefully cherry-picked documents accessed for the Times in the presidential campaign. The White House was forced -- once again -- to acknowledge the first lady had been 'mistaken;" her book tour was overwhelmed by the matter, and Times' columnist Bill Safire that month coined the memorable characterization of Hillary Clinton as "a congenital liar."

"Hillary values context; she does see the big picture. Hers, in fact, is not the mind of a conventional politician," I wrote in A Woman In Charge. "But when it comes to herself, she sees with something less than candor and lucidity. She sees, like so many others, what she wants to see."

The book concludes with this paragraph:

"As Hillary has continued to speak from the protective shell of her own making, and packaged herself for the widest possible consumption, she has misrepresented not just facts but often her essential self. Great politicians have always been marked by the consistency of their core beliefs, their strength of character in advocacy, and the self-knowledge that informs bold leadership. Almost always, Hillary has stood for good things. Yet there is a disconnect between her convictions and her words and actions. This is where Hillary disappoints. But the jury remains out. She still has time to prove her case, to effectuate those things that make her special, not fear them or camouflage them. We would all be the better for it, because what lies within may have the potential to change the world, if only a little."

The jury -- armed with definitive evidence like the CBS tape of Hillary Clinton's Bosnian adventure -- seems on the verge of returning a negative verdict on her candidacy.

-- Carl Bernstein, 360° Contributor

Originally published on the Anderson Cooper 360° blog

Comments

[StillAmused]

Take copious notes and get right to work on your final, acetic book. You'll be history before the Clintons are.

[moderationsmuse]

It would seem to me that Hillary's motives for lying about her experiences are obvious: she has a very unsatisfactory resume for the nomination she's seeking. Obama has of course a thin resume himself, though at least he really campaigned for the Senate seat he won and did so as a resident of Illinois.
But don't the Dems have no one but themselves to blame? You had several candidates with full resumes, Biden, Dodd, Richardon -- none of whom made it beyond the single digits.
Truly you get the nominee you deserve. That said, I personally hope it's Obama (I'm a Republican).
Hillary has experience. That much I'll grant her and your book, Mr. Bernstein, has partly persuaded me of that fact. Unfortunately, her experience is BAD experience. And hence, I would gladly see the Dems pass on her.
Obama is honest, I think. He has no experience. Face it, he doesn't. But at least he's honest.
On the odd chance that the Dem candidate might win, let's hope that it will be someone who at least has the merit of honesty.

[stringer]

When the guy who was basically one of two people to bring down Richard Nixon during Watergate calls someone a congenital liar it's bad folks. Come on wake up people! Hillary is a world-class liar, this is not on the leve of usual politician lies, this is a level far beyond it. She's a 10 on the liar scale okay? If you want to support her anyway, or say it is a necessary skill for politicians, that's one thing. But to deny that she is definitely one of the biggest liars out there is another thing indeed.

[CLEDUC]

I still think her lie about starting the women's movement for peace in Ireland ("bringing together for the first time Catholics and Protestants [women] from both traditions") was was more vile than Bosnia in light of her attending the cafe and then memorial lecture for Joyce McCartan.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/08/wuspols108.xml
It blatantly contradicted her 2003 book, her 1997 lecture/speech and her 1995 article on visiting Ireland. If folks got wound up about Bosnia, a video of her stealing credit for peace from a dead heroine of peace who can no longer speak for herself might get some serious ratings.

[appleknocker]

Please refresh my memory. What are some those "many admirable qualities"? Ruthless ambition? self-righteousness? Hubris?

[MaineMike]

Does anyone know the details about Clinton "refusing to accept" a deposition subpoena to appear at a hearing on April 25, 2008. It's something about the Peter Paul case and Ed Rendell is invovled also. Can someone refuse a subpoena?

[meileen]

REAL HONESTY would have you listing the lies that Senator Obama has been spewing. He didn't know Rezko, but bought a house with his help. Only billed five hours of work, yet performed a real estate walk through with the man. He told the people of Ohio one thing regarding NAFTA, then we found out his staff was saying something else to the Canadians. He promised John McCain that he would run a federally funded campaign, yet is now backpedaling. He told the people of this nation via many television programs that he did not know his pastor said the things he did, that he had not heard them, only to 'revise' days later. Now we learn he has had his own Bosnia moment, but it sure does not appear here at HuffPost. You can find it in the LA Times, and here's a portion of it:

Obama spokesman Bill Burton acknowledged Saturday that the senator from Illinois had erred in crediting the Kennedy family with a role in his father's arrival in the United States. He said the Kennedy involvement in the Kenya student program apparently "started 48 years ago, not 49 years ago as Obama has mistakenly suggested in the past."

Exaggeration happens to everyone, I guess.

[FreedomLoverX]

He never claimed not to know Rezko. That you would say that is a LIE.
He has never contradicted himself regarding NAFTA, unlike Hillary. To suggest otherwise is a LIE.
He didn't lie about federal funding. He changed his mind, and for very good reasons. To suggest otherwise is a LIE.
There is documented proof that he was not there when his former Reverend said those things, that were cherry picked out of a long sermon. To suggest otherwise is a LIE.
48 years ago - 49 years ago - close enough. To suggest otherwise is a lie.

Please, I beg you, please tell me that Hillary is not a REAL LIAR. Please. I want, only ONE time, for a Hillary supporter to deniy that Hillary is a LIAR. I dare you! Can you not admit, in your ridiculous tirade, that Hillary is a LIAR? Why? You seem to want to point out lies - are you willing to admit ONCE that Hillary has told bald-faced LIES?

[meileen]

My goodness, I seemed to have hit a nerve.

Read this real slowly: They all lie. Politicians have to speak out of both sides of their mouths to appease the masses.

I refuse to play tit-for-tat with you here as you refuse to see the truth.

Now take a chill pill as you're going to burst a blood vessel.

[imagine0594]

Hillary's not a liar, as far as I know.

[snow]

I am reminded of the comment David Geffen made months ago "...all politicans lie, it is just that the Clintons do it so easily..." (paraphrased)
It gave me pause for thought, because David Geffen was someone who seemed to know the Clintons first hand.

[doofusinamerica]

Hillary will say and do anything to get the nomination or get elected. as i believe her mentor said: the end justifies the means.

[Danann]

Jimminy christmas! She imbellished. She was in Bosnia, for crissake. A place generally known as dangerous, at the time. So she played it up a little. She was there, like a statesman. That's the point. Not much different from Condi going around difficult places to show she was there. In her boots. Who's to say that bullets just didn't photograph good.

[YellowPanties]

Oh brother, you don't really believe the nonsense you just wrote, do you, Danann?

All lying can be termed "playing it up" and so you have to ask yourself if you're comfortable with someone who would lie about a situation which was so easily proved false.

And "she was there, like a statesman" is risible. Condi Rice, monster though she may be, actually has work to do when she goes abroad.

In the end, I have to conclude your comments were ironic.

[imagine0594]

It's amazing to me how a person's empathy, at least on a blog, can completely break down. I want you to imagine for just a moment that you're Hillary Clinton. For most of your life, reporters and Republicans have tried to not only ruin your career, but also your marriage. Every time you say something in public, your motives are suspect. People everywhere call you a liar, show real hatred for you even though they've never met you, and scrutinize everything you do. Just imagine this is your life... you might not be so quick to judge! I mean, it's not like she's Bush.

[FreedomLoverX]

You don't know the difference bewtween embellishment and LYING? How pathetic.

[carol]

After years of Bush/Cheney lies and secrets, I want transparency in our next leader and, in fact, in this YouTube/Google age, nothing less can be sustained. Even when I can't precisely point to why I don't warm to Hillary, I know I don't trust her. To be trustworthy, one has to be trusting and she is not. I'm not sure who, if anybody or any group, she really trusts; therefore, her decisions are made in isolation and there's a subtle air of arrogance and phoniness about her. It's why so many label her disingenuous.

I read some where early in the primary campaign that when Obama's staff asked him about how to respond about something or other, he said "Tell the truth." As far as I know, and I'm pretty well informed...Obama is the real deal. His candor and that of his wife and staff are a breath of fresh air. I know what he stands for and I trust him because he trusts me.

[juangault]

From an old U2 song, "the fly" "It's no secret that a liar, won't believe in anyone else." You got a "favorite" vote from me.

[ignorantwillyharper]

I don't know if she is a congenital liar, but she sure as hell is, A Full Blown Liar!

[usedtowander]

If the NY Times is going to make an emotional appeal to HRC to quit the race, it might also include an analysis of the probability of success - winning the general election - of Obama.

The point of the primaries and the convention is for the Democratic Party to select the candidate they feel is most capable of representing the Democratic Party platform, winning, and carrying more votes for all the rest of the Democratic Party candidates. It seems that those goals have been lost in the conversation.

I, frankly, don't care if Obama has, so far, carried the majority of votes.

What matters to me, and should be of paramount concern to the party is, in those states and congressional districts where there is a reasonable probability of Democratic success, which candidate can actually win and carry along with them the success of the locals.

What matters to me is which candidate will actually represent the Democratic Party platform. A careful analysis of the Obama and Clinton approach really does reveal some significant differences.

This crucial decisions are, then, clearly defined. It has little to do with popular primary vote.
It's a lot like sports, the best, or most popular team doesn't always win. The Lakers lost one recently, even though Kobe scored over 50 points. It's all about the matchup.

It has everything to do with the matchup between the Democratic candidate and the presumptive Republican candidate - John McCain.

[FreedomLoverX]

Apparently, you don't care if there is a bald-faced LIAR in the Whitehouse either. Pathetic.

[Honza]

Says Who? , Carl, compared to other first ladies, go back to Mrs Reagan and the horoscopes, others using dope, commited to hideaway health clubs. Enough all ready, if Hillary falls so be it. We will see a democrat in office come Jan .2009.

[DQuinn]

Those that try to minimize the lie of Bosnia into a mis-speak just don't get it. Yes, I have been on a trip and have mis-stated where we ate dinner...how is that comparable to bullets flying, a corkscrew landing, rushing to cover? Anyone that has been shot at NEVER forgets the incident. Never forgets the fear, the way that time becomes distorted. To try to elevate your foreign experience by manufacturing a whopper of this magnitude and then scripting it into your speeches is not mis-speak. It shows a genuine deep character flaw. The longer she stays in the less respect and support for future endeavors she will have. It wouldn't surprize me if she loses her next bid for the senate. And for those politicians that might wave a governorship to her--she has to win the majority of the NY's voters to get it. And frankly she is in danger of losing more than a presidential bid--She now risks losing it all.

[almondleaf]

Hillary's Bosnia memory may be distorted or misremembered but I see an interesting parallel which may put it in a better perspective for those who forget that there was still fighting and ethnic cleansing going on there at the time. The parallel is to John McCains walk through the Iraqi market place and declaring it safe, like a walk through an Indiana State fair. But pull back from his close shot and you have helicopters hovering overhead, snippers on roofs and of course, a number of ground troops, all protecting the visitors and providing a safe walk which would NEVER have been undertaken without their help. So McCain spins a serene , lazy day dream of peace in a war zone. Now lets look at the pull back shot of Hillarys visit to that Bosnia landing strip to visit out troops. There they are, our armed forces, hovering in helicopters, staked out in the hills with cannons and mortar, creating that safe space for the first lady and her entourage. I don't think they were all there because it was like an Indiana State fair, so to deny that she was flying into a location with potential danger is plainly wrong, just as it is plainly wrong to say that there was no danger in that market place. And how many other of our first ladies have exposed themselves to a live combat area to support our troops?

[YellowPanties]

Something is very wrong when we start using arguments like "the other guy lied too" to explain away Hillary's behavior.

That market incident showed McCain was lying to discredit the war detractors. Hillary's lie was to make herself sound brave and stoic.

Both are pathetic. Both should be ashamed, and both should be shunned by the voters in November.