It hasn't just been a rash of bad policies mixed with callous indiference that has been so dismaying during the Bush years. What really sets the Bush era apart is a seemingly never ending parade of dubious statements by government officials that have done more to obfuscate than to illuminate. In the months preceding the Iraq invasion, Bush and his team marched to war offering justifications that buried the truth beneath a wave of lies and misstatements. Though all governments stretch the truth, Bush has elevated prevarication to an art form. Under Bush, communication from the White House has been utterly unreliable. So for the last seven years, it is fair to say the American people have been willfully misled by the President and others, while the media has largely looked the other way. Thus, a commitment to tell the truth would seem to be something to look for in a successor to Bush, which is a compelling reason to spurn Hillary Clinton.
During the weeks preceding the Ohio Primary vote, Hillary Clinton asserted she had been a tacit opponent of the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement when it was signed into law by her husband. She made this claim despite previous statements that she had made in support of the trade agreeement. Because Ohio has been rudely treated by NAFTA and she desperately needed to win, Clinton was compelled to rewrite history and make the dubious claim she had grave doubts about NAFTA when it was enacted. Clinton's claim she has always been an opponent of NAFTA isn't some small detail she got wrong during the course of a campaign. It is a rather audacious falsehood that is easily debunked, yet she proceeded to lie anyway. Clinton might have chosen a different tactic in explaining her position on NAFTA by suggesting that in witnessing the adverse effects of NAFTA, she no longer supports the agreement in its present form. But Clinton apparently calculated being against NAFTA from the beginning would play better in Ohio, so she opted to lie.
In an attempt to draw a contrast with Obama, Clinton has asserted she is ready to be President on day one because of thirty five years of experience. That during much of those years she was first lady of Arkansas and the nation suggests her claims of vast experience are a bit shaky. To buttress her claims she has relevant experience, she had made the claim that a trip she made to Bosnia while first lady was fraught with peril. Clinton's story was quickly refuted by any number of news sources. Also, Senator Clinton has made it sound like she played an important role in establishing peace in Northern Ireland. Though this claim isn't as easily refuted as her fib regarding what she claimed was a dangerous trip to Bosnia, there is little doubt in my mind given the remarks of others that she wasn't as instrumental in bringing peace to Northern Ireland as she and her campaign has implied. Moreover, her explanation of her vote in favor of the authorization to use military force against Iraq is patently absurd. She might want to dupe people into believing her vote was made to force Saddam to accept weapons inspectors back into the country, but it is hard to believe a smart person like herself couldn't tell that Bush was marching to war regardless of what he said publicly. Clinton's proclivity to stretch the truth should raise alarms especially after years of dishonesty from the current administration.
It shouldn't be too much to ask for the next President to be at least a bit more honest than the current President. And because Clinton has demonstrated candor is not her strong suit, she isn't the right person to lead the country after Bush.
