hops
August 28, 2003, 06:18 PM
Well, she is anti-gun, so there is relavence..... Enjoy........
REVIEW & OUTLOOK - WSJ 08/28/2003
Hillary Confesses
We're not making this one up, folks. In a video snippet you can play for yourself on the NY1 News Web site (www.ny1.com), Hillary Rodham Clinton accuses the Bush White House of "a cover-up at the highest level."
"What transpired in the White House?" an angry Mrs. Clinton asked this week from the steps of New York's City Hall. "I know a little bit about how White Houses work. I know somebody picked up a phone, somebody got on a computer, somebody sent an e-mail, somebody called for a meeting, somebody, probably under instructions from somebody further up the chain, told the EPA, 'Don't tell the people of New York the truth,' and I want to know who that is."
Mrs. Clinton's cover-up accusation was prompted by a report from the Environmental Protection Agency's inspector general, which says the Bush Administration prodded the EPA to issue reassuring reports about the air quality in Lower Manhattan after September 11. She's not buying the argument that, in the chaotic aftermath of that day, no one really knew what was going on with air quality.
Maybe the first couple of days, Mrs. Clinton allows. "But a week later, two weeks later, two months later, six months later? Give me a break. They knew, and they didn't tell us the truth," she says.
This, of course, comes from the same woman who as First Lady thought it understandable that her long-subpoenaed records could suddenly materialize in a room right next to her White House study. "I think people need to understand that there are millions of pieces of paper in the White House," she told Barbara Walters at the time, "and for more than two years now people have been diligently searching."
Recall that she also dismisses the collection of hundreds of FBI files of Bush and Reagan appointees as a "bureaucratic snafu" by innocent newcomers "who did not recognize the mistake." And who can forget her classic disavowal of any responsibility for the sacking of staffers in the White House Travel Office?
We suppose Mrs. Clinton's explanations have to be taken on faith. So if the honorable junior Senator from New York now wants to argue that she knows a cover-up when she sees it, because she knows all about how these things work, who are we to argue?
Updated August 28, 2003
REVIEW & OUTLOOK - WSJ 08/28/2003
Hillary Confesses
We're not making this one up, folks. In a video snippet you can play for yourself on the NY1 News Web site (www.ny1.com), Hillary Rodham Clinton accuses the Bush White House of "a cover-up at the highest level."
"What transpired in the White House?" an angry Mrs. Clinton asked this week from the steps of New York's City Hall. "I know a little bit about how White Houses work. I know somebody picked up a phone, somebody got on a computer, somebody sent an e-mail, somebody called for a meeting, somebody, probably under instructions from somebody further up the chain, told the EPA, 'Don't tell the people of New York the truth,' and I want to know who that is."
Mrs. Clinton's cover-up accusation was prompted by a report from the Environmental Protection Agency's inspector general, which says the Bush Administration prodded the EPA to issue reassuring reports about the air quality in Lower Manhattan after September 11. She's not buying the argument that, in the chaotic aftermath of that day, no one really knew what was going on with air quality.
Maybe the first couple of days, Mrs. Clinton allows. "But a week later, two weeks later, two months later, six months later? Give me a break. They knew, and they didn't tell us the truth," she says.
This, of course, comes from the same woman who as First Lady thought it understandable that her long-subpoenaed records could suddenly materialize in a room right next to her White House study. "I think people need to understand that there are millions of pieces of paper in the White House," she told Barbara Walters at the time, "and for more than two years now people have been diligently searching."
Recall that she also dismisses the collection of hundreds of FBI files of Bush and Reagan appointees as a "bureaucratic snafu" by innocent newcomers "who did not recognize the mistake." And who can forget her classic disavowal of any responsibility for the sacking of staffers in the White House Travel Office?
We suppose Mrs. Clinton's explanations have to be taken on faith. So if the honorable junior Senator from New York now wants to argue that she knows a cover-up when she sees it, because she knows all about how these things work, who are we to argue?
Updated August 28, 2003