Hillary on Greta’s Show Last Evening
By SusanUnPC on March 27, 2009 at 11:30 PM in Greta Van Susteran, Mexico, North Korea, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
(Remember how Greta’s husband was actively involved in Hillary’s campaign, and a major donor as well? Greta can’t say it, of course, but I’ve always sensed — it’s always been clear to me — that Greta deeply admires Hillary and never misses a chance to report on our superb Secretary of State. I bet they are friends.)
Part two — on NORTH KOREA — is below:
As long as I’m visiting Greta’s site, here’s another great interview by Greta of a Mexican journalist. The video’s title is “Monterrey Mayhem” - an understatement!
Here’s one more Greta video, on kidnappings:
And yet another! I know what Greta and Hillary share! A WORK ETHIC! I bet Greta works on her show TWICE as hard as Hannity, for example. She’s a better interviewer, in good part because she is so well-prepared and has studied up on her guests. A solid work ethic is a prerequisite for the presidency. Which … um … yes, well. Some presidents - make that MOST presidents - have had a solid work ethic. But last two, including the current one … well … yeah. One cut brush, and the other one cuts the s–t all day long.
(Release: November 13)
on sale for only $16.95.
has a spatula.)
8% Off at $11.95, with a rare five-star ranking by 294 customers: 
And check out these: 
("This crazy redhead is on to something. Her pink Rambler story alone is worth the price of the book," writes 
- “Richard Sale’s reportage on Washington, the CIA, the American armed forces, and foreign intrigue has created a perfect background for this account of the steady growth of President Clinton as a master of the game of nations.”--W. Patrick Lang, former head of Middle East Operations, DIA
"Anne C. Heller's stunning biography of Ayn Rand" uses a "plethora of newly unearthed research and fresh insight."
Love Greta. Thanks for the write-up. Hannity also does a 3-hour radio program - so I would say he probably works just as hard. I like Greta’s style. She does truly seem to try to be “fair”.
athena,
Greta is an objective journalist–a dying species these days of TOTUS!
I wish she could do more politics and fewer murdered or missing children. Her interviews of Karl Rove and others are excellent.
She also has an upbeat, jaunty style most of the time, unless the story is tragic.
Our Hillary looked like she’d been slammed by the humidity or didn’t have her hair blower. She always looks great though. She looks so much younger than her years, even when she looks tired. In these interviews, her RECALL is astounding. She knows the # of the North Korean U.N. resolution, and every argument. Just like when I heard her on Charlie Rose back in 2001, talking about North Korea… she has such an instantaneous grasp of every issue. That’s very difficult for most people. Most people may recall part of what they’ve studied, or have to pause and think. But Hillary’s responses are instant and detailed and completely coherent, with a strong overlay of the administration’s (her) carefully thought-out policy.
How much do you want to bet that if you asked Hillary about every country in the world, she’d know about it, and at least some of the country’s issues?
Gosh, do you think she could instantly name the four countries that begin with the letter “D”? (Just a light hearted trivia question)
I thought so too–I have a feeling she is being run ragged by the Administration and herself.
I think Hillary is trying to prove she is much better than the last SOS’s
Lou Dobbs and Glen Beck have been covering this for a long time too!!!
I managed to catch the late edition of Greta [after tending a sick puppy] and I thought the same thing–Hillary and Greta must go back some years. In fact, Hillary made a comment about Greta doing karaoke in N. Korea and the number of fans she had in the country. That was obviously a little side joke between them.
Greta’s program on the Mexican drug crisis in Mexico was grim. The story about the female police officer hit by the mob and riddled with over a 100 bullets was pretty grisly. The woman was wearing a vest, so most of the damage was to her head and face.
It was a good show. Hillary looked exhausted. Has she stopped at all since taking the SOS spot? My guess is no. On the other hand, I’m glad she’s there.
Greta’s husband was and is a strong Hillary supporter.
He’s a puma.
Greta was just in N. Korea recently - a few months ago. She probably needed State Dept. clearance for the trip. It was before HRC was SoS,
SusanUnPC–thank you so much for posting this! I missed it.
I call BS
I understand that it’s a multi faceted problem which needs to be attacked at different levels. But this issue of “shared responsibility” is BS. Last time I checked it was criminals engaging in this behavior. Now why should law abiding Americans and Mexicans take any responsibilty for it. The phrase sounds nice politically but it undermines the real problem. Criminals, both here and there. And we need to attack them swiftly, boldly and without compromise.
An assault weapons ban is insane. I’m still looking for solid evidence that the last one actually lowered violence rates. By that I mean, the reduction in violence is directly attributable to the weapons ban. Most I can tell is that criminals always find a way to get guns. They don’t care about laws.
I have no problem with getting tougher on import/export regulations of assault weapons. I have no problem cracking down on dealers here smuggling guns. No problem cracking down on money laudering places in the US. No problem beefing up security at the border and scanning for weapons caches. No problem increasing drug awareness and anti drug messages in schools. (I find it ironic/interesting that some people thought the war on drugs was just stupid and not worth the time) See, to me, all of those things directly attack the multitude of problems related to drug cartels. Doing these things will have measurable results; blanket bans will not.
I’m just tired of the belief that this all encompassing notion- “Let’s not let them have it anymore”- will somehow solve the problem. Been tried before and never worked. If people want it, they will get it and you can’t stop them.
xax, there is no reason on God’s green earth for any citizen to have an assault weapon. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold had a friend go to a gun show in Denver and purchase two of these guns with no background check and no waiting period. We live in Colorado and my granddaughter went to school the next day to find dogs, policemen and students being searched and I had to go pick her up because it scared her so bad she was physically ill. While I won’t have any gun in my home, I’m willing to compromise and I respect everyone’s right to own a gun. SCOTUS has ruled it is Constitutional, but they also stress in their Opinion, some regulation is required. I remember very well the Chiefs of Police all over the country supporting this ban, because of the danger to the officers. There was a bank robbery in LA a few years back and the bad guys had automatic weapons and body armor purchased over the Internet. If we don’t get real about this, the violence confined to border states now will spread all over the country. It is a shared responsibility, as Hillary said. These people are buying guns illegally from people in this country and it is addiction here which provides the market for these drug cartels. I guess I’m just tired of people always blaming someone else for a situation where we are partly to blame. Is it just easier to lay all the blame on Mexico?
It is illegal to ship assault weapons legally bought in the U.S., into Mexico. Anyway, you can maintain your position that, Mexico’s problems are hers to resolve. But even assuming we bear no responsibility for those problems, if her problems contribute to our problems - illegal immigration, drugs, executions - then, a hands off policy only serves to cut off our noses to spite our faces.
I am for the legalization of drugs, not because I think it is a “stupid” war (your words) but because it has no chance of success-none. A simple process-flow diagram would demonstrate the impossibility of winning such a war.
I have some questions for your to ponder, xax:
1) How successful has the “war” on drugs been? (If your answer is that the prices have gone up, go to #7)
2) Exactly how has it deterred the cartels from running their drugs?
3) How much money have we spent fighting this war that shows no signs of success?
4) How much more money would you like those cartels to be able to make?
5) How many years have we fought this war and how many more will we be fighting it?
6) How many more police will become corrupted by the promise of cash from these druglords to look the other way?
and
7) Who is benefitting from this “war”? The DEA, which needs an enemy to take on, and the Cartels, which love the money they make. The American public ends up both paying both sides, in one way or another.
Agreed. Now take your own logic one step further–blanket bans on drugs did not work, is not working, and will not work. There is no objective evidence of progress in this war except that the Cartels get richer and more violent; the DEA gets more and more money; drug users are still getting high; and the violence is getting worse. Legalizing drugs would make the Cartels irrelevant. The cash cow would be dead.
Daddy Kennedy made all his money before Prohibition was lifted and I’m sure he wasn’t happy when it ended, since it was good for his business. Ironically, when you take the position that you do concerning the “war” on drugs, you are actually aiding the same cartels you so despise.
you have obviously never seen anyone on a cocaine
binge.
Obviously you’ve never been to a bloodbath caused by cartels with too much money and firepower. Addictions are treatable. This war, on the other hand, isn’t winnable. Now answer the questions I posed.
Greta also never misses an opportunity to comment on the reprehensible treatment of both Hillary and Sarah Palin by the media, and the sexist nature of their coverage.
Greta is so well prepared for these interviews, asks intelligent questions, and allows her guests the time and space to ANSWER them. I think she is the best interviewer on tv.
And YES - she highlights the sexism Hillary and Sarah suffeered (and the rest of us along with them). Great interview.
Thanks, Susan!
and I for one applaud her for that…
Greta’s husband, John Coale, is a well-known DC attorney, who backed McCain in protest to Hillary’s treatment in the primary (he supported Hillary in the primary). He is now advising Palin and says she is nothing like the right or left’s portrayal of her in the media.
http://prorev.com/hillary
HILLARY CLINTON’S RIGHTWING RECORD ON INTERNATIONAL LAW
STEPHEN ZUNES, FOREIGN POLICY IN FOCUS - Senator Hillary Clinton has opposed restrictions on U.S. arms transfers and police training to governments that engage in gross and systematic human rights abuses. Indeed, she has supported unconditional U.S. arms transfers and police training to such repressive and autocratic governments as Egypt, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Pakistan, Equatorial Guinea, Azerbaijan, Cameroon, Kazakhstan, and Chad, just to name a few. She has also refused to join many of her Democratic colleagues in signing a letter endorsing a treaty that would limit arms transfers to countries that engage in a consistent pattern of gross and systematic human rights violations.
Civilian Casualties
Not only is she willing to support military assistance to repressive regimes, she has little concern about controlling weapons that primarily target innocent civilians. Senator Clinton has refused to support the international treaty to ban land mines, which are responsible for killing and maiming thousands of civilians worldwide, a disproportionate percentage of whom have been children.
She was also among a minority of Democratic Senators to side with the Republican majority last year in voting down a Democratic-sponsored resolution restricting U.S. exports of cluster bombs to countries that use them against civilian-populated areas. Each of these cluster bomb contains hundreds of bomblets that are scattered over an area the size of up to four football fields and, with a failure rate of up to 30%, become de facto land mines. As many as 98% of the casualties caused by these weapons are civilians.
Senator Clinton also has a record of dismissing reports by human rights monitors that highlight large-scale attacks against civilians by allied governments. For example, in the face of widespread criticism by reputable human rights organizations over Israel’s systematic assaults against civilian targets in its April 2002 offensive in the West Bank, Senator Clinton co-sponsored a resolution defending the Israeli actions that claimed that they were “necessary steps to provide security to its people by dismantling the terrorist infrastructure in the Palestinian areas.” She opposed UN efforts to investigate alleged war crimes by Israeli occupation forces and criticized President Bush for calling on Israel to pull back from its violent re-conquest of Palestinian cities in violation of UN Security Council resolutions.
Similarly, when Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other reputable human rights groups issued detailed reports regarding Israeli war crimes during that country’s assault on Lebanon in the summer of 2006, Senator Clinton insisted they were wrong and that Israel’s attacks were legal. Furthermore, though these groups had also criticized the radical Lebanese group Hezbollah for committing war crimes by firing rockets into civilian-populated areas in Israel, exhaustive investigations have revealed absolutely no evidence that they had used the civilian population as “human shields” to protect themselves from Israeli assaults. Despite this, Senator Clinton, without providing any credible evidence to the contrary, still insists that they in fact had used human shields and were therefore responsible for the death of more than 800 Lebanese civilians.
Senator Clinton has voted to send tens of billions of dollars unconditionally to Baghdad to prop up that regime, apparently unconcerned about the well-documented reports of death squads being run from the Interior Ministry that have killed many thousands of unarmed Sunni men.
In Senator Clinton’s world view, if a country is considered an important strategic ally of the United States, any charges of human rights abuses – no matter how strong the evidence – must be summarily dismissed. Indeed, despite the Israeli government’s widespread and well-documented violations of international humanitarian law, Senator Clinton has praised Israel for its “values that respect the dignity and rights of human beings.”
http://prorev.com/hillary.htm
HILLARY CLINTON’S RIGHTWING RECORD
ON INTERNATIONAL LAW
STEPHEN ZUNES, FOREIGN POLICY IN FOCUS - Senator Hillary Clinton has opposed restrictions on U.S. arms transfers and police training to governments that engage in gross and systematic human rights abuses. Indeed, she has supported unconditional U.S. arms transfers and police training to such repressive and autocratic governments as Egypt, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Pakistan, Equatorial Guinea, Azerbaijan, Cameroon, Kazakhstan, and Chad, just to name a few. She has also refused to join many of her Democratic colleagues in signing a letter endorsing a treaty that would limit arms transfers to countries that engage in a consistent pattern of gross and systematic human rights violations.
Civilian Casualties
Not only is she willing to support military assistance to repressive regimes, she has little concern about controlling weapons that primarily target innocent civilians. Senator Clinton has refused to support the international treaty to ban land mines, which are responsible for killing and maiming thousands of civilians worldwide, a disproportionate percentage of whom have been children.
She was also among a minority of Democratic Senators to side with the Republican majority last year in voting down a Democratic-sponsored resolution restricting U.S. exports of cluster bombs to countries that use them against civilian-populated areas. Each of these cluster bomb contains hundreds of bomblets that are scattered over an area the size of up to four football fields and, with a failure rate of up to 30%, become de facto land mines. As many as 98% of the casualties caused by these weapons are civilians.
Retread rubbish.
I guess this is too:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=15511
Thank you Susan for posting this. A few months ago I reduced my cable bill by getting rid of CNN and MSNBC which I quit watching, but I also lost Fox News. I was sorry I had to miss this interview.
I fail to see the correlation between your link and the commenter to who I responded. Are you one of those perfunctory bash-a-clinton trolls?
Sorry, No-nonsense-Nancy
The above comment was for Jim S.