A quote I gave a journalist almost two years ago has been recycled, out of context, to suggest that Senator Clinton and I would contemplate going to war with Iran or other nations. This is, of course, a complete misrepresentation of what I was saying and of Senator Clinton's longstanding views. What I said was clear: first, Hillary Clinton has far more foreign policy experience than her husband did at a comparable point in his presidential campaign in 1991-92; and second, she knows how best to advance America's foreign policy goals around the world at time when America faces unprecedented challenges after seven years of the Bush administration's disastrous policies.
Senator Clinton has traveled to more than 80 countries, building relationships that will enable her to begin to restore America's global standing, beginning on Day 1 of her Presidency. Senator Clinton is a passionate believer in diplomacy, negotiations, and the value of, well, American values. She would outlaw torture and close Guantanamo. She would make us proud again of our leadership role in the world. I know from extensive personal observation that she would be a superb negotiator and diplomat. Hillary would strengthen the U.N. and make it more effective, after the Bush Administration weakened it.
Of course, there are times like in Bosnia and Rwanda, when a president must be willing to act. President Clinton should have acted earlier in those cases, as he himself has acknowledged. My point was that, having observed these tragedies closely in the 1990s and learned more as a Senator, Hillary Clinton knows how to mix diplomacy and power. She has made clear repeatedly that she believes strongly in diplomacy and that the Bush administration's failure to emphasize it has been terrible for our nation. She has called for direct talks with our adversaries, including Syria and Iran, and the sooner the better.
As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Clinton has traveled to both American war zones three times, spent a great deal of time meeting privately with active-duty and retired military personnel at all levels, and immersed herself in the issues that are most critical to the presidential role of Commander-in-Chief. The nation needs a new president who on taking office will withdraw our troops from Iraq responsibly and swiftly (Bush won't). Although her position has been misrepresented by some during the heat of the campaign, this is precisely what she has pledged to do. She has said she will convene the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and her national security team to draw up a safe and viable plan for the withdrawal of our solider from Iraq, with the first troops coming home within 60 days of her taking office. She has also committed herself to a new strategy in Afghanistan, the country in which failure is unthinkable yet Bush has consistently sent too few troops while proclaiming success in the face of undeniable deterioration. This is what I meant when I talked about her commanding knowledge and readiness to be our next Commander-in-Chief.
On the second point, an attempt has been made to suggest that my words in 2006 are somehow a call for action against Iran. So let me be clear: I have consistently opposed the use of force against Iran, as has Hillary. Well before the NIE, I stated publicly and repeatedly that nothing we knew supported a war against Iran. The NIE only reinforced my position. Senator Clinton also opposes any military action against Iran and said so long before the NIE, and took to the Senate floor last February to oppose the Bush administration's saber rattling.
I see in Hillary Clinton a virtual repeat of the mistake that got us Bush II. The Repubs went with Bush II because Bush I was the last win they'd had, just as now the Dems are going with Clinton II because Clinton I was the last win they've had. There was the faulty premise of bringing all the folks from Bush I to work for Bush II, after all they were "experts" and had all this "experience". Problem was they brought along their baggage, their old styled Cold War tactics/thinking that had no place in a post Cold War world, etc., and these all played out in Bush II's term. Ditto with bringing a Clinton II - these folks are coming from a past era, with their baggage from that time, we face wholly different problems and we need a new team and a new mentality to attack the problems of today. No one predicted Sept 11 and we see the disaster we got when people respond with antiquated mentalities. Yes, the Clinton years were great - we're in a new century/millenium now. Definitely keep our elders as advisers, but the reins need to be turned over now to new leaders to tackle new issues like globalization, global warming and environmental concerns, renewable power and reducing fossil fuel dependency, a new world order - the world has changed A LOT since the 90s and foreign policy is NOT going to be the same as it was then. There is a generational mentality that we simply can not ignore here. You can't expect a 65 year old to understand what today's world looks like to a 35 or 45 year old today nor both identically agree how it should look like in 20 years. And when you in effect bring in a previous gov't back as was done with Bush II and will undoubtedly happen with a Clinton II you are inviting this "clash of realities".
And let's be realistic here. What the next President does regarding foreign policy will weigh heavily on domestic issues. Biden has written clear policy papers on the domestic issues-- and he gets down to specifics. They're available under issues: joebiden.com
Funny how the "second tier" Biden, Richardson, Dodd, Kucinich have more to offer in substance and ideas than the "frontrunners". Not that the top three have done anything wrong,but this process should not be about who raises and spends the most money.
Richard Holbrooke is actually defending someone who, like many Democrats in both houses on Capitol Hill, voted to authorise war on Iraq, and, even with the hand-wringing about being against the war, still funded the illegal war/occupation under the guise of "supporting our troops". Yea, with Dems like her (and nearly the rest of the Democrat Presidential Candidates while I am at it), who needs Republicans?
And there are those Dem supporters who have whined and wailed about Ralph Nader's alleged damage that his candidacy supposedly caused. All those Dem Senators, and all those Dem House Reps could not have told Bush/Cheney "NO"??? All of them could not have stopped the authorisation for war??? All those Dems could not have cut off the war funding??? And the Troops? Why not really support them, and redeploy them stateside--out of Iraq immediately in order to restore our international credibility and mend broken lives on both sides???
And all you Dem Senators who supposedly don't support the war--gee,thanks a lot!!!! Your hand wringing has prolonged our national shame to the tune of another $70 Billion.
Still wanna' blame Nader? And before anyone wants to hand me that "you-are-only bashing-Hillary-because-she-is-a-woman" bull-jive, I can proudly state that the Greens are preparing to field 2 (Two) women candidates to run in our primary for President: Elaine Brown and Cynthia McKinney (the latter--before Kucinich--had the guts to introduce Articles of Impeachment against Bush, Cheney and Rice in 2005.)
It is long overdue to stop supporting those who have turned their backs on us, and start supporting those who will are unfettered by corporate benefactors, and will respect and defend the rule of law no matter how inconvenient.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec02/undebate_10-15-02.html
And while we're at it, let's review Holbrooke's farewell speech to the UN in January 2001:
"Saddam Hussein's activities continue to be unacceptable and, in my view, dangerous to the region and, indeed, to the world," Holbrooke continued, "not only because he possesses the potential for weapons of mass destruction but because of the very nature of his regime.
"His willingness to be cruel internally is not unique in the world, but the combination of that and his willingness to export his problems makes him a clear and present danger at all times," he said.
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/State/state-holbooke-1-11-01.htm