What Hillary Hasn't Done In Foreign Policy

During the eight years Hillary was First Lady, she didn't deal with terrorism, Osama bin Laden, or Al Qaeda.

She wasn't a decision-maker on any of the other big foreign policy issues of her husband's presidency: whether to send troops to Bosnia or Kosovo, whether to bomb terrorist bases in Afghanistan or suspected terrorist sites in the Sudan.

She didn't deal with the problems in the CIA and other intelligence agencies. She didn't work on nuclear proliferation. She did not deal with genocide in Rwanda.

When Bill Clinton brought Israelis and Palestinians to negotiations at Camp David in 2000, Hillary wasn't there.

These are the conclusions reached by New York Times reporter Patrik Healy, who reported on Dec. 26 on his conversations with 35 Clinton administration officials and his interview with Hillary herself.

"Mrs. Clinton did not hold a security clearance," Healy wrote. "She did not attend National Security Council meetings. She was not given a copy of the president's daily intelligence briefing. She did not assert herself on the crises in Somalia, Haiti and Rwanda."

Most important: Hillary did not do "the hard part of foreign policy" - "making tough decisions, responding to crises." That's what Susan Rice told the New York Times - she was a National Security Council senior aide and a State Department official during the Clinton administration. She's now supporting Obama.

Readers may recall that Hillary has claimed to be the most experienced Democratic candidate not just on domestic issues, but also on international, because of her eight years in the White House. She often says she visited 79 countries as first lady. She often talks about meeting with the president of Uzbekistan and the prime minister of Czechoslovakia.

But when the New York Times reporter asked her to name three major foreign policy decisions in which she played a decisive role as first lady, she "responded in generalities" rather than specifics.

When the Times asked her to cite a significant foreign policy lesson she learned from the 1990s, she replied "There are a lot of them," and went on to talk about "the whole unfortunate experience we've had with the Bush administration."

What did she do on those trips to 79 countries? These were mostly "good-will endeavors" where she supported nonprofit work. She acted as "a spokeswoman for American interests." She often spoke out for women's rights -- especially at the 1995 UN conference on women in Beijing. She brought Catholic and Protestant women together at a meeting in Northern Ireland. And, Healy reported, she often advocated "the expanded use of microcredits, tiny loans to help individuals in poor countries start small businesses."

Comments

[jwod]

That disqualifies all of them but for Richardson. But I would presume there were some mutual discussions with Bill over many of the foreign policy issues before the administration. I don't think any of the others had such an opportunity with their spouses. Want to compare her foreign policy experience with any of the Republicans?

[happytrails]

Why is this discussion about Clinton vs. Obama when there are two candidates who DO have much more foreign policy experience: Richardson and Biden? And Richardson has said he would withdraw troops. The media has declared that our choice is between Clinton and Obama (I DO NOT believe the polls), two candidates who may have a difficult time in the general election. The media is controlled by corporate interests. Doesn't this give anyone pause? Please connect the dots. And please start thinking outside the media box. As someone else said, DO DUE DILIGENCE on all the candidates. Let us, the believers in Democracy, not allow the democratic party to again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. We will win this IF we have an electable candidate.

[splashy]

As I see it, she has a lot more experience than anyone else that has NOT been in the White House. A smart person, as she is, would pick up an incredible amount just by being in the vicinity watching.

Can ANY of the other candidates, of any party, say they actually LIVED in the White House, or saw how things go there on a day to day basis?

I don't necessarily agree with all her policies, but have to say that on the issue of knowing what happens in the White House, and what the pressures and issues are while being there, Hillary Clinton would HAVE to know more about it.

[iswearington]

any fool that dares brag about the foreign policy that was conducted by either the clinton or bush dynastys...needs help...seriously.those policys are exactly the ones that got this nation in the mess its in.out with the old and in with the new...vote obama/kucinich in 2008.

[EdwardMichael]

My feeling is, we should all go with a write-in candidate. Richard Nixon would be ideal.

Why?

First of all, we know he's a crook. Then he's dead, so he certainly can't hurt us like the living can.

:-)

[Kally]

Oh gee oh my Hillary hasn't done anything in foreign Policy? So what in the damn world has his Highess the great Idol Obama done...he must be a whirlwind of activity accordingly...huh huh

[Obama2008]

Touche'

[Garvagh]

As first lady, Clinton should not have been making foreign policy decisions, even if she would naturally be discussing matters with her husband. The largest concern with Hillary is whether she grasps the need for a total US withdrawal from Iraq. The Dick Cheney game plan is to have US armed forces in Iraq for decades, to protect Israel (meaning, to allow Israel to repress the Palestinians into perpetuity).

[JohnCP]

Isn't it a bit late for all the nail-biting Hillary haters? The nomination ritual is upon us. All your ranting and raving about "experience," which you claim she doesn't have, that she's an imposter, and that she doesn't have the right to be the president because she's....well, she's a bad person, a democrat, a woman, and she's evil, and she's not a republican, she's too conservative, she's too liberal, she's cold, she's polarizing, etc. The more I hear all this tripe from all you brainy heavy-weights, including chief small-talker Jon Weiner, the stronger is my inclination to vote for her.
jp

[marcialosangeles]

I think I missed what was new in this blog, since I too read the NYTimes. But as I wrote to Patrick Healy, I am looking forward to his impartial review of Obama. Obama has stated that he has been against the war from the beginning. But did Obama support Ned Lamont, the anti-war US Senate candidate from CT? No, he supported Lieberman!@! Did Obama vote against the confirmation of Condi Rice (who did as much as anyone to advance the selling of the war) for Sec of State? No, he voted to confirm. How did he vote on the '05 Patriot Act. He voted for it. How did he vote on the '07 bill designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization?
He did NOT even vote. How did he vote on the very recent FISA bill? Oh, again, unlike Dodd who returned to the Senate to successfully argue against its passage, Obama (again) did NOT even vote. In fact, he has missed more senate votes that any other Dem candidate. So just what does Obama bring to the table? Words. No Action that I can see. And if he is really going to change Washington, then he should stop bragging that 40 of his top foreign affairs advisors are from the Clinton White House.

[benalbanach]

Hazard a guess how many of those who are anti Hillary actually voted for Bush ?. He who couldn't run a piss-up in a brewery.

[zull2]

It's been my point...Hillary is claiming all this foreign policy experience, but the truth is that you can't have real experience without accountability. For that, you have to have a legitimate position with responsibilities that involve making and implementing foreign policy. You can advise all you want, but if you don't have the responsibility, you don't have anything.

It would be like me applying for a job, and saying I had 10 years of CEO experience, all of which was involved in running my own company that employed only me and sometimes made income. That's hardly going to be viewed as legitimate, unless I were also a major Republican donor and the job I was applying for was with the Bush Administration.

[fullkelly]

Hillary's actions were in "GOOD WILL-INDEAVORS", AND "ACTED AS SPOKESWOMAN FOR AMERICAN INTERESTS".

All over the world. That alone is one huge significant resume. However no misogynist would ever accept the fact that women can be just as capable as men.

[JonathanDS2U]

I am not a Hillary supporter, but to be fair, wouldn't the thing that your microscopes seek be the "official record" of what went back and forth between Bill and Hillary behind very closed doors? Bill Clinton has sorta kinda intimated that, in the absence of a law allowing the sharing of presidential responsibility, he has had to hold back on specifying for the public exactly how productive his problem-solving with his spouse proved to be. Hillary haters would just love to focus on the idea that national security rules were violated in terms of what Bill confided in her. Perhaps the Republicans want to go there, but Obama can beat her without stooping to that.

[clifwest]

Mr. Wiener,

Excellent article. Too bad that died-in-the- wool Clintonites will ignore the truth, as usual, and believe her dog and pony show. The thing even harder to believe is that Bill won't be calling the shots. It would seem that Mr. Clinton has found a way to beat the two term limit. He is good, you have to admit that. Can't you get a living picture of Bill Clinton staying in the background? Bill never saw a microphone he didn't like. I know he had me in his pocket until Monica but that was the last straw. Like Nixon, if he had admitted the affair from the beginning, I would have admired his honesty, but by lying all those months, he cut his own throat. If Hillary had dumped him, I would be able to respect her more than I do. She is an enabler and indicates that their marriage is a front for political gain. The whole scenario is too much like a house of cards to be a valid reason to elect her President. Time will tell.