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."
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Yep? Just who we need to conduct foreign policy isn't it? People are idiots if they think HRC is POTUS material. Try Richardson. At least he knows something about the subject. Obama doesn't wash either. He has even LESS knowledge and experience. You'll get more of the Bush bunch if either of them is the Dem nominee. You hide and watch. We can't use the White House for OJT this Time around.
P.S. Ask the Pakistani's
Hillary certainly knows how to carpetbag her way into another state. She knows how to ride a coatail. She knows how to thank anyone that her husband has raped and they don't file charges...
I tell you, there is all sorts of things Hillary knows how to do. When she went before Congress, she claims to not remember 264 times while being questioned. She knows how to take vacations to 79 different countries on the peoples dime.
Oh Well, this could go on and on forever and will if she gets elected.
What Hillary hasn't done in Foreign Policy. Obama hasn't done either. Lets complete the article here Jon, take it a step further to completion. Kosovo and Bosnia were mentioned. Who DID do the tough work, and tough decisions in those times? Advising then President Bill Clinton? Joe Biden. Contrary to belief, and mentioned above, we don't have to select a nominee that requires "on the job training" Joe Biden already has that training, and has acted in the capicity of the position without yet holding the office, it's no wonder world leaders consistantly turn to him for advice, they not only know him, they trust and respect him. So let's not settle for anything other than the best, Or kid ourselves into thinking it's ok that our nominee is not experienced, they will learn. This is no time for a student to run the country, it's time for the schoolar, the real experienced expert. Joe Biden!
I totally agree. Hillary is a puppet-robot, square-faced and only knows how to mimic her other opponents and steal their ideas.
I'm all for a woman or black president. Hillary certainly isn't the one. Maybe it's time for someone who is smart and even though somewhat less "experienced", can whittle through all the lies and greed to bring about change: in other words, John Edwards. A friend of mine once thought John Edwards came across as trying too hard at times and that he came across as a hypocrit or phony. But he realized after meeting him a few times and meeting his EXTENDED family, that he truly isn't. That's just the way he is and that deep down, he's smart, a go-getter, and is able to laugh at himself. But he's not laughing at America's plight. He doesn't have a hidden agenda...l
As for Edwards' house, who else running for president DOESN'T have a big house or several houses. The other candidates' houses, wardrobes and so forth...AN
Finally the MSM asks the right questions to Hillary in regard to the "vast foreign policy experience" crap she's been spewing this campaign season...a
Read the headlines here on Huffpost --- or anywhere for that matter.
Why is Clinton "Hillary" while other candidates are Obama, Edwards, Paul, Thompson? Do you, JON, feel you know her better, or is it a diminutive
If Mr. Wiener were the only culprit, it wouldn't mean much; but the use of her first name and the males' last names is more the norm than not.
Writers do this to avoid confusion with Bill Clinton? Doesn't wash --- I'd be willing to bet many people are aware she's running, not him. And then there are those little pronouns that aid identification.
We obviously haven't evolved that much as yet.
How dare you undermine Hillary`s experience.
She appointed Madeline Albright as Secretary of State. She was her husband`s sounding board for everything he did. You Obama lover don`t know what the hell you are talking about.
With the Unitary Executive's ever expanding dictatorial powers, whoever ends up winning the election, if there even is an election, will assume a golden throne of total power over the country. In my opinion, that person will morph into GWB no matter who it is. The seduction of power is too great. America is in a downward spiral. It will continue in a downward spiral until all campaigns are publically financed. Until then, those with the gold will rule. Perpetual War=Perpetual Profit. Look for more wars and less social services. Cheers.
As I wrote on another post, when Katie Couric asked every presidential candidate which country in the world presented the most danger, without hesitation Hillary said PAKISTAN. With the murder of Bhutto it seems that Hillary knew what she was talking about. Please give the woman some credit for knowing a helluva lot more than some would give her credit for.
Here is a site with links to OTHER problems Hillary faces:
http://www
The NY Times helped elect an idiot who couldn't find Israel on a map, couldn't read an NIE, and never balanced a book.
Send Hillary to be UN Ambassador and let Obama, a man with vision, run the White House.
What's also relevant is that Hillary really didn't have a major role either in developing and/or implementing the failed Clinton Administration health care reform policies. From what I have read, she was only following directives from Bill and others and doing what they told her to do. She wasn't the decision maker back then and with health care either.
But Hillary has gotten solid foreign policy experience during her 6 years in the Senate but that hardly makes her more qualified in this area than Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, and even Barack Obama with four years.
Hillary got it wrong on Iraq, is getting it wrong on Iran and doesn't have appeared to learn from her mistakes. What's more Hillary supported this failed war long after it was clear there were no WMDs in Iraq not only hawking for it but giving Bush the support and money he needed to continue his occupation of Iraq. She only changed her views not as a leader but as a follower of just about everyone else in the party who had long ago started advocating for withdrawal.
What is apparent to me is we don't see any real leadership from Hillary. Only someone who does what her polling tells her to do. But not sure we see real leadership from most of the Dem candidates other than Kucinich and Edwards and now Dodd over FISA who seem to be more at odds with business as usual and unwilling to compromise on important issues just to get along with the center and corporatists. While I have high expectations for Obama I am not sure he quite understands that always trying to find compromises with your opponents is not often a winning strategy. If we wanted someone who has consistently promoted himself as someone who can reach out and work with the other side, we would all be happy with Joe Lieberman yet he's so disgusting I shouldn't even be mentioning his name here.
RJ Crane
topplebush
Unfortunately the Clinton bubble, as demonstrated again and again, is more gaseous than substantive, more filled with crass populism than reality, and more old, old, inconsequential political promise-making than ideas with consequence. Ms Clinton is another hollow candidate with lots of hubby baggage and no "hard" policy experience. The Times piece was almost an expose and very good for what it said and did not need to say and will be of great use to nasty Republicans in the campaign if the Democrat party is foolish enough to select Ms Clinton over Obama. The Nation seems to understand it does not need or want Ms Clinton and Bubba in the White House--her negatives are seemingly awful in any poll and seem to exceed her percentage of the possible primary vote--almost Junior Bush levels. It would seem foolish for the Democrat Party to select the candidate the Republicans would love.
I for one want an experienced, intellegent individual as president. We voted for change in the past elections and look at what it has brought about. I want an experienced, hard nosed, maybe calus and jaded individual as president. Not someone that expouses the idealism of change for the sake of change. Give me someone that does not need on the job training. We have that in Bush and all of his cronies!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
