Setting the Record Straight: Hillary's Foreign Policy

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.

Comments

[TribunusPlebis]

It is well that Richard Holbrooke has resurfaced, because his status as one of Hillary Clinton's foreign policy advisors confirms the belief that she represents the ideas and priorities of the foreign policy establishment, of which he is a proud member. Mr. Holbrooke argues that Mrs. Clinton would not make the mistakes of her allegedly less experienced husband when he took office, citing as an example the latter's supposed failure to "act earlier" in the case of Bosnia. But what exactly would Mr. Holbrooke suggest that Bill Clinton have done "earlier" on Bosnia? Should the U.S. have intervened militarily, in the midst of Slobodan Milosevic's bloody adventurism there? Unlike the 1999 bombing campaign, which punished Serbia for ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, such intervention would have required American ground forces, possibly just as large as were used in Iraq. Would Americans have accepted the same costs in Bosnia that they ultimately rejected in Iraq, given that U.S. security was no more at stake in the Balkans than in Iraq? Or does Mr. Holbrooke mean that Mr. Clinton should have been more vigorous in his diplomacy? That war began in 1992, before Bill Clinton took office, and European diplomacy, NATO air strikes, and other efforts to suppress it began before Mr. Holbrooke joined the State Department in 1994. Just what does Mr. Holbrooke believe President Clinton could have done but did not do, and which he implies that his wife would do? We particularly need to know if that action could entail the use of American forces in a theatre of war in which the U.S. has no security interests -- because that was the reality in the Balkans, and that is a presidential action which Americans today would likely not approve in 2009. And that is precisely the worry about Hillary Clinton, who not only voted for the Iraq war, but voted to brand a part of the Iranian military as a terrorist organization -- thereby handing to President Bush the arguable justification to use American military forces against Iran, in the name of fighting terrorism.

[fullkelly]

The Clintons have more intelligence and knowledge in how to govern and bring about progress that is benficial to America and the international community at large than all the other so called candidates put together. If you want progressive leadership that will heap rewards not only on the USA but also our global neighbors , then vote for Hillary . Other wise you will have to select from among the culls. You All have a nice day.

[cheshyre]

Here's the formula: Say what needs to be done (ending Iraq war), tell your audience what they want to hear (diplomacy over warmongering) and mix it all in with some impressive sounding facts (traveled to 80 countries!) and then present your candidate as the solution. Gosh jolly, you's just too slick for us hicks, Mr. Holbrooke, yessuh, you is!

This dummy has gots some questions though, like: what about examples of leadership or independent thought or vision or insight? Barney Frank voted against the Iraq war because he "knew they were lying." Anyone who was honest with herself could have known the same thing. She didn't ask herself was this a moral or just thing to do - as a leader would do - she just didn't want to get caught on the wrong side of the vote in case Bush's delusions turned out to be reality. So what does it say about someone who can't tell delusion from reality?

Try thinking about what's best for the country and letting the chips fall where they may. It's so obvious to see her rationale of "I'll have the convictions to do right once I get the power. Right now I have to get elected." But it's the convictions that have to come first, that's the job of everyone. At no point is it optional.

"Know this before ye speak: All things about you are known."

[realitytrumpsbull]

Well, the YouTube thing is over with, but
I'd ask her this: Sen. Clinton, do you now,
or have you ever accepted one thin silver
dime from an oil company lobbyist?
Why be such a whiner on that point? Because
the petro-biz is HUGE. Massive. Gigantic.
Really, really BIG. And, they've got lotsabux.
Truckloads of money. And, enough influence
in D.C. to command that More Be Printed To
Suit Their Needs. These guys don't miss meals,
likely don't lose a lot of sleep, either.
And, they also don't go away. Greasy palms,
greasy poltix, shorting out the voting system
and having their way with our nations' finances.
I'm in favor of seeing an administration that
can clean house on this particular issue.
So, Hillary, let's see those fingernail­s...

[SeaOats]

Mr. Holbrooke, you insult our intelligence with this attempt to create a bogus reality. Hillary betrayed thinking people everywhere with her Iraq war vote - so much so, in fact, that it's impossible to trust her to do the right thing in the future. She's all about hitching her wagon to the prevailing winds of the moment. That's not leadership.

Change is now the prevailing wind - and Hillary will be left standing alone with her wagon wondering what the hell happened.

[May2002]

Another Clinton surrogate or hired gun here tried to defend and advocate for Hillary.

Hillary is indeed an Establishment Candidate. Washington establishment does want to prolong their status quo by helping each other.

I know Clinton used to being famous for selling Lincoln Bed room.

Now, they found even better way--
Pre-presidency Sale of prominent government posts.

Shouldn't we assume when these surrogates or hired guns are defending or advocating on Hillary's behalf what in their mind is not the nation's future but their own?

It seems like Washington is all for sales. The political power is Washington insiders' capital.

[ConcernAmerican]

Ambassador Halbrooke,

Thank you very much for bringing into the light the experience of Senator Clinton in dealing with Foreign Policy. The media, columnists, commentators have muddled this issue and misquoted not only you but also President Bill Clinton (roll the dice coming from Charlie blamed on Clinton), Senator Clinton and others who speaks to bring into the public what kind of President she would be for the American people and to the world. I’ve seen so many inconsistencies the media have used against Senator Clinton; huffpo is the worst of them all. I believe Hillary will reduce presence of our troops gradually from Iraq, to withdraw all of them without any plan how to keep the peace among the Kurds, Sunnis, Shiites is foolhardy at best, will also make our standing into the eyes of the world much worse. Bush have already made it known a few months ago, will not withdraw our troops from Iraq; he said he’ll leave it to the next administration to do it. I agree with her plan for slow withdrawal of our troops from Iraq, I have some friends assigned right now in Baghdad, they’ve said the same thing, immediate withdrawal of our troops will put Iraq in more chaos. Take for example Basra; the British turned it over to the Shiites a few days ago without disarming the militias, the chief of Police is facing all kinds of chaos, they’re not only outnumbered by the militias, they’re also outgunned. There are already 45 women beheaded in Basra as we speak.

Hillary Clinton has already made a name for herself with world leaders and she’s well respected by them. That carries a lot of weight once she’s in office and deals with foreign policies which in my opinion would be immediate, she’ll be mending fences with our allies alienated by Bush and making new friends with other countries that look at us in negative fashion.

[Lisette]

Is this another post written by yet another erstwhile "friend of Hillary Clinton".

Too late. Hillary is washed up.

[Kreskytim]

OK Obama and Edward supporters, start spitting your venom on Clinton.

[african]

You can speak for yourself. But as to Ms Clinton: she has made it clear she is "hawkish" on Iran and would not take military action off the table. She also voted for the Resolution naming the Iranian Guards (Al Quds) as a "terrorist organizati­on." This was a dangerous step along a slippery slope to war at a time when she was fully aware of George Bush's ongoing bellicose public statements.