Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiWhat 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."
Jon Wiener started writing for The Nation in 1984. Since then he's written more than 100 stories and reviews for the magazine, many about American history, university politics, and California life. He's also professor of history at the University of California, Irvine, and a Los Angeles radio host.
© 2007 The Nation
13 Comments so far
Show AllI would rather vote for someone who hasn't had any foreign policy experience in the U.S. in the past few decades. U.S. policy from the cold war through vietnam to iraq and iran has been disastrous, so not having been involved could only be a positive. Unfortunately, pointing out that Hillary has no foreign policy experience does not ensure that she won't be disastrous. Such a conclusion would be unwarranted, given that everything she has supported has been disastrous. Thus, inexperienced or not, she consistently has been a supporter of the disasters. The best prediction therefore is that she will be a disastrous leader if she gains office. The experience she will gain if she becomes President is unlikely to be good.
I like Martha Stewart. If anyone reading this has an over-riding compulsion to vote for a woman for president,,,let it be Martha Stewart.
Everything that Hillary does not have,,,,Martha has.
You cannot go wrong.
I think the money, the name recognition
and the inevitability meme is all she really
does have going for her.
It's special interests that are propping her up.
Not so fast - I seem to recall reading that Hillary Clinton made a $100,000 profit in Pork Bellies, in her very first flyer in the futures market many years back. Ms. Clinton is obviously clairvoyant - a handy skill that will serve her in good stead when she becomes First Lady.
I ask myself this question; "What has she done to deserve to be president?" and I keep coming back with the same answer.
Nothing.
When you review her life, she's been either a coat-tailer, a back-room dealer, or a glad-handing figurehead. Her actual real accomplishments can be summed up neatly and nicely by the following word.
Nothing.
Never run a major corporation. Never built an organization that provided jobs. Never even worked at an honest job herself. Just lived by latching onto the plump teat of political offices her entire life. She's one of many in a long line of elitest, progressive wanna-be's that want to wrap themselves in a palatable outer coating of "Not-Bush", but is the same-old political wolf inside.
You're right when you ask, "Why does this woman poll so high?"
Experience or no, it is policy that is most important. Sen. Clinton advocates policies that are simply deal-breakers for me, most notably her support of the Iraq war.
Perhaps more revealing, though, is this bit:
"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."
Someone disenchanted with Hillary Clinton's experience moves to an even less experienced Obama, who offers little difference in policy.
Good grief.
I get a laugh out of the whole "experience" thing. In our form of government, if you do a government job (or jobs) long enough, no matter how poorly, you have "experience." Just look how Bush senior progressed through the ranks without ever accomplishing anything. "Experience" in terms of political fighting is just another buzzword for: "I don't have anything of substance to say about why my opponent should not be elected instead of me."
As far as I'm concerned, considering how badly our government has been run for the last many years, I'll take all the "inexperience" I can get.
When Billy left office h stayed out of Arkansas and went to New York. Hillary ran for the SENATE in NY and won.This is the first of many steps these two have taken to get back into the white house,get thier finger on the nuclear trigger again, and get to rent out rooms at the White House
Motel again.
You have to remember that New Yorkers like to vote for celebreties and they are no very smart when they have to do thier own thinking and so are more apt to vote along party lines,,,,basically they like to be told how to vote.
The next plan was to run against other idiots whom you do not have to discuss any thing meaningful or important with. And the democrats have provided that for her with the exception of Kucinich and one or two others.
The money part is the easiest. Over the years they have fine tuned various alliances who are more than happy to supply any amounts needed since they will get thier promised pay backs.
And the rest of you dopes will just stare and say HUH?????
Jonno: She is appealing to the "stand by your man" crowd. OR would that be the stand by your war/genocide crowd? As a woman myself, I would have thrown the sleeze out without a second chance, but I guess some wouldn't agree. I have to say that I am glad not to be an American; if I was though, I would vote for Kucinich.
Another thing too, if Americans get so appalled at womanizing, why is Guiliani (sp?) so popular?
Don't forget this is the same political system that allowed George to occupy the White House. Until D.C. is swept clean of its whores and pimps and johns we will continue to get presidents and congressmen who would rather go to bed with corporate America than stand up for what the Constitution demands that they do. Protect us from domestic enemies. If we had Statesmen instead of political whores we wouldn't be hated and feared all over the world. The world sees that America is a fraud, but Americans still don't believe it. That's why there's not much chance to change the suicidal direction of America today.
Hoa binh
Hillary has no ovaries as a woman at all, what fool puts up and forgives a serial womanizer every time,she must have a lot to hide like ole Slick does
Polls are false. Hilary is unfit for any office.
Will SOMEONE tell me why this woman is polling so high?
When you come right down to it, she is the LEAST qualified to be President right above Obama.
What if pieces like this actually made in into corporate newspapers? Oh, sorry. I had a reality lapse there....