So, Larry, how many times, during those 3 A.M.-type calls that you were involved in, was Mrs. Clinton, sans security clearance, also involved?

If that number is greater than zero, I am willing to listen about your observations of her behavior in such situations.

And have you briefed Senator Obama, so that you are in a position to compare and contrast their reactions?

Oh, and Clinton's team also includes General Wesley Clark, who (admits in his book that), as the newly appointed Director of Operations for the Joint Chiefs, found that their were no contingency plans for dealing with the Rwandan situation--and then, as the situation developed and the genocide proceeded, never thought of the obvious: taking out the radio transmission towers.

I entered my first meeting with Hillary with strong reservations about her competence (based entirely on what I had heard and read in the media).

During her time on the National Security Council, as the senior person responsible for giving the President policy options on Africa, Rice reprised the role of Nero fiddling while Rome burned. She sat by while more than one million Rwandans were butchered in a bloody genocide. She let the phone ring and declined to offer any answer that would have saved lives.

EPIC FAIL.

Put a sock in it Larry. Your fifteen minutes are up...too bad you used the last 6 or 7 proving that you haven't forgotten most of what you learned as a Republican.

Richard Holbrooke is one of the last people on the Democratic side of the planet I want to see running national security.

"Now it's time to use an approach that builds on the fact that Saddam is the most dangerous government leader in the world today, he poses a threat to the region, he could pose a larger threat if he got weapons of mass destruction deployed, and we have a legitimate right to take action," Holbrooke told Chris Matthews on January 23, 2003, two months before troops opened fire. "The American public always supports its commander-in-chief and we unify in times of crisis, and if the action is fast and rapid and successful, afterwards everyone will think they supported it."

Just seven months later, on August 26, 2003, Holbrooke's views had changed radically: Iraq, in his view, had become the "worst foreign policy disaster since the Vietnam War."

Larry Johnson has become the male Taylor Marsh. Totally lacking in credibility.

So Susan Rice was the commander in Chief, and not Bill Clinton. So says Larry Johnson. With idiots like this guy working for them, no wonder the CIA has not been worth a skunk's fart for the past twenty years!

The phone rang in 2002.

Clinton was wrong.

Obama was right.

The only thing left to add is that Clinton STAYED wrong.

Larry:
Thank you for your thoughtful insight ... I see the Obama folks are brutal as always.
They can't admit their candidate has less experience with foreign affairs. He may be inspirational but he does not have the qualifications to be commander in chief.

What a hack. Given your distortions I'll put your opinion right next to where I put Paul Krugman and Bill Clinton's.

If people want to read some non-headuptheass looks at foreign policy differences, check these out.

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4803

http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/post/27610653

http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/post/27520498

I see two out of ten ad hom's.

To be fair to Clinton, she does not lack foreign policy experience. Her problem is that her votes are all triangulation.

It is shameful to bring up Rwanda as an example. Nothing else could serve as a greater example of foreign policy failure by the Clintons. However, unlike you, they would not stoop to pinning their failure on an aide. Bill Clinton, at least, would recognize where the buck stops.

Quote: "Yep, typical Obamatrons. When you can't deal with substance go for ad hominem. Classy"

Oh my gosh. This is the Larry Johnson who's been interviewed on TV and radio? Accusing someone of ad hominem attacks even as he refers to Obama supporters as "Obamatrons"??

Amazing.

So now it's the Obama advisor's fault Clinton did nothing about Rwanda?

You people are shameless.

Is it normal for a comment to take an hour to post?

Since my first comment didn't go through (sent about an hour ago), here's my response to Larry.

If we're going to criticize Obama for not holding hearings on NATO's role in Afghanistan why not criticize Clinton for not holding a hearing on the link between breast cancer and environmental toxins. As chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health, it seems like Clinton was in a good position to help a large number of the voters who are backing her. But she didn't even hold a hearing on the subject . . .

And besides, doesn't America think 20 straight years of Bush-Clinton presidencies is enough?

Mr. Johnson,

Thanks for explaining why you went from being a "Hillary hater" to a Hillary supporter. I really appreciate your continued contributions in the face of so much disrespect and anger. I don't understand it, and I don't really want to.

Don't mind the peanut gallery, they're still a little upset over their schooling in Ohio.

Larry, I will echo the poster cutta2k4 comments. I really want to take you for your word because you obviously have some experience in foreign policy/military matters. And to be fair you are one of many who have this type of experience but I appreciate you bringing your perspective to the table. I have some problems with your reasoning and I also have some problems with your clip you provided.
Let us talk about the clip first. You provided a clip that was very short of Mrs. Rice appearing on TV. At the end of the clip she states that she believes that neither candidate is ready to take that 3AM phone call. First I have problem with 24(the show) type scenarios, it is not that I do not believe that this situation could exist it is simply that I would imagine that many of the people in the know about these things are also in the know about how micro-managing every situation is counter-productive as the main thrust in government. Let me expand on this micro-management critique, would you not say that both macro and micro are important method used in establishing a clear picture? Also the president can not be everywhere at once nor can they make every decision, in fact I would imagine that the trusts they place in the system as well as the people who work in that system are very important to having functioning government. Back to the clip, it is obvious that she did not finish her sentence with the clip you provided. A little hint, many of the readers of sites such as these have an aversion to anything that looks like it might have been taken out-of-context or cherry-picked, so transparency and the appearance of impropriety are biggies. So please next time provide the entire exchange thus you can avoid this apparent hitch from bloggers such as myself. Here is the transcript from the conversation on Tucker Carlson:
Ms. Rice: He hasn’t and he hasn’t claimed that he’s been in a position to have to answer the phone at 3 o’clock in the morning in a crisis situation. That’s the difference between the two of them. Hillary Clinton hasn’t had to answer the phone at 3 o’clock in the morning. And yet she attacked Barack Obama for not being ready. They’re both not ready to have that 3:00 a.m. phone call.
The question is and what Barack Obama raised is, when that phone call is received for each of them for the first time, who’s going to make the right judgment? Who is going to make the right decision?
On the critical foreign policy issues of the day, whether it was a decision to go to war in Iraq or the decision to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt and beat the drums of war with Iran, Hillary Clinton has made the same wrong judgment as John McCain and George W. Bush. Barack Obama has made a very different judgment.
So neither one of them, and nor John McCain for that matter, have had that 3 o’clock phone call that others have had. And I think we have to be honest about that.]
No tell me does this change your opinion? Can you say that she has been in this position of answering this type of call before?

Ok on to the next issue I have with your post you said this, "Susan Rice, a senior Obama foreign policy advisor, who served on the National Security Council and later as the Assistant Secretary for African Affairs at the State Department under Bill Clinton...During her time on the National Security Council, as the senior person responsible for giving the President policy options on Africa, Rice reprised the role of Nero fiddling while Rome burned. She sat by while more than one million Rwandans were butchered in a bloody genocide. She let the phone ring and declined to offer any answer that would have saved lives." There seems to be a bit of dodginess in this because this was a Clinton person right? Surely even if she was the senior person in charge she answers to somebody, right? Also there were people who work under her, what do they have to say about these decisions? What happened in Rwanda was a horrible disgrace to the US and the International community at large (UN). Obviously the Rwandan are mostly to blame as it was genocide and civil war mixed together with a whole lot of innocents being slaughtered by their neighbors and friends as well as militants.
If she is to blame, then fine but then again blame would have to put on Bill Clinton as well to go along with many others. I just don't see how you can put all the blame on her for this incident, it just doesn't add up. So please if you can explain how an appointee such as Susan Rice is to blame because she truly was the one that ignored 'Rome' while it was burning tell me how her higher-ups aren't also complicit?

As to you believing that she is smart, astute, and a good listener when it comes to any range of issues, I think that is great. That is what I would want as any person in government service let alone a candidate for president. I also believe that she is all of those things but that is not the reason that I do not support her in the Democratic nomination. Rather it is because she has failed in the past, as has her husband, to take responsibility for her actions and her words. She has never, to my knowledge admitted that she made a mistake in voting to authorize the war in Iraq (and I know that she says that she was not authorizing war, but that is what it did). Her judgment had it been different would make me see her in a completely different light. I understand the evidence to support the authorization was flawed but many stood up against the war with Iraq simply because they thought it was distraction from the war to get Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. I look forward to response and I am glad that you see Hillary as being a woman who can handle the Commander and Chief role.