Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Did Hillary sacrifice Bosnia for Hillarycare?
Slate has this today:
Taking the advice of Al Gore and National Security Advisor Tony Lake,http://www.slate.com/id/2187780
Bill agreed to a proposal to bomb Serbian military positions while
helping the Muslims acquire weapons to defend themselves—the
fulfillment of a pledge he had made during the 1992 campaign. But
instead of pushing European leaders, he directed Secretary of State
Warren Christopher merely to consult with them. When they balked at the
plan, Bill quickly retreated, creating a "perception of drift." The key
factor in Bill's policy reversal was Hillary, who was said to have
"deep misgivings" and viewed the situation as "a Vietnam that would
compromise health-care reform." The United States took no further
action in Bosnia, and the "ethnic cleansing" by the Serbs was to
continue for four more years, resulting in the deaths of more than
250,000 people.
So not only did Hillarycare fail (partly due to her tendency to "fight" people), but hundreds of thousands of people died.
So much for her "red phone moment".
Advertisement
Comments (28)
Quoting Chris Hitchens? At least get an American if your going to try and slander someone. He's laughable at best. No friend of the Clintons either. Author of books slandering both Hillary and Bill. Numerous articles doing the same. Paid directly the THE richard mellon scaife to write about the Clintons. No better or worse than Ann Coulter. Please at least make it someone credible...LOL this is great stuff.....what a moron
March 31, 2008 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you actually read Hitchens' stuff? I'm surprised you can say these things about him, the latter elements of which simply aren't true.
I guess in this freakish knee-jerk reaction era, anyone who might raise doubts about one's dream candidate is a slanderer.
April 1, 2008 6:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I read his "stuff" all the time. I've read his books, his essays, his columns and think he's one of the greatest essayists of our generation - but he also got almost all of his reporting on Iraq, wrong, he has some personal feud going with Sidney Blumenthal and he despises the Clintons and has gotten most of his reporting on them wrong too. He also thinks that "Islamofascism" should be wiped from the face of the earth, along with all other religions. I admit he has a point, but I don't much care for his method of wiping out those religions.
April 1, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought you HRC supporters were cool with Scaife now...
You know, now that he's pretending to carry water for your candidate instead of carrying the "vast right-wing... blah blah blah" mantle.
April 1, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Honestly, your a flippin independent. What do you care? Let the adults pick the nominee and then we will let you decide who your going to support. If your not part of the solution your part of the problem.....go away
March 31, 2008 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Louisville, what is this sudden obsession with classifying people? Is it an attempt to get you out of thinking their positions? "Dismiss anyone but registered Dems!"
As you know, the Dems pride themselves on being an inclusive party -- and want to grow more to increase their influence.
You will meet a lot of shades and stripes here.
It's cool. Really.
April 1, 2008 3:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dude when do you sleep? No classification just I thought we were all in the Dem party together! I guess I should read profiles! Good Luck
April 1, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you have to keep in mind that in the early 1990s, getting US forces involved in Bosnia wasn't the no brainer that it looks like today.
The Republicans were against it. I know, I know, but they were.
People really were worried it'd turn out to be a quagmire. That's why when we did go in, it wasn't with ground troops and was more of a air campaign. That had the disadvantage of causing a lot of civilian deaths.
It was in Russia's back yard and the Soviet Union had just collapsed. Russia didn't want us there and that had to be considered.
There was also a sense that there were no "good guys" in the region -- that it was an ancient ethnic conflict and that whoever had the power would be the one committing the atrocities.
To say we should have gone in earlier is like saying we should have sent troops into Rwanda or that we should have troops in Darfur now -- reasonable people can disagree on all of those points. If Hillary Clinton, or anyone for that matter, didn't want to send troops into Bosnia because there was the risk of it turning into an unpopular quagmire I wouldn't say that such thinking was mistaken.
April 1, 2008 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does any of this sound familiar:
"People really were worried it'd turn out to be a quagmire."
How 'bout this:
"There was also a sense that there were no "good guys" in the region -- that it was an ancient ethnic conflict and that whoever had the power would be the one committing the atrocities."
It sounds familiar to me...
April 1, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If Hillary Clinton, or anyone for that matter, didn't want to send troops into Bosnia because there was the risk of it turning into an unpopular quagmire I wouldn't say that such thinking was mistaken."
But Bill promised to intervene, and real public officials in the administration were for some sort of intervention, if not ground troops (note how successful Kosovo turned out without them).
It's shocking that an unelected First Lady could override everyone else, and all for her pet project (which went on to fail)
I agree with Hitchens (isn't he naturalized at this point?) that GHillary using Bosnia for her bona fides is shameless, if she had delayed US involvement.
April 1, 2008 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I never thought that Hillary should have used a trip to Bosnia, no matter the circumstances, to prove anything about her foreign policy cred. She should have concentrated on her ideas.
As for the rest of it, she was always free to tell Bill what she thought and it was always up to him to listen to her or not. Was Kosovo a success without ground troops? It depends on who you are. If you were an innocent civilian on either side you might think that our high altitude bombings were as criminal as anything else that went on there.
If the issue is that Hillary thought that her health care plan was more important than the situation there then I think we can have a debate about her judgment. I think I'd agree with her. If somebody gave me a choice between universal health care or sending troops into Darfur right now, I'd also pick universal healthcare.
But no, I can't defend her campaigning on the issue.
April 1, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
You seem to be missing a central point. If you're choosing one thing at the expense of another, you'd damned well better not be ham-handed with the thing you choose. And you certainly don't come back a decade later with a big neon sign and a giant arrow pointing back in the vague direction of what you say you did...
THAT's what is so infuriating to many Obama supporters about HRC's whole campaign: She tears him down as being inexperienced because he hasn't been in Washington forever, as though Washington Experience (TM) is the only thing that could possibly prepare you for 1600 Penn. In order to justify that, she's running almost exclusively on EXPERIENCE that she had as First Lady, but she wants to keep a curtain and a velvet rope around that time so that she can reach behind it and pull out things she perceives as strengthening her argument. That way she can stand on the stum p and say whatever she wants about the entire Clinton Administration and nobody but Bill (who let's just stipulate has a vested interestedin the process) can question it. "Oh, you don't like NAFTA? *REACHES BEHIND CURTAIN* I didn't like it either. But 'stand by your man,' right? What could I say?" "Oh, you like Peace in Northern Ireland? *REACHES BEHIND CURTAIN* I was INSTRUMENTAL! You should've seen me. Bill was pacing the floor and didn't know what to do. I said 'Send Georgie Mitchell' and he did! And then I said 'Send me. I will bring the womenfolk together' and he did! That's why it worked. It was all the pillow talk. It was really a co-Presidency!"
If that's how you want to see her campaign run, so be it. But you can't fault anyone who doesn't see it that way (or who was alive and awake and remembers it differently) for calling bullshit on it as circumstances require...
April 1, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't fault you at all. In fact, I agree with you entirely.
April 1, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, like most of what hitchens writes it mostly fiction.
April 1, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, that's not it. Most of his analysis is bunk (but you're better off for figuring out why) but he has been and is, an adherent to facts. He really is a solid journalist, always has been. It's the wild conclusions he draws from the demonstrable facts that make him an issue.
April 1, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Denied allegiance to the Queen? Doubt it. The A-hole.
April 1, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some good points, destor.
I think the point is this: Both policies failed, which in retrospect makes it look like she/they dropped the ball. It's remarkable she tried to campaign on it.
April 1, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's more evidence of her tin-eared campaign, for sure. Sigh. At least Obama's convinced me now so I still have something to look forward to in November.
April 1, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know enough to keep Hitchens at arms length, but I liked this article.
April 1, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't agree with Hitchens on everything, but there is absolutely no reason to doubt this, in fact it is backed up by pretty much everything we know about Hillary.
Hitchens may not like the Clintons, but he is balanced, he attacks Obama (in my opinion wrongly) from time to time, and obviously can't stand Republicans.
April 1, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hitchens was certainly a republican apologist, for some of the time.
He's always been a pompous ass, as far as I can tell.
April 1, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have read and heard Chris hitchens enough to know he is a gas-bag brit....Please we kicked their collective asses outta here a long time ago. He should mind his own house before throwing rocks..the A-hole.
April 1, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is my full take on the issue:
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/04/hillary-weighed-political-ambition-vs.html
I think that this chain of events actually fits in quite nicely with other Clinton political calculations. Can any of us at this point believe that she wouldn't say or do anything to get ahead politically? I see no reason to doubt this, and as much of a windbag Hitchens can be, he has corroborating evidence, and regardless of his arrogance, he is still right a lot of the time.
April 1, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, this is credible despite it coming from Hitches because I well remember the doubt and indecision about Bosnia. When Clinton finally did take action, he was criticized harshly from the left and the right. Arianna Huffington thought we should be on the side of the Serbs...as did friends of mine!!! The Republicans defunded it as quickly as they could - yes, they do support our troops. It was an amazingly unpopular action.
It's 20 times more popular in hindsight. I am curious who many of those criticizing the delay here were supportive of the intervention then -- in all honesty, please.
April 1, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Slate article is a grossly simplified caricature of what happened in the Clinton admin. There was serious opposition from the UN, Europe, the Republicans, the press and the public for US military involvement in Bosnia. The press and the UN went as far to say that Clinton was exaggerating the death tolls in Bosnia. It was only after the Srebrenica Massacre that the political climate became acceptable for us to use NATO for military action. Of course, this was all Hillary's doing. Whatever.
April 1, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously, Christopher Hitchens?
I guess we're going to see TPM diaries citing WorldNetDaily next?
April 1, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hitchens is an unbalanced, lunatic bloviator whose apoplectic screeds against the Clintons rival those of the worst right wing fanatics. The decision on intervention in Bosnia at that time was not a simple one (I wonder how many readers here were so gung ho at that time to involve US troops... and were those same readers also in favor of using US military force in Iraq?) But laying the blame for 250,000 deaths in Bosnia on Hillary Clinton is so far beyond the pale as to be laughable. One must ask, are we Dems so clouded by support for our candidate that we accept this slanderous tripe from the likes of Hitchens?
By the way, and I don't think anyone has pointed this out here yet, Hitchens was and continues to be one of the Iraq war's biggest "left wing" supporters. (I think he earned his association with the left wing as a Trotskyite or some such in his younger days). He recently penned a piece for Slate in which he insists he still got it right on Iraq.
That said, he can be clever, and I do agree with his (as always over-the-top) critique of religion. I forgot what his fued with Blumenthal was about in the 90s. Does anyone remember?
April 1, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I think that this chain of events actually fits in quite nicely with other Clinton political calculations. Can any of us at this point believe that she wouldn't say or do anything to get ahead politically? I see no reason to doubt this, and as much of a windbag Hitchens can be, he has corroborating evidence, and regardless of his arrogance, he is still right a lot of the time."
Well said.
April 1, 2008 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment