Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Hillary's VERY REAL Foreign Policy Experience
For those wondering what kind of foreign policy experience Hillary Clinton actually has, I suggest you read this article:
http://www.irishecho.com/search/searchstory.cfm?id=18626&issueid=563
She has already proven to understand that you can't take conventional wisdom on foreign relations at face value.
For years, the troubles had been kept at a distance by Washington and given only sporadic attention by the U.S. media. The efforts by people in Northern Ireland to bring normality to their shattered community generally got short shrift.
Atrocities and the finger pointing that followed made headlines of course. American opinion writers mostly followed the British government's view that the troubles were generated and perpetrated by terrorists, full stop.
But even as the Clintons, president and first lady, generated entirely novel stories from what had been a place of despair, their effort to view the North's problems in an entirely new light also drew criticism on both sides of the Atlantic.
"I am quite surprised that anyone would suggest that Hillary Clinton did not perform important foreign policy work as first lady. I can state from firsthand experience that she played a positive role for over a decade in helping to bring peace to Northern Ireland," said former SDLP leader and Nobel laureate John Hume is a statement responding to critical press reports.
"She visited Northern Ireland, met with very many people and gave very decisive support to the peace process. In private she made countless calls and contacts, speaking to leaders and opinion makers on all sides, urging them to keep moving forward," said Hume.
This would appear to be an important point. Press-based criticism of Senator Clinton has been based on the public record, and what has been recorded by both Clintons in their respective autobiographies.
Hillary, some would certainly argue, knows more than what has been made public thus far about what went on behind the scenes as the peace process gathered steam.
"Anyone criticizing her foreign policy involvement should look at her very active and positive approach to Northern Ireland and speak with the people of Northern Ireland who have the highest regard for her and are very grateful for her very active support for our peace process," Hume concluded in his defense of Hillary's Irish legacy.
The article goes on to chronicle more testimony of how Hillary's support caused real change.
In a series of statements compiled by labor and fair employment advocate Inez McCormack, Clinton was lauded for her "decade-long support" of the peace process.
"We believe it is important for others to know the pivotal role Mrs. Clinton played in helping us in Northern Ireland at critical junctures in the peace process. She supported us over many years and we will always be grateful to her," said McCormack
"Hillary Clinton took risks for peace in asking me and others to bring women and communities from both traditions to affirm their capacity to work for common purpose," McCormack said.
"She used her immense influence to give women like me space to develop this work and validated it every step of the way. This approach is now taken for granted but it wasn't then. She told us that if we take risks for peace, she would stay with us on that journey. In my experience, it took hard work, attention to detail and a commitment of time and energy which she delivered steadily and where needed over the last decade," McCormack added.
Similar testimonies have been forthcoming from other women, Protestant and Catholic. They include prominent community worker Elaine Crozier, Baroness May Blood, a member of the British House of Lords, Geraldine McAteer, chief executive of the West Belfast Partnership Board, Avila Kilmurray, head of the Community Foundation for Northern Ireland, Patricia Lewsley, former member of the Northern Ireland Assembly and currently Commissioner for Children and Young People, and Joanna McVey, former CEO of the Fermanagh-published Impartial Reporter newspaper and chair of the Fermanagh Trust.
"She turned empathy into action. Her iconic address to the first Vital Voices conference in Belfast in 1998 was truly inspirational and her ongoing support for women's role in peace building and the transformation of economic and political life in the North was manifested through other initiatives and her own personal involvement," stated McVey in her statement.
That 1998 visit to the North was just one of seven undertaken by Clinton between 1995 and 2004, both with president Clinton and on her own. In addition, Clinton has hosted numerous visitors from both communities in the North on American soil.
And lastly, but importantly, about Dick Morris' comments on her Irish diplomacy.
"Morris and McGann do not carry a single quote from any leader in Ireland on Senator Clinton's contribution to the solution of the Irish conflict. Nor do they carry a quote from Senator Mitchell. I challenge them to find one political leader, of any significance in Ireland, who does not agree that Senator Clinton's involvement with the women of Northern Ireland, and her advocacy for children damaged by the conflict, played a crucial role in bringing about the Good Friday Agreement," (Stella) O'Leary said.
Comments (22)
You've quoted pretty extensively from one argument favorable to Hillary Clinton, but you've glossed over the significant contradiction it presents:
Given that she is now running for President, it makes sense for her to remind us of her involvement in one of the crowning foreign policy achievements of her husband's administration.
Given the success of Senator Mitchell and the team of folks he put together in bringing about an end to "The Troubles," it makes sense for everyone who has been favorably impacted by that success to have positive things to say about all those involved, including Hillary Clinton.
What doesn't make sense is why we're just hearing about all of this clandestine involvement now. At the end of the second block of quoted text, it mentions that the criticism is "press-based", and comes from the Clinton's autobiographies. Did she fail to tell her own story in writing her autobiography? Where were all these people who are now singing the First Lady's praises when the Mitchell Accords were signed? I heard a lot about what Mitchell did that was central to the process. I heard a lot of praise to President Clinton for being so forceful and involved in the matter. I lived through it and had a very vested interest in it. If her work behind the scenes was so critical to the success of the process, once the process was deemed a success, why wasn't everyone in the spotlight saying "There's someone whose role we aren't hearing about. Let's let her share in the applause..."?
It's easy for me to look back at my 8th birthday and talk about how wonderful it was... and after a while, I can conflate the experience with all the things I did to make it a success. And if you ask my parents, I'm sure they'll say it was awesome too. But the bottom line is I only showed up, blew out most of the candles on the first try, didn't throw MUCH food, and bit Drew Verbal on the forehead. But I can't wait a couple decades and then start telling everyone that I helped bake the cake from scratch and I lit the candles myself and wrapped my own presents. People would naturally wonder why they didn't know about that before I was auditioning to have my own Birthday Party Show on the Food Network. Drew Verbal would certainly want to have his say...
March 11, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's even more than that.
Hillary has a very fine line to walk, one I doubt she's going to be able to do with much success: she wants to point out all the foreign policy experience she gained during her time as First Lady, without simultaneously adopting responsibility for any of her husband's foreign policy failures.
It's not so much a question of claiming any experience during those 8 years, although that is certainly an issue; it's more that she is targeting one specific area - foreign policy - as a place where she gained experience as First Lady.
For the most part, I'd say she doesn't get to claim that experience without taking responsibility for its failures. Opening this door gives Obama (or McCain) tons of material to work with. It's in her interest to claim "experience" without anyone actually examining that claim too deeply, because if they do, the failures of Bill's administration, and her participation in it, could come back to haunt her.
March 11, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent, from people who buy Obama's exaggerated "biography" (with its "composite characters") we get concerns that the Northern Irish are exaggerating her accomplishments.
Perhaps the people quoted are looking for cabinet positions in Hillary's administration?
March 12, 2008 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
For those who don't know what I'm talking about, here's but one example:
Obama Embellishes his Resume
Maybe you'll look closer at your own hero while you're tearing apart Hillary's resume and lauding Sinbad.
March 12, 2008 3:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ondioline,
I know that the Obama people are trying to attack on this issue, but c'mon, whatever the depth of Hillary's experience in foreign policy, I know and the rest of America knows that it is considerably more than that of Obama.
Even if showing up is all you do, it's half the battle.
Your 8th birthday sure sounded fun. Funny, I don't remember my 8th birthday.
Does Obama remember?
March 11, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
While this may be true, she doesn't have half the experience of McCain. There's no use making arguments in the primary which can so easily be turned against you in the general. What got me most was that she was so perfectly willing to hand the GOP the ability to define this election.
"McCain's got the nomination, so we all know this election will be about national security."
I believe that was the gist of what she said. Well, polls don't actually bare that out, and it would be better for us as a party to have this election be about Iraq, the economy and health care. Why allow the GOP to define this election on their own terms with not so much as a fight? It made no sense to me. Experience and national security are just not good avenues to attack Obama on, because McCain (and the GOP messaging machine) are best designed for an election on those credentials.
March 11, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Furion of Hussein,
Which failures should she take responsibility for?
March 11, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Her failed attempt at universal health care, for one.
If you're talking about foreign policy failures, one could point to the fact that Clinton apparently did absolutely nothing after the WTC bombings in 1993 and did nothing about bin Laden even though we've known about his terrorist aspirations since the late 80's.
But, I didn't really intend to point out specific foreign policy failures; my only point is that by claiming her time as First Lady as experience, she opens herself to being accused of any of that administration's failures (and, to be even more honest, I didn't really even pay attention to Bill's foreign policy while he was in office).
March 11, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Furion of Hussein for responding,
Rest assured,I think that she would easily hold her own if she would have to defend Clinton era foreign policy.
As far as health care, its not like she decided to not try. There is lots of critics who say that she went for too much health care instead of settling and compromising. The public opinion for universal health care back then was not as formidable as it is today. She learned her political lessons back then and now has a much better shot at getting it done.
Regarding terrorist, the spin you are taking is the republican spin. They want to take as much of the blame away from Bush/Rice as they can. No, Clinton did not go to war after WTC 93, that would have been ridiculous. But certainly he went after Bin Laden. They bombed him in Afghanistan. They knew very well what his threat was. And expressed those immediate concerns to Bush. Who did not do anything until after 9/11
Anyway we are just skimming the surface. My main point is that Hillary can and will hold her own on foreign policy.
March 11, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
You'll forgive me if I don't take your word for it and instead refer to her dismal record of insubstantial non-accomplishments.
March 11, 2008 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that's certainly the mythology about Clinton's al Qaeda efforts you're likely to hear from the McCain campaign.
But - if you'll take a look around, you'll find that the Clinton DOJ found, prosecuted and imprisoned the parties responsible for the '93 WTC attack.
And who could forget all the Republican screeching about "wagging the dog" to distract the American people from Monica-gate by launching cruise missiles at Al Qaeda training camps?
Richard Clarke certainly disagrees with any such assertions that Clinton "did nothing" - I believe he feels that Clinton did a great deal more than Bush, at least until the fateful day in September 2001.
There were definitely some Clinton foreign policy failures, but al Qaeda is a tough one to make stick. Somalia, Rwanda, Kosovo are better able to stand scrutiny in that respect.
March 11, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you want to know Lord Trimble's opinion on this, go to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/08/wuspols108.xml.
He did win the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts in the negotiations.
March 11, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Members of the reality-based community all know the two key pieces of information about this story:
1) Hillary Clinton was in fact involved to some extent in the Irish peace process.
2) She is hyperbolically overstating the actual impact of this involvement.
And the bonus, the real secret, the real story behind this whole campaign: Both of these people are uncharacteristically inexperienced with respect for their candidacy. The truth is that Hillary Clinton really doesn't have a lot to show for all of this talk of "experience." Is there anything to it? Sure, but there ain't much. Believe me, if there was we would be hearing no end of it. Obama doesn't have a lot to post up in this category either, but Clinton has clearly made inflating this story about her "experience" central to her campaign and it was only a matter of time before people started pouring over these claims.
March 11, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, whatever else she can lay claim to, she can at least say that people in the Navy Department are already calling her Old Iron Pants.
March 11, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm recommending this post because I think it makes a point worth making and because the recommended list is too imbalanced against Clinton.
But I want to draw a distinction between foreign policy experience and military experience. People always seem to conflate the two, despite the fact that each area has its own large, dedicated bureaucracy in Washington.
Between Obama, McCain, and Clinton, Clinton has the most foreign policy experience. That experience is mostly limited to diplomacy, as is appropriate for a First Lady. Most diplomacy is the BS of attending state functions, and Clinton surely has plenty of that. The most important aspect of diplomacy is negotiation, and this article does not suggest that she actually helped to negotiate the accord. She used her influence to lobby for the accord, which is important but not really the role of the President. That's why it wasn't Bill Clinton in Northern Ireland. I'm not saying that the experience wasn't valuable for her or that it doesn't speak to her capabilities, but I do want to put it in perspective.
Military policy is a different matter. If Hillary was privy to Clinton Administration strategy sessions on Bosnia, NATO, and military policy, that would be valuable, but I haven't heard anything about that. Her four years on the Senate Armed Service Committee is more relevant. McCain's twenty years on the Committee and his former position as Chairman is of course more significant, as his military career.
So Hillary has some relevant experience, certainly more than Obama on both military and foreign and more than McCain on foreign. What disturbs me is how she has played it. I voted for Bill Clinton even though he didn't have a lick of military experience and very little foreign policy experience. In fact, no president since Eisenhower has had a great deal of either, mainly because it's very difficult for a civilian to get that kind of experience. So there's nothing wrong with the experience that Hillary's had; it's more than most presidents before they came to office. For her to claim that she has more experience than Obama is fine. She does. But for her to argue that she and McCain, but not Obama, are qualified to answer that "3am phone call", based on her time on the Armed Services Committee and diplomatic experience as First Lady is BS. That's what people are calling her out on.
March 12, 2008 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Genghis,
I disagree, hanging around a state dinner isn't diplomacy. But that's a discussion for another day.
More importantly, there have been several Presidents elected with serious foreign and military experience:
a) Nixon (who actually ran the government while Ike was laid up with this bad heart) In fact, Nixon was probably one of our brightest presidents viz foreign experience in the past 50 years.
b) GHW Bush (who was Vice-President and Chinese Ambassador and CIA director)
If you consider military experience only high-rank and combat, you are setting up essentially a meaningless metric as it is too exclusive. It's definitely possible to work closely with the military in a civilian function.
March 12, 2008 1:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the corrections clearthinker. I took VP roles into account, which (except for Cheney) I don't see as much different than Clinton's role as first lady, but I did not realize that Nixon stepped in for Eisenhower on several occasions. And I forgot about Bush I's additional experience. Thanks for pointing it out.
I was not suggesting that military experience can ONLY be high-rank and combat, and I mentioned Armed Services Committee membership as a kind of military experience. But really, there aren't too many ways for a civilian to get military experience, and few presidential candidates without military backgrounds have had much of it, including Hillary. That's what's silly about the 3am ad. It's not that Hillary has no foreign policy or military experience, it's just difficult to see how her experience translates into the ability to make quick, intelligent decisions on issues of national security.
March 12, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
This general election is going to be about the war. And whichever democrat is the nominee, they will win. McCain has jumped his own shark by the fact that he is willing to stay in Iraq for 100 years. Mark me words, lads and lassies! America wants out of it, and it's way too late for McCain to change his tune on this one.
March 12, 2008 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, and let's not forget that in the 8 years Bill was in office, he was hounded by the Republicans about his personal life, constantly, aggressively, incomprehensibly, to the point that I am in awe of the fact that he managed to still be so effective a President that he left office with the highest rating (I think it was around 65% favorable) since WWII.
I can't help but wonder if he would have succeeded in getting Osama Bin Laden if he had not had to continuously meet with his lawyers over his sex life. Granted, he was an idiot around that, but one would think that even Republicans would realize that their very personal attacks upon him for this ridiculous reason could end up being harmful for the country—and it was. Oh, sorry, I forgot. Republicans are idiots, too, only in a much more dangerous sense. Don't forget this about them if Hillary ends up the nominee.
March 12, 2008 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
The crux for me is that being privy to so much going ons in the WH and beyond, why would she vote to authorize Bush for the invasion of Iraq? She claimed it was to strengthen the hand of diplomacy, but then of course this means that she couldn't even "read" Bush and his coterie accurately. Again a failure of judgment.
Frankly, I don't buy it, and I believe she thought it was politically expedient. Again, another poor exercise in judgment, given that so many EXPERIENCED hands in the military top brass warned against the dangers of such a move and the potential unintended consequences. This doesn't even touch on the issues of morals, international laws, geopolitical interests, etc.
My own objections were based on moral grounds, yet I was also aware of all the other realpolitik and military dimensions that were raised.
She never did learn anything from the "experience" she claims!
March 12, 2008 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not that she trusted Bush - she specifically didn't trust him, and pushed for assurances from Tony Blair, Colin Powell, and others who she had earlier dealings with that they would go for diplomatic solutions first.
She was not in charge. She couldn't make a Republican Congress put forward a bill to her liking. And the logic of forcing Saddam to cooperate or face an attack was very sound - if managed by a non-idiot. Hillary didn't put the chimp in office. But post-9/11, that's who was there, and that's who she had to deal with. Our intelligence services said strongly that Saddam had biochemical weapons programs - even in the NIE that everyone gets worked up about. Should she have ignored this overwhelming consensus because Obama had a hunch? Should she assume that Saddam would be a nice guy even though her husband had played cat-and-mouse with him for 8 years and quite frankly lost? We got lucky - our containment strategy from a distance worked, but we didn't know it had. Obama bet on blind luck. Not a good strategy as Commander-In-Chief.
March 12, 2008 4:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary screwed up some things about Bhutto last fall and talked silly damn trash about Putin.
Having Putin as an enemy from day one is dangerous. The woman knows so little about the current state of geopolitical affairs that she hadn't a clue how stupid her souless remark was.
Don't talk to me about her valuable experience related to diplomacy.
The toughest broad on the world stage today, Israeli Foreign Minister (and future Prime Minister) Tzipi Livni, is in country and there was some brief speculation that she would or wouldn't meet with the candidates here; no, was the answer.
FM Livni was surprised by a personal phone call from Obama.
The reaction to this conversation is positive and "reassuring" with all that implies. Most of the reporting is an account of what Livni told Obama rather than what he told her. But the actual content of the conversation is less important than the fact that he made the call and established a one-to-one relationship with Israel's most impressive politician who was/is Ariel Sharon's pick for damn good reasons.
Very shrewd manuever on his part.
March 12, 2008 4:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment