The Sinbad Intervention
Turns out Hillary racked up her foreign policy experience in concert with a high-level American delegation. ChiTrib:
Pressed in a CNN interview this week for specific examples of foreign policy experience that has prepared her for an international crisis, Clinton claimed that she “helped to bring peace” to Northern Ireland and negotiated with Macedonia to open up its border to refugees from Kosovo. She also cited “standing up” to the Chinese government on women’s rights and a one-day visit she made to Bosnia following the Dayton peace accords.
Earlier in the campaign, she and her husband claimed that she had advocated on behalf of a U.S. military intervention in Rwanda to stop the genocide there.
‘Ancillary’ to process
But her involvement in the Northern Ireland peace process was primarily to encourage activism among women’s groups there, a contribution that the lead U.S. negotiator described as “helpful” but that an Irish historian who has written extensively about the conflict dismissed as “ancillary” to the peace process.
The Macedonian government opened its border to refugees the day before Clinton arrived to meet with government leaders. And her mission to Bosnia was a one-day visit in which she was accompanied by performers Sheryl Crow and Sinbad, as well as her daughter, Chelsea, according to the commanding general who hosted her.
Whatever her private conversations with the president may have been, key foreign policy officials say that a U.S. military intervention in Rwanda was never considered in the Clinton administration’s policy deliberations. Despite lengthy memoirs by both Clintons and former Secretary of State and UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright, any advice she gave on Rwanda had not been mentioned until her presidential campaign.
Doesn’t sound like much to crow about. I thought it had been settled: she got experience, he got hope and change. This unkind examination of regrettable facts would suggest there is no useful experience at all in the Dem race.
But in fairness, it’s not like Hillary’s without experience, because senators have played important roles in shaping our nation’s foreign policy, and she has helped convey critical messages to foreign potentates. In 2003, she voted for war with Iraq. Having subsequently determined that was an unpopular move, she has advocated abandoning our allies in Iraq and the region, to facilitate a genocide and allow Iran to emerge as the dominant power there.* Message to foreign potentates: Be patient.
Meanwhile, Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey has a laugh over the Ireland claim:
“I don’t know there was much she did apart from accompanying Bill [Clinton] going around,” he said. Her recent statements about being deeply involved were merely “the sort of thing people put in their canvassing leaflets” during elections. “She visited when things were happening, saw what was going on, she can certainly say it was part of her experience. I don’t want to rain on the thing for her but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player.”
No shortage of irony in this experience thing.
Welcome BJ enthusiasts! So good to see you. The_Real_JeffS asks a good question: Is this another one of your master’s mood swings, or is it any port in the growing anti-Obamite storm? Whatever. Come on in. We’re equal opportunity Dem bashers.
* Actually, it was to get herself elected president, but that’s what I took from it.
Topics: Clintons
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 6:25 am Comments (6) on Saturday, March 8, 2008
6 Responses to “The Sinbad Intervention”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
March 8th, 2008 at 8:36 am
Haha, Fow what it’s worth, I thought Sinbad’s diplomatic skills in “House Guest” were a cut above the rest!
March 8th, 2008 at 11:14 am
[...] wounds sting, don’t they Hillary? If there has been a dumber, baser, more self-destructive campaign than the one waged by Hillary [...]
March 8th, 2008 at 11:24 am
I don’t have a problem with a limited amount of direct foreign policy experience in a presidential candidate, nor do most people, I think. The opportunities for most politicians in this area are limited, after all. The problem is that she’s selling herself as having more than she really does.
What’s more important is the general philosophy of the candidate, and the approach they will take to foreign policy. To be honest, while I’m no Clinton fan, I think she’s much stronger in this area than Obama. MUCH stronger. Unlike him, she’s mostly refused to limit her options before taking office, and does not intend to meet with screwball dictators on their own turf with no preconditions. Her dislike of the military is extremely bothersome, but I can’t see Obama being an improvement in that regard.
March 8th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Hillary’s foreign policy experience is, arguably, very thin.
However, in domestic crisis management, her experience is legion…
BimboSgate, Monicagate, Travelgate, Rose law firm records gate, Cattle futures gate, Healthcare gate, File gate, White House furniture gate…Vince Foster gate…
She constantly reminds us that (unlike her opponent) she is ready to take the reins of government at Day One. Yet, simply within her own campaign staff, she has has made rather large personnel and financial wrong decisions.
At least the husband has been muffled of late. That’s an improvement.
March 8th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Hillary is indeed shooting herself in the foot on this. But The Messiah™ doesn’t even have a baseline on which to fake his own foreign policy experience. Both of them poseurs at an international level.
And on that note, I find it incredibly ironic that John Cole actually linked to you, Jules, and in a positive fashion. Is this an example against Blair’s Law, or is John Cole merely demonstrating his Clinton-like ability to dig up dirt where ever and however necessary?
March 8th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
TRJS, he must have been drunk. Either that, or the Democratic slap-down has normally nutter-butts actually sounding reasonable. It’s a fluke, of course, and probably has some ridiculous scientific sounding name (with “syndrome” tacked on at the end for good measure) to cover this particular psychological phenomenon.