Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Election 2008

The Pitfalls of Campaigning on Bill Clinton's 'Legacy'

By Barbara Crossette, The Nation. Posted April 28, 2008.


Hillary is out on the trail touting her experience in the White House, but her husband's foreign policy record was anything but stellar.
Advertisement

Against the background of Hillary Clinton's repeated claims to cosmopolitan experience, her scores of foreign stopovers (not unlike the travels of Laura Bush) and her meetings with a lot of world figures, the record of the 1992-2000 period bears more scrutiny than it is getting, beyond the NAFTA flip-flop. This is nowhere more urgent than in the discussion about how the United States goes about getting back into the world after years of offending friends and enemies alike, and whether the Clintons failed at grasping coming threats to America.

The Clinton record on which Hillary is running is anything but stellar in global or even US security terms. What would become the hallmark political timidity of the Administration was first demonstrated after eighteen American troops were killed in Mogadishu in October 1993 in an ill-fated assault on a Somali warlord. Though that operation was entirely American-planned and led, the Clintons let stand (if not promoted) the isolationist falsehood that the tragedy was the fault of the United Nations, which also had a peacekeeping mission in Mogadishu.

Worse, the Somalia syndrome led to frantic efforts by the Clinton team to prevent any action by the Security Council on Rwanda six months later, action that may have prevented or at least mitigated a looming genocide. Bill Clinton later "apologized" to the Rwandans, but long after hundreds of thousands of people had been slaughtered.

In many ways the 1990s were a wasted decade in international relations. Despite the vice presidency of Al Gore, the United States did not take a lead in global environment policy, and internationalists such as Timothy Wirth, a former Senator and environmentalist who became undersecretary of state for global affairs, were ultimately driven out of the Administration by its unwillingness to take on the blinkered provincials in Congress, epitomized by Senator Jesse Helms.

There were breakthroughs on the Israel-Palestine front, thanks to the steady work of Dennis Ross and others, including Johan Holst, the Norwegian foreign minister who was a driving force in the Oslo accords that led to the 1993 Rose Garden handshake between Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin. But then the Clinton Administration stepped back and allowed the Israelis to go on building settlements while heaping the blame for the breakdown of progress on Arafat, who had balked at a later agreement with Ehud Barak.

Policies on Iraq were largely on hold through the '90s, with the UN expected to continue sanctions against Saddam Hussein into perpetuity. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright spoke of "regime change" and Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 that essentially invited the overthrow of Saddam. But as far as actions went, the United States did little but undermine UN inspectors, hem in Secretary General Kofi Annan in his dealing with Iraq and, unfortunately, leave to George W. Bush the job of ridding the Mideast of the Saddam regime. Now Hillary Clinton talks of bringing troops home from Iraq from day one while at the same time (pandering to Israel and sounding like Ahmadinejad in reverse), threatens to wipe Iran off the map.

And where are her ringing endorsements of women's rights around the world, the subject of a speech at the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995? Many women who applauded her then are very disappointed now.

The Clintonian record on Osama bin Laden, Afghanistan and the defense of the United States itself is both bleak and tragic in the light of what happened after the Clintons had gone from the White House. The trial of Ramzi Yousef, implicated in the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, had revealed an Al Qaeda blueprint for strikes against high-value American targets, but the Administration did not act expeditiously to shore up policies and tools at home for dealing with this possibility -- or inevitability.

Instead, the Clinton Administration focused on Khartoum, where bin Laden had established a base. He was ultimately chased out of Sudan under US pressure, only to find in a welcome haven in battered, bankrupt Afghanistan, first under the mujahedeen and then the Taliban. One useless US missile attack on an Al Qaeda camp there in 1998 after the bombings of two American embassies in Africa failed to do him any harm. (The United States also hit a pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum, possibly the wrong target, in an effort to destroy what was believed to be a chemical weapons facility.)


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: hillary clinton, bill clinton, white house, 1990s

Barbara Crossette, South Asia bureau chief for the New York Times from 1988 to 1991, reported on the first election of Benazir Bhutto and the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, which won her a George Polk Award.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Election 2008! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Tools: [Post a new comment] [Login] [Signup] View:
And the Deaths of 500,000 Iraqi Children ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Apr 28, 2008 12:17 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And let's not forget the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of 5 due to our embargo of medicine and food. "UNICEF came out with the first authoritative report (8/99), based on a survey of 24,000 households, suggesting that the total “excess” deaths of children under 5 was about 500,000. "

When Lesley Stahl asked then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright about the deaths of these 500,000 children her answer was a matter of factly "We Think the Price Is Worth It"

Hillary Clinton of course put Madeleine Albright on her team as a senior foreign policy advisor. One can only assume that Hillary is OK with Albright's comments and the price these children paid.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary's Advantages Over Obama
Posted by: AlexLawyer on Apr 28, 2008 1:28 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Hillarites base their support for her on three things: (1) that her time as FLATUS (First Lady of Arkansas and The United States) counts as experience in elective office, while Obama's previous public service doesn't; (2) that she is vicious and nasty enough to beat McCain, while Obama's conciliatory, inspiring style would cause him to lose to the clueless McCain running on Bush's record and policies; and (3) that the Democrats in the blue states would break rank and vote for McCain and the Republicans in the red states would support Hillary. Anyone who would believe this also likely believed Hillary's past assertions that Saddam had WMD and was linked to al Qaeda, that she braved sniper fire to make peace in Kosovo after the truce had been already signed, and that she is a woman of the people while Obama is an elitist.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How interesting
Posted by: Derek Maddox on Apr 28, 2008 3:17 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not too many years ago, a conservative-minded writer would have been excoriated for putting on paper the ideas expressed in this article. We've been pointing out for years what a disaster the Clinton administration was, especially in the realms of foreign policy and national security.

Now that Hillary's silver is tarnishing, and Obama's star is rising fast, seems like those on the left are finally agreeing with us. Maybe they just needed an extra ten years or so to grow up enough to realize what was going on around them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: How interesting Posted by: dockboy
» It is called evolution Posted by: foreverhope
» RE: How interesting Posted by: dockboy
» RE: How interesting Posted by: anna132
» RE: How interesting Posted by: vivachavez
2x Bill Voter, and Supporter & Defender of Both- Rose Glasses Smashed
Posted by: Purple Girl on Apr 28, 2008 3:29 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First & foremost I must apologize to ALL I wasted my time battling with to defend these two for Far too Long. You were Right - I was wrong- they were merely arrogant Opportunitists. Did start to see Clearly until Hillary started her treasonous Acts in the Senate .She has far more to answer for than Just the Iraq Vote. Her Votes which have allowed this Greed Crazed Regime to undermine our Country (Complicity) and it's core Values, Including her Times of InAction (complacancy). Proof of her Dereliction of Duty is Evident when one looks at the Condition & treatment Of our Armed Services- then add the Crimes of the Hired Mercenaries, Torture and failure to demand Any planning of Use or mission designation- And You have two Criminals Running for President. They are on my list of Those who should be convicted of Treason, War Crimes & Crimes Against Humanity along with Cheney & Co's.
Note this Apology only extends to those who were Smart enough to NOT VOTE for Cheney's Current Puppet- Otherwise You OWE ME (and the rest of US a huge apology- may want to consider Recusing yourself from at least this next election- You are Stupidier then even Me)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

BILL Clinton's foreign affairs mistakes
Posted by: LdB on Apr 28, 2008 4:10 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, Bill C made several big mistakes:
1. Somalia -- we shouldn't have been there to begin with. The problem was not that we eventually withdrew.

2. Palestine/Israel -- Dennis Ross was no hero, as the author implies. He was a big part of the on-going problem with getting the Israelis to the negotiating table. For example, Ross unilaterally modified the draft agreement points before Camp David II, e.g. inserting a clause that the Palestinian capital would be in the village of Abu Deis, rather than a shared Jerusalem. He did so without checking with Clinton, and then led Clinton into blaming the Palestinians when the negotiations (predictably) fell apart. Ross is now with the Israeli lobbying organization, Washington Institute for Middle East Policy, in case there was any uncertainty about where his motives lay.

For more insight into the Clinton failure on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, look at Aaron Miller's new book. He was a Clinton State Dept insider and came away quite disillusioned.

Having said all of this, Hillary C should be assessed on her own merits, and it would be a mistake to link her too clsely to Bill C's mistakes, especially ones we assess retroactively.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"nostalgia" for the Bill Clinton economy
Posted by: zooeyhall on Apr 28, 2008 7:42 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One of the irritating myths that the Clintonistas keep spouting is that there were "good" economic times under Bill. I have talked to several Hillary supporters who wax nostaligic about the supposed great economic times we had under Bill in the '90s.

Yes, there was a boom in the Internet. But looking back there were plenty of people out of work in the supposed Boom years of the nineties. There may have been more jobs, but they were largely created in the service area and had attendant low pay. Manufacturing continued its steady decline under Bill's reign. Also in the 1990's companies honed to a fine art the downsizing techniques that are so ubiquitous today.

And let's not forget the gutting of the welfare safety net, all in the name of "personal reponsibility".

My verdict on the "great economy" under the last Clinton president might be summed up as: "one step forward, two back".

Nothing was done under Bill's presidency to halt the steady erosion of middle-class economic security. There were some things that may have slowed it, but he did nothing to halt or seriously challenge the same factors that have come back in spades under Bush.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The lying conniving Clintons.
Posted by: HughScott on Apr 28, 2008 8:23 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I listened to a speech this morning on C-SPAN by the much vilified Rev. Wright.

I listened to EVERY word. Like Obama and unlike the Clintons, Wright speaks the TRUTH about America.

That makes him a dangerous man who must be destroyed by the Power Elite, including McCain and the Clintons, with help from the so-called "mainstream" media.

For ordinary Americans to regain control of their lives and avoid wars based on lies, Obama must win the White House.

Hugh E. Scott, Vietnam veteran, lifelong Republican and the editor of www.PhonyFighterPilot.com -- the only website about George W. Bush that presents irrefutable, smoking-gun proof of White House corruption.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The lying conniving Clintons. Posted by: anninroosevelt
Is Barack Obama somehow one of them?: We blind ourselves in "light", since we so fear the dark.
Posted by: JoAnne on Apr 28, 2008 8:58 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We won't learn from history. If we would we'd demand that checks and balances be not only reinstated but updated. Obama nor any one human being, especially anyone in a high position, can be allowed a free pass, without suffering the consequences. Witness the past.

Face first what we fear personally, in our own Selves. Then we have a chance to be courageous, fearless, yet be more mindful of our own limitations, and seek others to check our speech, our thoughts, our behaviors.

Can you make sense of what I've written, given that I've attempted to throw "it" back onto you, the reader, and since it doesn't address the subject directly?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Judgment or Experience
Posted by: JohnJlws on Apr 28, 2008 9:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Barack Obama makes a strong case that judgment matters over experience. As one of his supporters I agree, but I go further. When people say “Hillary” or “McCain” have vastly more experience in Washington and the U.S.’ international policies and predicaments I say “yes, they do and that’s why I’m casting my lot with someone who might actually take a different view (paradigm) and fix something.” Our response to aggression is not to try and mitigate the reasons for that aggression before the situation gets to the point of armed conflict (this is described by the experienced ones as “naïve”), but to threaten to obliterate an entire nation, an entire people (and this WAS the context in which she made this statement—it was not made as an “off-the-cuff, oh sure we could” remark—it was a threat).

But, my support of Barack goes deep within his policy statements, his writings, the absolutely, irrefutable fact that his campaign has been so much better run (notice the lack of clamoring and noise after Pennsylvania—they have a plan and are working the plan) than his opponent’s who has fired, reassigned, re-tooled, "found her voice" and had general discord throughout this process to the point that the Clinton fatigue I felt at the end of his 8 years has regurgitated itself like a bad meal. And, if you can’t even run a campaign, how in the world do you run the largest bureaucracy in the world?

And, I look at the tremendous disconnects in what they say and reality. “Sniper-Gate” was just the latest in a long string of Bill/Hillary gaffes, misspeaks and lies that we’ve lived with since they entered the public eye. And the argument that their “exaggerations” cause limited harm is inaccurate. For example, I read often “But his blowjob didn’t kill anybody.” No, his juvenile indiscretion and deceit gave us GW Bush and the rest as they say “is history.”

Whether Gore would have made a better president will always be the most foolish of debates, but one does wonder “would we be in Iraq and our economy more in the toilet (Iraq and the economy are one in the same),” “would Bin Laden still be on the loose,” “would we have no energy policy,” “would we exclude science,” “would we still have the support of the majority of the world as we did post-9/11?”

There’s no telling, that’s what makes the debate foolish, but we can rest assured the world would be a far different place. Our world today is the Clinton legacy and that’s not a legacy I could personally run on.

That’s what I want this election: someone who can make the world a far different place. I know the torture I’ll continue to receive with Clinton and McCain. With Obama I feel like we have a fighting chance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Foreign Policy
Posted by: Southern Gal on Apr 28, 2008 10:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There many entities involved in foreign policy along with the President. These include Congress, Pentagon, corporations, academic advisors, intelligence agencies, government staff, advisors/consultants and the United Nations to name a few. My concern lies with the corporations'influence on government and the military emphasis on empire building and privatization of world wide natural resources. I don't see either Clinton or Obama addressing how we are going to change those focuses, which have grown massively during Bush's administration.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lie for whose sake?
Posted by: GPFrank on Apr 28, 2008 10:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think what Hillary is actually is trying to show is her willingness to lie for the sake of the country.

But that is the job of CIA operatives and not to Congress or the Public

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If Slick Willie had resigned in 1998, there might not have been a 9/11.
Posted by: HughScott on Apr 28, 2008 11:27 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Bill Clinton had resigned in 1998, Al Gore would've slam-dunked the 2000 election as a sitting U.S. president and there would have been NO Condi Rice in the White House to dismiss Al Qaeda's reported threat to strike America.

It's quite possible that a different National Security Advisor would have initiated a full intelligence review in August 2001 that would have uncovered the 9/11 skyjacking plot.

But oh, no. Super-selfish, immature Bill Clinton only thought about himself in 1998 and not what was good for America. The man is a f-cking disgrace -- and so is his power-hungry, BJ-enabling wife.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Well, the start was great Posted by: JohnJlws
» RE: Well, the start was great Posted by: vivachavez
» Impeachment is their business Posted by: JohnJlws
Hmm
Posted by: RobNLA on Apr 28, 2008 5:23 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would lay the blame for 911 on Bush.

However, regarding other issues like NAFTA, Hilary can't have her cake and eat it too. Either she takes credit AND responsibility for the Clinton Presidency, or she doesn't.

That is something I find pretty ridiculous. Obama is held responsible for comments his former pastor made, but Hilary shouldn't be held responsible for what her husband did while President? Give me a break.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hey Barbara Crossette
Posted by: Left of center on Apr 28, 2008 10:28 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Way to help the Limbaugh types destroy the Clinton legacy.

Maybe you can help Rush get those riots started in Denver too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hey Barbara Crossette Posted by: Paso Bee
» RE: Hey Barbara Crossette Posted by: Left of center
http://www.lobbydelegates.com
Posted by: venkat on Apr 30, 2008 5:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As Sen. Hillary Clinton has ‘managed’ to take the Pennsylvania state, the Democratic race for nomination is very much alive – and most likely to be decided by superdelegates. Nevertheless.. Indiana ,Idaho and West Virginia are still to come.

If you’re tired of waiting around for those super delegates to make a decision already, go to LobbyDelegates.com and push them to support Clinton or Obama

If you haven't done so yet, please write a message to each of your state's superdelegates at http://www.lobbydelegates.com


It takes a moment, but what's a few minutes now worth to get Obama in office?!

Sending a note to current Obama supporters lets them know it's appreciated, sending a note to current Clinton supporters can hopefully sway them to change their vote to Obama, and sending a note to the uncommitted folks will hopefully sway them to vote for Obama. It's that easy...

Clinton Supporters too …. !

It takes a moment, but what's a few minutes now worth to get Clinton in office?!

Sending a note to current Clinton supporters lets them know it's appreciated, sending a note to current Obama supporters can hopefully sway them to change their vote to Clinton, and sending a note to the uncommitted folks will hopefully sway them to vote for Clinton. It's that easy...

REALLY easy to identify the superdelegates and reach out to them! It includes a list of names, addresses, and affiliations of superdelegates from each state including your state

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]