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.

Hillary Is Trying to Drive Dems Into a Dead End on Foreign Policy

By Guy T. Saperstein, AlterNet. Posted February 25, 2008.


Is following public opinion the type of leadership that "experience" produces? If it is, maybe we need less of it.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Guy T. Saperstein

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

In recent weeks, Hillary Clinton has increased her attack on Barack Obama, arguing that foreign policy experience is essential to "being ready on Day One." Sen. Clinton thinks this argument will bring her closer to the presidency, but she is actually painting herself, and Democrats, into a corner in the general election, for, whatever one may think about her or Sen. Obama's foreign policy credentials, they certainly are less than John McCain's.

Democrats cannot run the general election campaign on the question of who has more foreign policy experience, or experience, in general, because the answer to those questions will be John McCain, even though most of his foreign experience is military. The Democratic campaign will have to be about which candidate has demonstrated the best judgment in foreign affairs, not who has the most experience. Which one endorsed and supported the greatest foreign policy fiasco in modern American history? Which continued to support this war long after every possible justification for it had collapsed? Whose belligerent statements would increase the chance of war with Iran? In answering these questions -- the questions Democrats will have to emphasize in a campaign against McCain -- Hillary Clinton doesn't fare so well.

First of all, it is not clear where Hillary derives the foreign policy "experience" advantage she claims, if not her eight years in the White House as first lady. But when did the American presidency become a monarchy? When did the first lady role morph into the queen? No first lady, including Hillary, has been tasked with foreign policy assignments. As first lady, the main purpose of her foreign travel was to engage in ceremonial events. There was nothing wrong with that, of course, but being hostess or guest at dinner parties is not "commander-in-chief" experience any more than Obama's experience living abroad is foreign policy experience. In fact, it can plausibly be argued that living in a foreign country, which Obama has done, provides a deeper understanding of how the rest of the world thinks than bopping into a country for a day or two to schmooze with a Saudi oligarch. If her foreign policy role was more than that, why has she refused to release her White House papers so voters could see evidence of what her "experience" claims are based on?

Whatever her actual level of "experience," since entering the U.S. Senate, Clinton has been one of the most hawkish of Democrats, including, of course, her vote for the October 2002 Iraq Resolution which led to war with Iraq. She and Bill have tried to explain that vote on the grounds that President Bush's true intentions, and the debacle Iraq would soon become, were "unknown and unknowable." These claims cannot withstand scrutiny, however. Long before October 2002, there were abundant reasons not to trust anything Bush/Cheney said about Iraq.

Long before October 2002, there existed a large body of scholarship that detailed the regional and religious conflicts that would erupt in Iraq if Saddam were removed. Two of the best predictors of the fiasco that Iraq would become, were President George H.W. Bush and his national security advisor, Brent Scowcroft, both of whom had written well-known articles and memoirs about why Baghdad should not be invaded -- in the case of Scowcroft, in a New York Times Op-Ed shortly before the vote on the Iraq Resolution. And these warnings were not lost on the large majority of Democrats in Congress; in fact, 148 Democrats in Congress (125 in the House and 23 in the Senate) saw through the smoke and mirrors, accurately perceived that Bush/Cheney would use the resolution to invade Iraq and voted against the resolution.

Hillary Clinton missed all the clues, took the Republican bait, and made one of the worst foreign policy decisions in modern American history. As recently as December 2005, Clinton wrote a letter to her constituents defending her war vote. While she now favors troop withdrawals, her turn against the war followed the opinion of a majority of Democratic voters by more than two years. Is following public opinion the type of leadership that "experience" produces? If it is, maybe we need less of it.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: election 2008, barack obama, foreign policy, election 2008, hillary clinton

Guy T. Saperstein is a past president of the Sierra Club Foundation; previously, he was one of the National Law Journal’s "100 Most Influential Lawyers in America."

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


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
james d. granata
Posted by: seilnotnilc on Feb 25, 2008 3:48 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"But when did the American Presidency become a monarchy? When did the First Lady role morph into the Queen?"

Co-regent Hillary thought she would inherit the throne and discovered her marriage
merely morganatic.

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

BASTA! Enough of this Hillary Bashing
Posted by: odcherenow on Feb 25, 2008 3:53 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You guys, and it is usually men, or male-identified women like Maureen Down or A. Coulter, who froth on about how unelectable Senator Cliinton is.
I am sick to death of the campaign to kick this fine candidate to the curb.
Get off of it.

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

What is the best foreign policy? To be an Humanitarian Hawk?
Posted by: Swedish liberal on Feb 25, 2008 3:57 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Was it politically sound to invade Iraq?

Yes from an humanitarian and Human Rights perspective it was certainly right. From a geopolitical perspective it was not. So should you be an idealist or a realist when it comes to foreign policy? Should you intervene or cynically say let those Iraqis rot in hell?

The Iraqi intervention was the worst of both worlds. It was idealistic and realist at the same time. Intervention but no resources and certainly no plan what to do after the invasion.

Has the US not learnt the lesson of WW II? It needs massive troop deployments as well as a Marshall plan. The bad old Monroe doctrine and its Gunboat diplomacy I thought was gone for good seems to be revived.

Now we are in the mess and I wonder for my part which candidate is most likely to resolve the issue not only for the American people but also securing Human Rights for the Iraqi people. I do not want to see another Taliban regime or new totalitarian butcher like Saddam.

So who best serve our purposes?

In foreign policy issues I unfortunately believe it to be McCain. He has the integrity and the knowledge. Obama and Clinton are mere rookies, they have no plan what so ever. Withdrawal of troops in the near future is not an option. Yes an option of you are a world class cynic that do not give a damn about the poor Iraqis.

And please do not talk of the Carter Administration and its disastrous foreign policies. The US has never had such a poor standing in the world. Totally humiliated by the Ayatollahs and subsequently emasculated by the Soviets. Carter and Brzinski caused the cold War to go on for a decade long tha it should have.

By the way the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is in my opinion a terrorist organization but then again I am an Humanitarian Hawk.

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

» Humanitarian Hawk Posted by: Swedish liberal
james d granata
Posted by: seilnotnilc on Feb 25, 2008 4:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary's Experience Lies In Lying

If Hillary has foreign policy (or any other relevant) experience that would make her ready on day one it must reside in the realm of the theoretical. As far as the practical application of this knowledge she has failed to transfer it to 'waging war' against her opponent. Skills transfer but you must possess them in order to make that happen. She obviously was unaware of the primary rule war which suggests one should not underestimate the 'enemy'. She prepared as though she were attacking Grenada and found out she was engaging the likes of the old Soviet Union. She was so arrogant about her successful strategy that when it failed she had no back up plan. Clearly, she has been out maneuvered by the ‘inexperienced’ Barack Obama and her forces are now in retreat. If this were actually war instead of its somewhat lesser violent form, politics, the end result of her campaign would have us all speaking Russian.

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

james d granata
Posted by: seilnotnilc on Feb 25, 2008 4:55 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary's Experience Lies In Lying (corrected)

If Hillary has foreign policy (or any other relevant) experience that would make her ready on day one it must reside in the realm of the theoretical. As far as the practical application of this knowledge she has failed to transfer it to 'waging war' against her opponent. Skills transfer but you must possess them in order to make that happen. She obviously was unaware of the primary rule of war which suggests one should not underestimate the 'enemy'. She prepared as though she were attacking Grenada and found out she was engaging the likes of the old Soviet Union. She was so arrogant about her successful strategy that when it failed she had no back up plan. Clearly, she has been out maneuvered by the ‘inexperienced’ Barack Obama and her forces are now in retreat. If this were actually war instead of its somewhat lesser violent form, politics, the end result of her campaign would have us all speaking Russian.

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

blocking for hillary!!!!!!!!
Posted by: lisa lynn on Feb 25, 2008 5:14 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would like to know why everyone seems to think hillary has lost!!!!!!
because if you really go for knowledge,wisdom,courage,and yes expeirence then she is the one most qualified for the job, on the dem's side. obama lack's any skills he has not even passed any of his own bills, voting for obama is voting for the kennedy's and that my friends you can count on just like his speech's!! written by someone else. his policys will be too. count-on-it.

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

» Because Hillary has lost, Posted by: hurricane hugo
james d granata
Posted by: seilnotnilc on Feb 25, 2008 5:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In response to BASTA.

no one has to kick this fine canidate to the curb. she is perfectly capable of doing it to herself. I have read every book written by the left, the center and the right about this fine candidate and found nothing to support her claims of EXPERIENCE: read the article and log on to the library of congress website to see how little she has accomplished esp. when contrasted to the brilliant barack Obama.
BRILLIANT: she is not bright but merely well educated.
EMPATHIC: for herself, perhaps.
TRUTHFUL: she lies when the truth would better serve. even about stupid things like the spelling of her name. do you really believe she was named after an unknown beekeeper in New Zealand? Read the chelsea clinton interview in 'talk' magazine to heard more of Hillary's truth.
or HUMOR: perhaps she is amused by folks like you who buy her 'merde'.
'Basta', I agree enought of this pandering parasite. As the great senator from NY, you know the one she followed; Senator Leahy said "you have a right to your own opinion, you do not have a right to your own facts." Either do your research or 'chiuda la vostra' bocca'.

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

The videos Hillary does NOT want you to see!
Posted by: jhecht on Feb 25, 2008 5:34 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Check out the following videos on Youtube about Hillary. Then spread 'em far & wide...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMfUajhL24I&feature=related

I had thought of Hillary as just another machine politician. These videos make it clear that she is far worse... Not that Obama is perfect, but he's IMHO a lot less evil.

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

james d granata
Posted by: seilnotnilc on Feb 25, 2008 5:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
an opinion is fine but pales next to an informed opinion and so for the folks who have a reality that is not supported by fact; here are the records of Obama vs Clinton as far as their work in the Senate;

For the record: Clinton's vs. Obama

Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term -- 6yrs. -- and another year campaigning,
has managed to author and pass into law - 20 - twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years.
These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress www.thomas.loc.gov,
but to save you trouble, I'll post them here for you:

1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.
2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.
3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor.
4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.
5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson.
6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea.
7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death.
10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program.
13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.
14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death.
15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty.
Only five of Clinton's bills are more substantive:
16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.
17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11.
18. Assist landmine victims in other countries.
19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.
20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.

There you have it, the fact's straight from the Senate Record.

Now, I would post those of Obama's, but the list is too substantive, so I'll mainly categorize.
During the first - 8 - eight years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced
233 regarding healthcare reform,
125 on poverty and public assistance,
112 crime fighting bills,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans affairs and many others.

His first year in the US Senate, he authored 152 bills and cosponsored another 427.
These included:
**the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 - became law,
**The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Nonproliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, - became law,
**The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate,
**The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, - became law,
**The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, In committee, and many more.

In all, since entering the US Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and cosponsored another 1096.

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

» RE: james d granata Posted by: anothername
» RE: james d granata Posted by: Raymonde
» RE: james d granata Posted by: seilnotnilc
dipconsult@hotmail.com
Posted by: dipconsult on Feb 25, 2008 7:02 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For us Europeans with no vote for he/she who will decide our world, the key is indeed a sea change in US foreign policy -

Is the next US president going to espouse the new era of cooperation made possible by the end of some 40 years of international paralysis during the Cold War, or will it be more of the disastrous G W Bush years of confrontation?

Madame Clinton and McCain are not going to inaugurate a new era which they do not, perhaps cannot, envisage. Barack Obama in contrast, has set out in some detail just such a programme for cooperation in 'Foreign Policy', July/August 2007.

This Obama sums up in the article: "America cannot meet the threats of this century alone and the world cannot meet them without America"

So behind the razzmatazz of the presidential campaign we must pray that the American voter will be able to see what hangs in the balance for America and the world.

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

» RE: invasion? Posted by: Dboy
Thank you for running this article
Posted by: AngryWhiteFemale on Feb 25, 2008 7:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For months I have been telling people her hawkish foreign policy is exactly why I will not vote for her. (I am voting March 4).

She angered me when she said in one speech, "We've done our part in Iraq, it's time for the Iraqi's to do theirs." What was our part? Smashing a little third-world country to bits that never presented a threat to us? (I was against the war from the beginning. Hans Blix, Mohammed El-Baradei, Scott Ritter- those were the voices of caution I listened to- unlike Clinton, I was not "misled" by Bush/Cheney and the gang of warmongering neocons who have never seen a day of combat in their protected little lives and ascribe to the primitive view that "might makes right").

But when she voted for Kyl-Lieberman, she lost me for good. She wants us to do to Iran (AS IF we ever could) what we have done to Iraq. Clinton and the people around her are very dangerous to the future of our country. We cannot continue to host wars of aggression without suffering serious blowback.

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

"Following public opinion" is what happens in a Democracy
Posted by: fanny666 on Feb 25, 2008 9:01 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem is that neither party follows public opinion, which is overwhelmingly in favor of ending the war, and impeaching Bush and Cheney for starting it.

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

Experience is what you get...
Posted by: hurricane hugo on Feb 25, 2008 10:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
when you didn't get what you wanted.

jdfu!

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

NOTHING WRONG WITH BASHING A CANDIDATE
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Feb 25, 2008 11:08 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But it doesn't prove anything about the opposition.It simply passes the time and we get to voice an opinion.I have many questions for Obama who seems like a good man for the job. But despite being opposed to the Iraq invasion, he is vague about a plan. What would he do about the present administration and their actions for the past 8 yrs. Would anyone be held accountable for the 935 lies. They can't just leave this behind on 1-20-09. ANNA

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

Say what?
Posted by: Sojourner on Feb 25, 2008 3:30 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So Hillary is not to compare her experience to Obama's because McCain can what?

When she needs to run against McCain, there's plenty to go on.

Clinton haters don't need to think, it seems. Just throw whatever garbage his at hand.

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

Obama's National Defense Advisors
Posted by: foreverhope on Feb 26, 2008 4:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
During the lead-up to the war, Obama’s advisors were suspicious of the Bush administration’s claims that Iraq somehow threatened U.S. national security to the extent that it required a U.S. invasion and occupation of that country. For example, Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security advisor in the Carter administration, argued that public support for war “should not be generated by fear-mongering or demagogy.”

By contrast, Clinton’s top advisor and her likely pick for secretary of state, Richard Holbrooke, insisted that Iraq remained “a clear and present danger at all times.”

Brzezinski warned that the international community would view the invasion of a country that was no threat to the United States as an illegitimate an act of aggression. Noting that it would also threaten America’s leadership, Brzezinski said that “without a respected and legitimate law-enforcer, global security could be in serious jeopardy.”

Holbrooke, rejecting the broad international legal consensus against offensive wars, insisted that it was perfectly legitimate for the United States to invade Iraq and that the European governments and anti-war demonstrators who objected “undoubtedly encouraged” Saddam Hussein.

A key Obama advisor, Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment, argued that the goal of containing the potential threat from Iraq had been achieved, noting that “Saddam Hussein is effectively incarcerated and under watch by a force that could respond immediately and devastatingly to any aggression. Inside Iraq, the inspection teams preclude any significant advance in WMD capabilities. The status quo is safe for the American people.”

By contrast, Clinton advisor Sandy Berger, who served as her husband’s national security advisor, insisted that “even a contained Saddam” was “harmful to stability and to positive change in the region,” and therefore the United States had to engage in “regime change” in order to “fight terror, avert regional conflict, promote peace, and protect the security of our friends and allies.”

Meanwhile, other future Obama advisors, such as Larry Korb, raised concerns about the human and material costs of invading and occupying a heavily populated country in the Middle East and the risks of chaos and a lengthy counter-insurgency war.

Other top advisors to Senator Clinton – such as her husband’s former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright – confidently predicted that American military power could easily suppress any opposition to a U.S. takeover of Iraq. Such confidence in the ability of the United States to impose its will through force is reflected to this day in the strong support for President Bush’s troop surge among such Clinton advisors (and original invasion advocates) as Jack Keane, Kenneth Pollack, and Michael O’Hanlon.

Perhaps that was one reason that, during the recent State of the Union address, when Bush proclaimed that the Iraqi surge was working, Clinton stood and cheered while Obama remained seated and silent.

These differences in the key circles of foreign policy specialists surrounding these two candidates are consistent with their diametrically opposed views in the lead-up to the war.


It may be significant that Senator Clinton’s foreign policy advisors, many of whom are veterans of her husband’s administration, were virtually all strong supporters of President George W. Bush’s call for a U.S. invasion of Iraq.

By contrast, almost every one of Senator Obama’s foreign policy team was opposed to a U.S. invasion.

*******

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

james d granata
Posted by: seilnotnilc on Feb 26, 2008 1:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
HILLARY IS TRYING to Drive Dems Into a Dead End on Foreign Policy'

Hillary is Trying. yes, she is and she is also tedious, boring and right now, pretty p*ssed off.

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

A relevant quote from Oscar Wilde...
Posted by: Gungneir on Feb 26, 2008 10:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Experience is the name we give to our mistakes."

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