Former Clintonista Contradicts Hillary’s “Commander in Chief” Experience
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, Barack, Hillary, History, Military
Greg Craig worked in the Clinton White House and saw what went down. He now supports Obama. Here’s why:
There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton played an important domestic policy role when she was First Lady. It is well known, for example, that she led the failed effort to pass universal health insurance. There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue – not at 3 AM or at any other time of day.
So what about Obama? Well, the key here is he hasn’t made the suggestion that it’s about a laundry list of experience. He thinks you need to be a good decision maker and that will lead you in the right direction.
On the other hand, Hillary has claimed that you also need “experience” and has used that against Obama. The distinction here is important if you want to understand why people are hammering her for the noticeable lack of the thing she claims she has the most of.
Here’s more on Hillary’s claims of experience…
Going down the list of international hotspots from the Clinton years, Craig writes that it is “a gross overstatement of the facts for her to claim even partial credit for bringing peace to Northern Ireland.” Her claim to a role in bringing peace to Bosnia is also unfounded, Craig says. Her claim to have negotiated the flight of refugees from Kosovo “is not true,” according to Craig, who quotes Bill Clinton’s top envoy to the Balkans as saying, “I cannot recall any involvement by Senator Clinton in this issue.” And on Rwanda, where Bill and Hillary Clinton have said that she pressed him to intervene with U.S. troops, Craig writes, “There is no evidence…to suggest that this ever happened.”
She made the wrong call with regards to Iraq. She made the wrong call with regards to Iran. And there’s nothing in her past to suggest she has ever made the right foreign policy calls.
Who’s the one peddling “false hope” again?
This entry was posted on Tuesday, March 11th, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, Barack, Hillary, History, Military. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
March 11th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Billary - the most consistently dishonest pair of politicians we have had in this country in over 30 years - why won’t people see this for what it is. I truly want to see a woman in the oval office - by and large I find women much more reasonable politically - just not this woman…….way too much baggage, way to dishonest, the country has Clinton / Bush fatigue - but the old ladies just won’t let it go, and the Archie Bunkers are afraid.
March 11th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
I am not qa fan of Hilary, I did not vote for her and whether I would remains to be seen. After Biden and Edwards dropped out of the race and a brief flirtation with Kucinich just because Russ Feingold wasn’t running, I drifted toward Obama. However, let’s be fair–first ladies deserve a little more credit than they often get. From Abigail Adams to Edith Wilson, from Eleanor Roosevelt to Hilary Clinton, and all the First Ladies in between– these women had a profound effect on the political scene while their husbands were in office. You can dismiss it, claiming they didn’t sit at national security meetings or have security clearance, but they had the president’s ear far more than the most trusted advisor. 8 years in the Clinton White House may not count as presidential experience, but it does count more than a single-term U.S. Senator.
I happen to be of the opinion that surrounding oneself with able advisors can make up for experience so I am comfortable with Obama who has made good decisions so far, but Hilary clearly has the edge when it comes to the world stage .. to dismiss this is being dishonest with oneself.
And TerenceC, while the Clinton’s as a pair may be consistently among the most dishonest politicians of our time, they cannot hold a candle to the Bush crowd that has lied so completely I can no longer even recall an honest thing the group has said. The sheer magnitude of his dishonesty on Iraq is mind numbering. Remember compassionate conservatism? Remember his campaign pledge to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants? Remember how he was going to be the education president? Remember how he criticized Clinton for high gasoline prices and if he were in office he would use his influence in the Middle East and with the oil companies to lower prices. The only thing he told the truth about was when he said he would lower taxes, but he didn’t exactly say that his goal was to lower taxes mostly for the wealthy. Remember how he said he would control government spending? The list is endless.
If dishonesty troubles you, you should be really upset with this group.
March 11th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Although I never liked him personally I always thought Bush 41 wasn’t bad - he was reasonably honest, understood the world, and seemed to have the countries best interest at heart. His son…..well I can hardly talk about it anymore - I agree with you. But the 2 Clintons have 20 plus years of scams, fast bucks, lime light stealing, credit stealing, subtle manipulation,……….it’s exhausting. Any experience near the levers of power these last 20 years needs to be thrown away - because it’s the wrong experience. In 2008 there will be a strong Dem majority in the Congress, there may very well be a super majority of Dems in the Senate, and there will be a Dem president. Things will get done the first 2 years, maybe the first 4 years - but they will change again. We need new people - fresh people - it was never the founders intention to have elected representatives at the Federal level for more than 10-12 years - so having Obama and 15-20 new Senators, and 60 to 70 new congressmen suits me just fine - I think the world would be much better off without the “experienced” Americaan politicians in charge for awhile - they’re slowly filling all of us, why let them - throw them away.
March 14th, 2008 at 9:18 am
[...] Former Clintonista Contradicts Hillary’s “Commander in Chief” Experience [...]