The Clinton Campaign’s Hollow Claims
by sarabeth at 6:00 am on March 13th, 2008 in '06/'08 Campaigns, HillaryThis whole business of Hillary Clinton trying to persuade the public that her trip to Bosnia in 1996 somehow certifies her as crisis-tested and therefore qualified to be commander-in-chief is such pure baloney that it makes the head spin.
We may as well start with Sinbad, who went along on the trip, and who decided he wasn’t going to sit back and let the Clinton campaign spin it out of all recognizable resemblance to reality:
Sinbad, along with singer Sheryl Crow, was on that 1996 trip to Bosnia that Clinton has described as a harrowing international experience that makes her tested and ready to answer a 3 a.m. phone call at the White House on day one, a claim for which she’s taking much grief on the campaign trail.
Harrowing? Not that Sinbad recalls. He just remembers it being a USO tour to buck up the troops amid a much worse situation than he had imagined between the Bosnians and Serbs.
In an interview with the Sleuth Monday, he said the “scariest” part of the trip was wondering where he’d eat next. “I think the only ‘red-phone’ moment was: ‘Do we eat here or at the next place.’”
Clinton, during a late December campaign appearance in Iowa, described a hair-raising corkscrew landing in war-torn Bosnia, a trip she took with her then-teenage daughter, Chelsea. “They said there might be sniper fire,” Clinton said.
Threat of bullets? Sinbad doesn’t remember that, either.
Lady, if you really think that the threat of sniper fire (a non-materialized threat, let me hasten to add) constitutes a character-building experience — and presidential character at that — I really don’t think I want you to be my president. That’s too close to Bush-speak, for my liking.
In her Iowa stump speech, Clinton also said, “We used to say in the White House that if a place is too dangerous, too small or too poor, send the First Lady.”
Say what? As Sinbad put it: “What kind of president would say, ‘Hey, man, I can’t go ’cause I might get shot so I’m going to send my wife…oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.’”
The Clinton campaign, of course, doesn’t let this kind of stuff go unanswered:
Defending Clinton’s characterization of her Bosnia mission, campaign spokesman Phil Singer kindly provided experts from news stories written about the trip at the time, including a Washington Post story from May 26, 1996, that said, “This trip to Bosnia marks the first time since Roosevelt that a first lady has voyaged to a potential combat zone.”
So voyaging to a potential combat zone is character-building crisis-testing? Pretty thin, what? And that seems to be the best they can do, after thinking it over for a really long time. The immediate response, of course, had been a major embarrassment (when Slate’s John Dickerson asked the Clinton campaign: “What foreign policy moment would you point to in Hillary’s career where she’s been tested by crisis?”)
McClatchy put this whole business of the Clinton campaign’s hollow claims in perspective. It’s not a very flattering perspective for Hillary:
Sen. Hillary Clinton claims that her experience in dealing with foreign affairs qualifies her to handle a crisis call at 3 a.m. and be commander in chief.
Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign accuses Clinton of exaggerating her foreign affairs experience. It says that nothing in her background shows that she’s more prepared to handle an international crisis than he is.
[…]
To bolster the claim, she’s trumpeted her role as first lady in bringing peace to Northern Ireland, helping to open Macedonia’s borders to Kosovo refugees and challenging China on women’s rights, all as proof that she has what it takes to manage a foreign crisis.… public records and interviews with former Clinton administration officials and others strongly suggest that Clinton overstates her role.
[…]
On the stump, Clinton takes credit for helping to bring peace between warring Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland. George Mitchell, the former Maine senator who helped negotiate the peace agreements, has said that Clinton’s visits to the region and meetings with female activists there were “very helpful” in the peace efforts.But one of the key Irish negotiators last week called Clinton’s description of her role in the process a “wee bit silly.”
“I don’t know there was much she did apart from accompanying Bill (Clinton) going around,” David Trimble told Belfast’s Daily Telegraph.
Trimble, the former leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, and John Hume, leader of the nationalist Social Democratic Labour Party, shared the 1998 Nobel Peace Prize for their roles in the peace process. “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,” Trimble said.
[…]
Clinton also claims that she was a difference-maker in the Balkans. She said that she negotiated opening Macedonia’s borders in 1999 to let in refugees fleeing violence in Kosovo.
[…]
Ivo Daalder, a former NSC official under President Clinton who was responsible for the Balkans, said that “there’s the inconvenient fact that the agreement to open the borders happened the day before she got there.”“I have no doubt that the diplomats used the prospect of her visiting Macedonia to open the Macedonian borders. The question is, was she instrumental in negotiating the opening of the borders to all tens of thousands of refugees to pass? The answer is no,” said Daalder, author of “Winning Ugly: NATO’s War to save Kosovo.” He supports Obama.
[…]
Clinton’s supporters also tout her 1995 speech in Beijing as perhaps her most visible foreign policy success. Resisting calls by some within the Clinton administration that she not go, Hillary Clinton attended the Fourth World Conference on Women. There she declared: “It is time for us to say here in Beijing, and the world to hear, that it is no longer acceptable to discuss women’s rights as separate from human rights.”The speech was the then-strongest criticism of China by a Clinton administration official. It drew cheers from the women’s movement and human-rights communities.
Obama’s campaign credits it as “a good speech,” but nevertheless contends that it hardly constituted a “3 a.m. crisis.”
“It is strange that Senator Clinton would base her own foreign policy experience on a speech that she gave over a decade ago, since she so frequently belittles Barack Obama’s speech opposing the Iraq war six years ago,” wrote Greg Craig, a former State Department policy planning director, in a Tuesday Obama campaign memo.
She made a lot of claims. And none of them stands up to scrutiny. That’s not very reassuring. I, for one, am looking for something better from my next president.
pedro wrote:
Hillary and Bill Clinton have made a significant issue about how the press is treating Hillary unfairly in their hyper-critical reporting on her and their “softball” reporting on Barak Obama. Hillary maintains she has been fully investigated by the media and Barak hasn’t! As the Tony Rezko trial begins in Chicago, Clinton and her surrogates are linking Obama to Rezko and the media is speculating about whether Obama will be called to testify as a witness in the case. Obama has always admitted he received $85,000 in contributions from Rezko which Obama has now donated to charity rather than keep. Yet the civil fraud trial of Bill Clinton for defrauduing Hillary’s largest donor in 2000 into giving her campaign more than $1.2 million, pending in Los Angeles courts since 2003, is now preparing for a November, 2008 trial. The discovery that is now proceeding after a February 21 hearing, and the pending trial, have NEVER been announced by the mainstream media. Hillary was able to extricate herself as a co-defendant in the case in January, 2008 after years of appeals to be protected by the First Amendment from tort claims arising out of federal campaign solicitations she made. Her abuse of the intent of California’s anti-SLAPP law after the California Supreme Court refused to dismiss her from the case in 2004 is emblematic of her contempt for the Rule of Law. Hillary will be called as a witness in both discovery and the trial according to the trial court Judge who so-advised Hillary’s attorney David Kendall when he dismissed Hillary as a co-defendant in 2007. A subpoena is being prepared this month and will be served personally on Hillary, along with Chelsea, Pa Gov. Ed Rendell, Al Gore and other well known political and media figures. Yet the media has refused to report about this landmark civil fraud case- brought by Hillary’s biggest 2000 donor to her Senate race, regarding allegations that were corroborated by the Department of Justice in the criminal trial of Hillary’s finance director David Rosen in May, 2005. That indictment and trial was credited as resulting from the civil suit’s allegations by Peter Paul, the Hollywood dot com millionaire Bill Clinton convinced to donate more than $1.2 million (according to the DOJ prosecutors and the FBI) to Hillary’s Senate campaign as part of a post White House business deal with Bill. The media - except for World Net Daily- has also suspiciously refused to report on Hillary’s last FEC report regarding her 2000 Senate campaign, filed in January 30, 2006. In a secret settlement of an FEC complaint by the plaintiff in Paul v Clinton, Peter Paul, the FEC fined Hillary’s campaign $35,000 for hiding more than $720,000 in donations from Paul, and it required Hillary’s campaign to file a 4th amended FEC report. In that report Hillary and her campaign again hid Paul’s $1.2 million contribution to her campaign and falsely attributed $250,000 as being donated by Paul’s partner, Spider Man creator Stan Lee, who swore in a video taped deposition he never gave Hillary or her campaign any money. Lee did testify to trading $100,000 checks with Paul to make it appear he gave $100,000 to Hillary’s campaign (admission of a felony) but none of that has been reported by the “overly critical” media! Where is the outrage from Obama that the press is engaging in a double standard relating to his possible role in the Rezko trial and his refunding the $85,000 contributed to his campaign by Rezko- which Obama has always admitted taking. The media makes no mention of Hillary’s role as a witness in Bill’s fraud trial for defrauding Hillary’s largest donor- and Hillary’s refusal to refund the $1.2 million she illegally received from Paul, which she has denied taking from Paul ever since the Washington Post asked her about Paul and his felony convictions from the 1970’s before her first Senate election in 2000? Visit Hillcap.org for videos and info.
Posted 13 Mar 2008 at 9:04 am ¶
Jay W. wrote:
On March 6 Hillary Clinton claimed that, unlike Barack Obama, she and likely Republican nominee John McCain have “cross[ed] the commander-in-chief threshold.” In a CNN interview the day before, Clinton had listed five foreign policy accomplishments. We can’t determine how much behind-the-scenes work Clinton did while first lady, and she certainly took an active interest in foreign policy when her husband was president. Moreover, her time as first lady plus her longer Senate career do give Clinton more foreign policy experience than Obama. But the public record of her actions shows that many of Clinton’s foreign policy claims are exaggerated.
Clinton claims to have “negotiated open borders” in Macedonia to fleeing Kosovar refugees. But the Macedonian border opened a full day before she arrived, and her meetings with Macedonian officials were too brief to allow for much serious negotiating.
Clinton’s activities “helped bring peace to Northern Ireland.” Irish officials are divided as to how helpful Clinton’s actions were, and key players agree that she was not directly involved in any actual negotiations.
Clinton has repeatedly referenced her “dangerous” trip to Bosnia. She fails to mention, however, that the Bosnian war had officially ended three months before her visit – or that she made the trip with her 16-year-old daughter and two entertainers.
Both Bill and Hillary Clinton claim that Hillary privately championed the use of U.S. troops to stop the genocide in Rwanda. That conversation left no public record, however, as U.S. policy was explicitly to stay out of Rwanda, and officials say that the use of U.S. troops was never considered.
Clinton’s tough speech on human rights delivered to a Beijing audience is as advertised, though Clinton herself has been dismissive of speeches that aren’t backed by solutions.
Posted 13 Mar 2008 at 3:53 pm ¶
Matthew wrote:
I used to hope that Hillary would run for President years before she announced the idea. I have alway thought of her as a smart ,hard-working and caring person who would do the right thing no matter what. Now that I see how she is handling herself in this campaign, it is obvious she doesn’t like to lose and if she can’t win she will do her best to make sure Obama doesn’t either. I used to trust her but she has not got the experience to be President, and with all of the race baiting, she just plain scares me, this is the real reason she lost me and so many other Blacks. All the race baiting has got to stop and she should stop running for President for the good of the party. Democrats are going to vote the Democratic nominee no matter who it is the the so-called “important states” like Ohio and Florida. Every state has alway been important and Bush has “won” by slim margins each time. If Florida and Michigan are not seated, California and Texas are likely to be the most important states this go around having so many electoral ballots. Obama has done something past Dems have not done in years, win in “overlooked states” that have ballots that count toward deciding the Presidency. Hillary, please stop being selfish and realize this is not your time, Stop giving the Republicans ammo and start supporting Obama to win the Presidency now, before Pennsylvania. If anyone saw McCain’s bio, he may be a war hero, and I applaude him for that, but he also more for surging ahead with world wars than Bush rather than taking care of his own backyard, and that makes him worse for America.
Posted 14 Mar 2008 at 1:00 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
I really don’t understand what’s going on these days in the comments section, with all kinds of people we have never seen or heard of before surfacing regularly with long, prefabricated comments that often have almost nothing to do with the post they are appended to.
Making it worse, these comments usually consist of Obama versus Hillary talking points (or vice versa), tired old talking points which have pretty much been thoroughly aired, and comprehensively discredited by the other side a long time ago.
Why anyone thinks it worth their while to come here and post this stuff now totally baffles me.
But comment #2 has baffled me even more than the stuff I just described. Six paragraphs, most of which just rehashes what was in the post, without providing any new perspective on any of it. What’s the point?
Posted 15 Mar 2008 at 6:58 am ¶
frank tells wrote:
I WANT TO FIX HILLARY CLINTON FOR STAYING WITH BILL WHEN SHE SHOULD HAVE DIVORCED HIM OVER:
1. HIS ANTIMASTURBATION
2. HIS CHEATING ADULTERY
ALSO IM AGAINST HER NOT LISTENING TO ME ABOUT VOTING AGAINST THE ANTI POKER BILL (PHONE CALLS, LETTERS) AND RECEIVING FUNDING FROM HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES WHEN THEY ARE ALREADY OVERCHARGING AND AGE DISCRIMINATING. I ALSO BELIEVE LIKE JOE LIEBERMAN THAT BILL CLINTON SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPEACHED AFTER ILLEGALLY CHEATING ON HIS WIFE.
Posted 16 Mar 2008 at 1:56 pm ¶
jamiebeth wrote:
sb, it’s as if “frank tells” heard you from across the internet and stepped up to make it worse. sheesh!
Posted 16 Mar 2008 at 5:08 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Actually, something tells me he’s playing a deep, double-agent type game.
I think his real agenda is not an anti-Bill agenda or an anti-Hillary agenda (or even an anti-Sarabeth agenda). He’s just getting warmed up to argue that John McCain, confessed adulterer, should be hung and quartered, either before or after being impeached, which could be done either before or after the election.
The next step, of course, would be to start impeaching people before they cheat on their wives, whether illegally or legally.
Posted 16 Mar 2008 at 5:41 pm ¶
michael p wrote:
This is about the previous email about the Halliburton rapes I believe that who ever the writer Sara is owes the Barker family an apology of her smart A.. comment and her horrible support for women how dare you mock a family that has suffered because after your false information and article you ignore the justice for Barker close the blog for comments and put your unprofessional comment of this is not the Tracy Barker fan club or Barker family blog how dare you we only hope that you are never raped Sara and then used by another victim like Jones have used Barker and lied about afadavits and lied to congress and then used by attorneys then tossed aside I hardly think that an upset father and sister stating the truth even if it made your article look rediculous that an upset family is a fan club Sara you are a freakin jerk abd I hope someday you loose your job maybe you arent a women at all after reading how you treat victims that are crying for help check your fact Sara !
Posted 16 Mar 2008 at 6:36 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
what can I say? I just hate being made to look rediculous.
Posted 16 Mar 2008 at 7:52 pm ¶
www.mensrea@hotmail. wrote:
Aren’t you worried about getting sued?
Posted 23 Mar 2008 at 3:16 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
sued, dude? for what? and by whom?
Posted 23 Mar 2008 at 7:11 pm ¶