Former Clinton Loyalist: Don't Believe Hillary's Claims

[GaryC 7]

Former Clinton Loyalist: Don't Believe Hillary's Claims

[byron York]

Greg Craig, the former Clinton White House counsel who is now supporting Barack Obama, has just sent out a letter sharply attacking Hillary Clinton's claims to experience in foreign policy. "Senator Clinton has cited a handful of international incidents where she says she played a central role," Craig writes. "But any fair-minded and objective judge of these claims – i.e., by someone not affiliated with the Clinton campaign – would conclude that Senator Clinton’s claims of foreign policy experience are exaggerated." Then this:

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.

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." Finally, Craig attacks Hillary Clinton's claim that her 1995 speech about women's rights in China also qualifies as foreign policy experience. "It is strange that Senator Clinton would base her own foreign policy experience on a speech that she gave over a decade ago," Craig writes, "since she so frequently belittles Barack Obama’s speeches opposing the Iraq War six years ago." Summing up:

The Clinton campaign's argument is nothing more than mere assertion, dramatized in a scary television commercial with a telephone ringing in the middle of the night. There is no support for or substance in the claim that Senator Clinton has passed "the Commander-in-Chief test." That claim – as the TV ad – consists of nothing more than making the assertion, repeating it frequently to the voters and hoping that they will believe it.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N...OTM5ZDQ2Yzc0ODM

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I certainly agree that that "3 O'Clock in the morning" TV Ad was baseless and somewhat ridiculous.

Most people I would think can tell an argument of substance apart from one of fluffy presentation.

I remember hearing during the last election that senatorial candidates have a hard time 'proving' their experience when they're up against gubanatorial candidates who have actually been charged with running something.

This time it seems to be an even race. More or less.

Edited March 11, 2008 by Number 6