The Case Against Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State

[globalvillage]

Run time: 09:36 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqMNLqt5OC8   Posted on YouTube: November 14, 2008 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: November 15, 2008 By DU Member: globalvillage Views on DU: 2898

 
Really, there are a lot of jobs at which Sen. Clinton would excel. She'd be great at HHS or Homeland Security. I just don't see her as the right pick for SoS.

I agree with Tweety's conclusion.

[ksimons]

1. I wonder what the odds-makers in Vegas are thinking about this nt

[psychmommy]

2. i agree with tweety as well.

[MBS]

3. Me, too

I really appreciated what he said about John Kerry (at the very end of the video, by the way. .he noted that he'd be a masterful SoS, that he knew more foreign languages than many foreign ministers in Europe, etc etc), even though I think that it's almost surely to Sen. Kerry's greater long-term interest to stay in the Senate, chair the SFRC, and continue to be a strong voice for truth . I also think that the comments of Bernard and Donahue were pretty sound.

[Evergreen Emerald]

4. I disagree.

The reasons Tweety gave should be the same reasons Kerry is not an appropriate pick: he voted for the war resolution. Obama agreed that the Iranian guards were a terrorist organization.

Some continue to judge Clinton on a different standard than anyone else.

[Captain Hilts]

7. Yes, this is true. And NONE have read Sen. Clinton's statement on making the IWR vote. nt

[JTFrog]

8. You mean this one?

"If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from," Mrs. Clinton told an audience in Dover, N.H., in a veiled reference to two rivals for the nomination, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina.

Just asking because I honestly am not sure which statement you are referring to.

[Captain Hilts]

11. This one:

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster...this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.


If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.

I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.

Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation.

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.

[JTFrog]

33. Oh you mean her push for war.

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0303-23.htm

See Hillary Run (from Her Husband's Past on Iraq)
by Scott Ritter

Senator Hillary Clinton wants to become President Hillary Clinton. "I'm in, and I'm in to win," she said, announcing her plans to run for the Democratic nomination for the 2008 Presidential election. Let there be no doubt that Hillary Clinton is about as slippery a species of politician that exists, one who has demonstrated an ability to morph facts into a nebulous blob which blurs the record and distorts the truth. While she has demonstrated this less than flattering ability on a number of issues, nowhere is it so blatant as when dealing with the issue of the ongoing war in Iraq and Hillary Clinton's vote in favor of this war.

This issue won't be resolved even if Hillary Clinton apologizes for her Iraq vote, as other politicians have done, blaming their decision on faulty intelligence on Iraq's WMD capabilities. This is because, like many other Washington politicians at the time, including those now running for president, she had been witness to lies about Iraq's weapons programs to justify attacks on that country by her husband President Bill Clinton and his administration.

"While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq," Senator Clinton said at the time of her vote, in a carefully crafted speech designed to demonstrate her range of knowledge and ability to consider all options. "I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998."

Hillary would have done well to leave out that last part, the one where her husband, the former President of the United States, used military force as part of a 72-hour bombing campaign ostensibly deemed as a punitive strike in defense of disarmament, but in actuality proved to be a blatant attempt at regime change which used the hyped-up threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction as an excuse for action. Sound familiar? While many Americans today condemn the Bush administration for misleading them with false claims of unsubstantiated threats which resulted in the ongoing debacle we face today in Iraq (count Hillary among this crowd), few have reflected back on the day when the man from Hope, Arkansas sat in the Oval Office and initiated the policies of economic sanctions-based containment and regime change which President Bush later brought to fruition when he ordered the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

----------

Scott Ritter served as a former Marine Corps officer from 1984 until 1991, and as a UN weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 until 1998. He is the author of several books, including "Iraq Confidential" and "Target Iran". He also co-authored "War on Iraq" with William Pitt.

As she said in the statement I quoted in my first post, there are others to choose from.

[globalvillage]

9. Setting aside the IWR vote

which was an admitted mistake, what does Sen. Clinton bring to SoS? I'm not holding her to a different standard. I think she'd excel in any number of positions, including HHS, Homeland Security or the SCOTUS. She's a tough fighter, but hardly a diplomat, IMO.

Sen Kerry has 26 years on the SFRC. He knows and is respected by world leaders and economic and environmental experts across the globe. And he speaks five languages.

I'm not bashing Hillary, I just don't think she's suited for SoS. She has lots of skills, but I don't think negotiating is one of them. We need to restore diplomacy. Do you really think that's Sen. Clinton's greatest strength?

[Evergreen Emerald]

13. She has a significant knowledge of history and world affairs

beyond Obama. She adds to the cabinet. I have not seen Kerry address the issues to the extent that Clinton has, so I cannot comment on his knowledge. I have seen him speak and attempt to discuss issues...he cannot compete with Clinton.

She has negotiating power and credibility with foreign leaders. You asked about her greatest strenght...I think she can do anything she sets her mind to. Certainly her great strenghts would be used as SOS.

[globalvillage]

16. Of course she has significant knowledge and credibility.

She's a US Senator. But her expertise is in areas other than foreign affairs. She's on Armed Services, Environment and Public Works and Health, Education and Labor committees. What about SecDef? No one says that has to be a man.
She needs a place where she can use her greatest strengths to her and our benefit, and I really think she's more a fighter than a diplomat.
I'm not saying she couldn't do the job of SoS reasonably well, but when you think HRC, is foreign affairs really the first thing that comes to mind?

If you can't comment on JK's knowledge, how can you say he can't compete with Sen Clinton? You would have to know both equally well to make that judgment.

[Evergreen Emerald]

17. I disagree with the premise that as a Senator you automatically have

significant knowledge of anything. Clinton is exceptional. Her knowledge, her ability to see the whole and the intertwining of history and current affairs and how they affect the world and the US interactions is above the norm.

Based on what I have seen of the two of them, Clinton is the best candidate.

[globalvillage]

18. We'll just have to disagree.

Sen. Kerry has far more experience in foreign relations and would be a much better choice for SoS.

I agree that Sen Clinton is an exceptional woman, so let's just end on that note since we're not going to agree on the rest of your post.

[goforit]

19. Disagree. She will be running an opposing parrallel gov't.

Her arrogance will hinder her with other countries.
She is a Diva who is difficult to work with given her history as first lady.

[Evergreen Emerald]

20. oh brother

What a load of sexist crap. She cannot prove herself enough for some people. No matter how smart or well learned or no matter how much she tows the party line. Some people cannot see the reality of what is going on.

[goforit]

31. Sexist???? You're the one who is anti-man!!! All the others ARE more qualified.

And by the way calling another woman sexist just doesn't jive!!!
Name-calling like George W will get ya nowhere honey!!!

[Evergreen Emerald]

32. "Diva" "Difficult to work with"

Sexist: women bound their own feet in China. Yes, women can be sexist, as your judgments on Clinton prove.

[leftchick]

5. I totally agree

John Kerry, Susan Wright, Bill Richardson, ANYONE not afflicted with the AIPAC disease.

[Truth Teller]

14. Kerry is staunchly pro-Israel

And everything Obama has said publicly indicates he is, as well.

[jrockford]

27. Which is sad. nt

[Captain Hilts]

6. I don't want her as SoS, but rather majority leader or AG, but Tweety HATES her.

I ignore anything he says about her, or most other women, actually.

He's got 'female trouble'.

[globalvillage]

10. AG would be a good post for HRC.

I could get behind that. She's a tough fighter, and I think it would be a good fit.

[Captain Hilts]

12. And a good 3rd of the right wing crazies would run out of DOJ with their hair on fire...

at the very thought of working for her.

She's have to roust the rest out.

MUCH better job for her.

This talk of her as SOS is crazy. It's not her job, though I think she could do it well, especially compared to the last eight nightmare years.

[globalvillage]

15. Honestly, I'd really like to see her succeed.

She deserves a position that suits her talents. I'd rather see her as a great AG than a so-so SoS.

And the 'hair on fire' wingers would be a huge bonus.

[clear eye]

29. Attorney General Clinton would be awesome

I can just see her rooting out those mail-order attorneys that went along w/selective prosecutions of Dems and protection for criminal Repubs, and get the proof so Obama could kick them to the curb w/o being charged with partisanship. The DOJ could live up to its name.

[Number23]

21. I mentioned Susan Rice's name on DU a few days ago to crickets

It's amazing to me that the discussion ONCE AGAIN is on Hillary, Hillary, Hillary as if there are no other members of the Dem party.

Dr. Rice has been a great spokesperson for Obama on foreign policy, is brilliantly educated and has made the rounds on all of the stupid little tv shows you need to do to become a name in politics nowadays. Why she has been almost immediately overlooked by everyone is very telling to me. I appreciate Michelle Bernard for mentioning her in this clip.

And I do think that John Kerry would be a much better choice for SoS than Hillary as well. She has so many talents in so many areas. But I'm not convinced that they would be put to best use as SoS.

[Evergreen Emerald]

22. Is she the one who was kicked off the Obama team?

[babylonsister]

24. No. That was Samantha Power...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samantha_Power

[babylonsister]

25. I haven't forgotten about her. She's currently a foreign policy advisor,

but I imagine she'll be selected for some great position within the Obama admin once the dust settles:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x401491

[Number23]

26. Thanks for this. This is a good article

It should be in GD-P

[Zombie2]

23. NO to DLC....

:kick: & Recommended

[jillan]

28. The thing of it is, we can fight about this all day and all nite -

but it is Obama's decision to make.

[happychatter]

30. it's nice to hear a discussion on this issue without the cult like DU taboos

the irrational cheerleading and hyper-defensive, emotionally charged support of HRC on this site is sickening

edit to add: Actually, what I described as "sickening," is completely rational. When something appears "irrational," it's my belief that the real rationales that drive the argument, simply CANNOT be verbalized. It's a missing element.

... maybe multiple missing elements.

Anti-man, anti-church, anti-straight, anti-progressive, anti-Black

OR

pro-status quo, pro-corruption, pro-war

take it any way YOU want to.... lying down, standing up

I don't have anything against HRC and although I have my questions about Obama, there is NO DOUBT in my MILITARY MIND, the corporateers and War Profiteers behind the MSM and lobbyists, do not want to LOOSE their strangle hold on America and her government.

I don't give a fuck about HRC. I DO give a fuck about the issues previously stated.