Christopher Hitchens launched a scathing attack on Hillary Clinton for her economy with the truth regarding a trip to Bosnia in 1996:
“She’s being punished, not for one episode of ‘mis-speaking’, but a whole record of dishonesty. In Bosnian terms it’s more disgraceful than many remember. In 1992, Bill Clinton ran against George Bush Snr promising to help the Bosnians survive genocide — then repeatedly went back on his word. (Locals dubbed the emergency graveyard dug on a Sarajevo soccer field ‘The Clinton Cemetery’.)”
In essence Clinton alleged that she had made the trip to Bosnia, considered too dangerous for husband president Bill Clinton, and landed amid sniper fire from which she had to take evasive action. She later claimed, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that she had misspoke herself.
Swiftboats II — The Hillary Clinton Saga?
Times of London columnist Gerard Baker observes:
“The Bosnia misspeak, unnecessary as it was, revealed much, however. It helped to expose a much bigger untruth Mrs Clinton has been peddling throughout the Democratic primary campaign — that her time in the White House means she has the necessary foreign policy experience to be president.
“First ladies don’t acquire real foreign policy experience. We know that Mrs Clinton did not, as she claimed, play a large role in the Northern Ireland peace process; that she was not, as she claimed, a key voice in counsels on the Balkans; and that she did not even have security clearance in the White House for the most sensitive of conversations about national security.”
What is of significance to me is the fact that while she was the first lady her husband was fiddling while Bosnia was burning. Of even more significance, from an African perspective, was her husband’s refusal to intervene in Rwanda despite being fully aware of the genocide that was taking place there.
In Rory Carroll’s article for the Guardian in March 2004, he confirms that the release of formerly classified documents show the level of Bill Clinton’s awareness.
Let’s put this into some sort of perspective — Hillary Clinton is not your average first lady — she’s a career politician. Accordingly, even though she may not have had full security clearance, as Gerard Baker says, she keeps herself fully posted on current affairs, which includes events taking place around the world.
It would be very interesting to hear her take on the events in Bosnia and Rwanda in light of the fact that she was first lady while they were taking place. What, for example, would she do to avoid a repeat of inaction during these kinds of genocides, in light of her policies on intervention and her “experience” of watching them being ignored, while her husband was in office?
As we know, Bill Clinton apologised to Rwandans for his failure to intervene in the form of a lie. He claimed ignorance of the events, which we know was not true. Regarding Bosnia, Hillary herself, as we have seen, seems to have a very distorted memory — where she recalls ducking sniper fire, the evidence suggests flowers and friendly faces.
As Bloomberg’s Margaret Carlson suggests, Hillary makes it up as she goes along.
Dick Morris of The Hill sets out just how badly Hillary bends the truth, not only in the Bosnian misspeak but in general, in his article “Hillary’s list of lies”.
“The USA Today/Gallup survey clearly explains why Sen Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) is losing. Asked whether the candidates were ‘honest and trustworthy’, Sen John McCain (R-Ariz) won with 67%, with Sen Barack Obama (D-Ill) right behind him at 63. Hillary scored only 44$, the lowest rating for any candidate for any attribute in the poll.”
Americans are growing tired of the Clinton saga and, with the enormity of the tasks facing the leader of the most powerful country in the world, the very least they — and indeed the rest of us — should expect is someone that is considered honest and trustworthy.
To my mind, that excludes Hillary.
Traps,
Not sure if you would make the grade as a prosecuting attorney. Surely, you are not going to indict Hillary for the crimes of her husband ? You write:
“Of even more significance, from an African perspective, was her husband’s refusal to intervene in Rwanda despite being fully aware of the genocide that was taking place there.”
Perhaps you just better stick to defending your client Barack Hussein Obama?
notice hillary is not taking credit/claiming experience for rowanda!!!
Traps
One of the journalists who covered both events at the time writes that America had been humiliated in Somalia shortly before Rwanda – American soldiers dead bodies being dragged by trucks through the streets.So the Americans were reluctant to go into another African problem, and kept the rest of the world out.
I thought I would have some fun with this topic. See http://knn-meerkatedition.blogspot.com/2008/03/knn-news-footage-exposes-hillary-meekat.html
America’s inaction regarding the genocide in Rwanda is inexcusable. Read Samantha Power’s “A Problem from Hell”. The truth is that the US refused to act even in ways that would have cost them nothing or very little. They had the technical expertise to block the airwaves that were being used by Hutu extremists to incite violence against Tutsis – and yet they refused. And all this happened on Bill Clinton’s watch. Let’s hope the Americans will have enough sense not to allow allow Clinton in the White House.
Ariella – the most damning for me is that Bill Clinton used ignorance of the genocide as his excuse when apologising to Rwandans.
As Rory Carroll’s article and many others now clearly show he knew exactly what was going on.
By using ignorance he is in effect saying had I known – which just about sums him up – He really shouldn’t have splashed out on Lewinsky’s dress….
You really must make up your minds. Are the Americans the good guys with the best army (paid for by China) who must be criticised when they do NOT intevene (Rwanda) or the bad guys who must stay out (Iraq).
All the forces of Jihad are concentrated in Iraq. The do not only contest Israel’s right to exist. They contest the right of any other religion to exist in the whole world which must eventually be under their version of Islamic Law.
Make up your minds!
Lyndall it’s never that simple – Iraq now, as opposed to pre-invasion(starting what may well have been an illegal war) requires a different approach.
Having gone in America and her allies have to construct an exit strategy that does not leave a geo-political nightmare behind. As the latest events in Basra and Bagdad show – the Shia militias are not going to take one backward step to al-Maliki.
The British are now having to intervene again and the Americans have just started bombing militia positions – al-Maliki’s exercise was supposed to show Iraq could police herself – turns out anything but.
The economic considerations as we are seeing are enormous – the blowing up of an oil pipeline sent prices throuth the roof. This means an exit strategy designed to keep the balance in the region without imploding Iraq itself is required.
In terms of Bosnia and Rwanda no question they and others should have intervened just as Zimbabwe and an 84 year old despot cry out to be removed.
You cannot simply have an America first isolationist approach in all cases just as you can’t have an intervention whenever it suits policy.
Different situations demand different approaches.
Don’t be naive. The president of the USA will — and should — act in the interests of the people who gave him (or her) the mandate. Those are the Americans.
The president of SA, by the same token, is not mandated to act in the best interests of the citizens of Zimbabwe, no matter how much they may need and want him to. Mbeki is mandated by South Africans to look after South Africa’s best interests in a manner that he and his government see fit.
What’s in it for America to intervene in Rwanda? That’s the African Union’s job, not America’s. Ditto with Bosnia. Unless there’s something tangibly worthwhile in it for America and Americans, their president is quite right in butting out of someone else’s problems.
Act on the mandate given by the people who elected you to do what’s best for THEM. Not what’s best for a bunch of squabbling strangers who add little or no value to your own country.
Not only CAN you have an America First isolationist approach (it’s the Monroe Doctrine Mk 2) but you SHOULD have an America First isolationist policy.
Break isolation only if America stands to gain significantly more than it stands to lose.
THAT makes sense. It’s realpolitik.
Traps
I agree with most of what you say – but if the west leaves now the violence and the Shia militia will move on to the next victim. They are not programmed to stop util the whole world is conquered. This war was going to happen somewhere eventually.
Of course the Americans made it worse by taking out the police and the civil service in the beginning (because they were Shia) when they were in no position to police themselves. (Like we took out ours because they were Afrikans?) Criminals moved in, followed by the militias.
Anyhow – I think the Clintons have had their day and their turn. If Americans had any sense they would do a deal now – with Hillary for vice. The more they fight each other – the more they help the Republicans.
Jon your point is valid.
I wonder if the Americans see themslves in that way? The GOPs have generally been interventionists over the years.
As leaders of the freeworld, which is my perception of how they see themselves can America distance itself from Darfur and Zimbabwe?
Is that now a UN or regional problem?
Generally America as Chomsky points out does not have double standards but single standards. There are certains bodies that count and certain ones that don’t count. Atrocities committed by our enemies (Darfur, Communist Russia, Sadam Hussein) are serious and need to be stopped, atrocities committed by our friends (Suharto, Israel, El Salvador, previous South American dictatorships) are not atrocities at all. They are benign interventions. Atrocities committed by people in out of teh way places who are not our friends or enemies (Rwanda, Bosnia) are not really much to worry about.
Whenever the Republicans have intervened, it’s because they have felt that this intervention is somehow going to bring good things for AMERICA. Those good things may be oil, or prestige, or regional economic advantage, or a boost to sales of American goods or any combination of these. They aren’t intervening to do good deeds of fraternal charity and sisterly mercy and paternalistic altruism.
They’re intervening to obtain American gain for the American people who democratically mandated them to do this on their behalf.
They’re looking after Number One.
Nothing wrong with that, as I see it?
Traps,
Is there any way that you could put yourself forward as Secretary of State in the next Obama administration? You really have a profound understanding for the foreign policy errors that The US has made during the Bush and Clinton administrations and I am sure that the world will be a much better place under your guidance.
You state that the war in Iraq may have been illegal. Perhaps Turnbull and Associates could prosecute the Bush administration?
Does America have anything to gain for the benefit of the American people by getting involved in Darfur and Zimbabwe?
If the answer’s no, stay well clear. It’s not America’s problem.
It’s the AU’s problem. Or, if the AU are too inept (and they almost certainly are) then it’s the task of UN (who only exist thanks to lavish USA funding) who are specifically set up to sort out the mess which Africans have routinely created in their own states.
To expect the USA to nanny the whole planet is, frankly, unreasonable. Especially if they’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
Don’t is the cheaper, less painful route to this inescapable damnation. It’s the sensible route.
The only people who can deprogramme the suicide bombers are their teachers. Change their mindset first! Only Muslim scholars will be able to do that.
Both Mohammed and the Zulu king had multiple wives for reasons. They were both trying to combine scattered tribes or clans into a nation.There had to be a representative (or wife) for each clan.They were representatives of their people. I suspect they were more likely chosen for their brains than their looks.
@ Micheal ‘Americans …. the world, the very least they — and indeed the rest of us — should expect is someone that is considered honest and trustworthy.
Why do you then support an amnesty for JZ and the arms deal????
The Americans have always tried to save the world. My great great great grandfather was an American missionary. My American family helped fund Sol Plaatjies.Why not help them?
Hillary is a MONSTER!
I strongly suggest that Americans read Harvey Cleckley’s “Masks of Sanity” or Robert Hare’s “Without Conscience” aqnd start thinking more carefully about her political leaders. We have had several recently whose behavior fits the description of the sociopaths in Cleckley’s book. We can do better, but only if we pay better attention and reason more carefully. Lying — especially unnecessarily! — is no laughing matter. But it does tell us something of the character of the person doing it.
Those who understand the behavior patterns of sociopaths are not surprised by the seemingly incomprehensible behavior of such powerful politicians as George W. Bush, Gov. Spitzer of New York, or Hillary Clinton. Nor are they eager to be ruled by such persons.