poetrychic

it's a rather long, but interesting read from the chicago tribune:

WASHINGTON - Surrounded by military leaders in a Cabinet-style setting, Hillary Clinton on Thursday said she has "crossed the threshold" of foreign policy experience to serve as commander in chief.

...

Clinton says she is the answer, arguing that Obama's major achievement was his early opposition to the Iraq war in 2002. Indeed, Obama doesn't have much in the way of experience managing foreign crises, nor does Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, for that matter. In fact, it is rare for any president to have that kind of experience before coming into office.

...

But while Hillary Clinton represented the U.S. on the world stage at important moments while she was first lady, there is scant evidence that she played a pivotal role in major foreign policy decisions or in managing global crises.

Pressed in a CNN interview this week for specific examples of foreign policy experience that has prepared her for an international crisis, Clinton claimed that she "helped to bring peace" to Northern Ireland and negotiated with Macedonia to open up its border to refugees from Kosovo. She also cited "standing up" to the Chinese government on women's rights and a one-day visit she made to Bosnia following the Dayton peace accords.

Earlier in the campaign, she and her husband claimed that she had advocated on behalf of a U.S. military intervention in Rwanda to stop the genocide there.

...

But her involvement in the Northern Ireland peace process was primarily to encourage activism among women's groups there, a contribution that the lead U.S. negotiator described as "helpful" but that an Irish historian who has written extensively about the conflict dismissed as "ancillary" to the peace process.

The Macedonian government opened its border to refugees the day before Clinton arrived to meet with government leaders. And her mission to Bosnia was a one-day visit in which she was accompanied by performers Sheryl Crow and Sinbad, as well as her daughter, Chelsea, according to the commanding general who hosted her.

Whatever her private conversations with the president may have been, key foreign policy officials say that a U.S. military intervention in Rwanda was never considered in the Clinton administration's policy deliberations. Despite lengthy memoirs by both Clintons and former Secretary of State and UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright, any advice she gave on Rwanda had not been mentioned until her presidential campaign.

...

Prudence Bushnell, a retired State Department official who handled the Rwanda portfolio at the time and has not allied with a presidential candidate, confirmed that a U.S. military intervention was not considered in policy deliberations, as did several senior Clinton administration officials with first-hand knowledge who declined to be identified.

Clinton has previously described her role in the Northern Ireland peace process as meeting with women's groups to encourage them to build a political climate for peace.

Former Sen. George Mitchell, who was the lead U.S. negotiator, said Clinton's visits were "very helpful."

"She was especially involved in encouraging women to get involved in the peace process," which was a "significant factor" in the agreement, Mitchell said in an interview.

But Tim Pat Coogan, an Irish historian who has written extensively on the conflict in Northern Ireland, said the first lady's visits were not decisive in the negotiating breakthroughs in Northern Ireland.

"It was a nice thing to see her there, with the women's groups. It helped, I suppose," Coogan said. "But it was ancillary to the main thing. It was part of the stage effects, the optics.

more from the story, page 2

__________________
"it was a creed written into the founding documents that declared the destiny of a nation, yes we can!"

Environment Man

There is something unhealthy about the Democratic nomination race and the ancillary discussion on this board. Beyond cynicism. There is something really spooky about the deep animosities coming out. Beyond a simple political process. It is starting to seem more like what it must have been like in the lead up to the U.S. Civil War.

cheapseats

That is correct. That is true. That is palpable.

Anyone who denies it is on one side or the other, or the other. Clinton or Obama or Republican.

Battles on two fronts seldom go well.

Of course, the Republicans are only battling on one.

__________________

cheapseats

As it should. What the fuck are we talking about? Henceforth, we're electing Couples?

In that case, let us recall that some of the "better halves" this election season are home wreckers.

If being the Wife of an Important Man qualifies as resume material, there are a LOTTA First Wives in this country who have been royally screwed.

Absolutely.

However, comma, that does not translate to 'Obama should be given a pass, no matter what inconsistencies or irregularities or indiscretions are brought to light.'

__________________

poetrychic

you're right, he should not be given a pass...and should he make exaggerated claims of experience i would post that article as well...

as for the couples question, yes, it seems in this case we are electing a couple...i have heard many people say they are only supporting hillary, even though they don't like her, because it will put bill back in the white house and they are nostalgic for the clinton years...go figure

__________________
"it was a creed written into the founding documents that declared the destiny of a nation, yes we can!"

cheapseats

I have had regard for your posts and the integrity of thinking behind them for years now. Unless I have you completely confused with someone else, you actually posted this once.

i love him. *sigh*

Was that you? Does that fit on your characteristic emotional/practical spectrum?

How on earth can you not be troubled by his declaring his intent to stay outside Washington politics, and then to Wheel & Deal for delegates in the kick-off-set-the-tone primary?

How can you not be troubled by his association with the slumlord guy, and the below-market-value transaction on the property on which he lives? Why would he not have been up-front about it up front?

If he did not imagine it would be found out, he is LESS smart than people are saying he is. That becomes ANOTHER cause for concern.

How can you not be troubled by raising $55 MILLION bucks per month and, presumably, spending it as fast as he can inspire it?

No matter what it is leveled at Obama, Obama's Adoring Fans are unfazed...except as they ratchet up their animosity toward Clinton Fans, and lump Obama Neutral and Obama Skeptical people in with the Clinton Fans.

__________________

poetrychic

thank you, and yes, i did write that...i forget the context now, though i'm sure it was after one of his speeches, perhaps on super tuesday

the thing that troubles me more is the fact that the popular vote is completely ignored in actually choosing the nominee and in the end it defers to the delegate's choice...

as for his role in the wheeling and dealing, until the selection process is changed, i don't see that he has much of a choice if he wants to be president...this is one of those times when i refer to what i learned in my ethics class with regards to jeremy bentham and his utilitarianism philosophy...basically, according to the principle of utility, the morality of an individual action depends on how much utility that action would produce, where utility is measured in amounts of pleasure and pain...it would be more painful for him to have no negotiations for delegates and to let hillary, by default of that action, become the nominee than it would be for me to watch him negotiate these delegates understanding he is doing so with our best interests in mind...

i think i explained this during the time, as well as posting articles to reinforce my belief...he paid $300,000 less than the "market value" for his house, if you knew this city and the suburbs, our market value has been greatly exaggerated for several years and is only now falling in line (ever so slightly) with the recent housing crisis, if he bought his house today, right now, he would be paying about $500,000 less than what he did pay because of our current housing market...the seller's have since come forward with regards to his purchase of their home and said that his buyer's agent only worked with their seller's agent to negotiate the price on the house and the parcel of land was a separate sale where mrs. rezko's agent worked independently with the seller's agent as well....

as for him not being up front about it up front, maybe he thought the issue was settled? i can't speak to what he thought about it though, as i am not privvy to that information...

what i do know as fact, is that in 2006 when rezko was first indicted, obama immediately gave all money he knew to have come from him or his associates to charity and broke his ties...he was also grilled extensively about his association as well as the purchase of his home...that was 2 years ago...rezko's trial started a few days ago and it has already been made clear by the prosecutors that obama did not have any role in the fraud, though our governor is probably going to be impeached soon...

i'll get back to you on this if he raises another $55 million (or more) this month...but i will say that what troubles me about campaigns is that they spend painful, and shameful, amounts of money when i could think of many more worthwhile causes for that money to go to...

sure, some of them are unfazed...i think that holds true for anyone who supports, passionately, someone they believe in...personally, i take a look at the source, the context, do a little research and decide from there what my feelings on a matter are without trying to make any snap decisions based on emotion...like the rezko thing, it didn't faze me because i was here when it happened, none of it was new to me...

and i think i have an advantage in that aspect, i've been living here for a number of years, obama was my state senator for a number of years...i have had the unique opportunity to see his work in action from a bird's eye view, i know what he's done for this state, i know what he's capable of doing, i know that his character has been consistent over the course of decades...i've also done my homework on him, which strengthens my belief...most everyone else just knows of his speech in 2004, which i think is a pity...

__________________
"it was a creed written into the founding documents that declared the destiny of a nation, yes we can!"

cheapseats

Yes, absolutely. This is off-the-charts disturbing.

But have I heard Barack Obama using his superlative oratory skills to rail against the ridiculousness of the system right along? Or only when the BLATANT non-democracy of it would undermine HIM?

__________________

cheapseats

Again, absolutely...if only he would cop to that. Instead, he is doing exactly that which he declares he stands for changing.

__________________

RK77

I posted this earlier today with a picture from the story. JINX!

Article with photo