Criticizing President George W. Bush's foreign policy from Iraq to Afghanistan and North Korea to Iran, the wife of former president Bill Clinton called for a more internationalist approach to foreign policy in a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations, a New York-based foreign policy think tank."First, and most obviously, we must by word and deed renew internationalism for a new century," said Clinton, a likely Democratic Party presidential candidate for the 2008 election.
"We did not face World War II alone, we did not face the Cold War alone, and we cannot face the global terrorist threat or other profound challenges alone either," she said.
Clinton also defended the idea of bilateral talks with nations that Washington has been avoiding, such as Iran and Cuba.
"We must value diplomacy as well as a strong military," Clinton continued. "We should not hesitate to engage in the world's most difficult conflicts on a diplomatic front."
"Direct negotiations are not a sign of weakness; they're a sign of leadership," she said.
Clinton blasted what she said was the Bush administration's "simplistic division of the world into good and evil. They refuse to talk to anyone on the evil side, as some have called that idealistic. I call it dangerously unrealistic."
Referring to the Bush administration's refusal to talk directly to North Korea she said: "Six years of policy with no carrots no sticks and only bad results."
Clinton bemoaned "the lost opportunities of the years since September 11," when people around the world rallied to offer support for the United States following the 2001 terrorist attacks. "Five years later much of the world wonders what America is now," she said.
So it's not ok to work unilaterally unless it's related to bilateral talks?
Where are we working unilaterally? Oh, it must be that coalition of the coerced that she sees as not existing in Iraq. Certainly NATO taking the lead in Afghanistan isn't the US being unilateral.
Then there is the Norks, which confuses me as well. Bilateral talks didn't work at all for her husband, but they obviously didn't have the bomb, they just processed all the uranium/plutonium during his unilaterally negotiated dealings with them. Nope no failure there. Trying to force them to negotiate with all the neighbors involved though must be wrong since they have an extreme interest in getting the Norks stable. And the Chinese and Japanese were so enamored with Saint Bill for going around them in the talks. But that was just good diplomacy and good foreign relations.
Concerning Iraq, Clinton blasted the administration's policy, and said the best policy instead would progressively redeploy US troops in the region, call for a regional conference to help discuss options and advocate for the creation of an organization aiming at guaranteeing a division of oil income among all Iraqis."In an increasingly interdependent world," Clinton said, "it is in our interest to stand for human rights, to promote religious freedom, democracy, women's rights, social justice and economic empowerment."
"But reality is, we cannot force others, nations and people, to accept those values. We have to support those who embrace them and lead by example," she said
Redeploy to where? The Dems never answer that. There is a key to "redeploy with regionally with a fast reaction force." That key is the word "fast." Iraq is a big place. Infrastructure isn't something that is simple to reinstall. Redeploying into Iraq, once the troops are out, would require a huge and costly effort, not to mention putting even more troops at risk in that redeployment. But then, can you honestly believe that she would ever have it that US troops would return to Iraq even in an extreme emergency?
As for her cheering on freedom, democracy, women's rights, etc., she then goes on that you can't force those values on a society. Well, then let reality strike in that those precious rights won't be there either. You think women were oppressed during Saddam? What does she think will happen in a Sharia theocratic country like the Taliban had in Afghanistan gets installed in Iraq.
Does any of these statements make you think she has a clue?
1 comment:
I think Hillary has a clue. The problem is, you can't tell what she's really thinking from what she says, because what she says is whatever she thinks will get her the most political gain with her audience. Just like John Kerry. Let's hope her run for President is just as successful as his.
Good point about redeploy to WHERE? I keep hearing various Dems say they don't want to cut and run, just redeply the troops. My thoughts have been along the lines of "taking the troops OUT of Iraq is cutting and running, no matter what you call it" and stopping there. It hadn't even occurred to me that no one is saying precisely where they want to move them to. Afghanistan, perhaps? Somehow I doubt it. Despite all their assurances, I don't think the Dems have the stomach for this fight. More likely they want to "redeploy" them back home.
Post a Comment