In a speech yesterday at the Council of Foreign Relations, Senator Hillary Clinton criticized the President's foreign policy. She claimed Bush foreign policy is a "simplistic division of the world into good and evil..."
Anybody with hindsight can criticize, but Hillary's "internationalist" approach is twice the folly...
From the AFP:"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 sure didn't go it alone. Similar to how we are now handling North Korea, Iran and with our coalition in Iraq. Wait, there's more:
"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.
Avoiding Cuba and Iran? I think sanctioning would be a more accurate word. But we've seen this direct negotiation strategy applied before. It wasn't pretty. Selling missiles to Iran to help the Contras. We sold those missiles for two things: money and the release of hostages. Guess what happened; negotiating with hostage-takers led to more hostage taking.
..."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.
...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."
One may also remember the "direct negotiations" that Hillary's internationalist policy stems from: Madeline Albright's bribes negotiations with Kim Jong-il. That seemed to work.
Despite its comedic value, Senator Clinton's assertion of a new foreign policy goal is nothing ordinary for senators, this is a blatant step toward the 2008 presidential bid. After all, foreign policy is largely exclusive to the Chief Executive.
And wouldn't "direct" negotiation be less internationalist than say... six party talks?
11/01/2006
Hillary Clinton's Immaculate Foreign Policy
If you like it, link it | 1 Comment:
""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." - Hillary
But we did not join in with the Nazis either or negotiate other than for Chamberain's "peace" - and Reagan walked out on Gorbachav.
"Reagan forcefully confronted the Soviet Union, marking a sharp departure from the détente observed by his predecessors Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter. Under the assumption that the Soviet Union could not then outspend the US government in a renewed arms race, he accelerated increases in defense spending begun during the Carter Administration and strove to make the Cold War economically and rhetorically hot." (Wikipedia)
Hillary is talking about negotiating with terrorist, that is the opposite of what won both cases she cites.
More on internationalism visit:
http://skarbutts.wordpress.com/
Post a Comment