Daily Archives: March 11, 2008

CAMPAIGN 08: Experience required

Senator Clinton’s claims of foreign policy experience are exaggerated
By Greg Craig, RealClearPolitics, March 11, 2008

When your entire campaign is based upon a claim of experience, it is important that you have evidence to support that claim. Hillary Clinton’s argument that she has passed “the Commander- in-Chief test” is simply not supported by her record.

There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton played an important domestic policy role when she was First Lady. It is well known, for example, that she led the failed effort to pass universal health insurance. There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue – not at 3 AM or at any other time of day.

When asked to describe her experience, Senator Clinton has cited a handful of international incidents where she says she played a central role. But any fair-minded and objective judge of these claims – i.e., by someone not affiliated with the Clinton campaign – would conclude that Senator Clinton’s claims of foreign policy experience are exaggerated. [complete article]

Facebooktwittermail

NEWS & FEATURE: Fallon quits

Top U.S. commander in Mideast to retire early
By Thom Shanker and David Stout, New York Times, March 11, 2008

Adm. William J. Fallon, the top American commander in the Middle East whose views on Iran and other issues have seemed to put him at odds with the Bush administration, is retiring early, the Pentagon said Tuesday afternoon.

The retirement of Admiral Fallon, 63, who only a year ago became the first Navy man to be named the commander of the United States Central Command, was announced by his civilian boss, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who said that he accepted the admiral’s request to retire “with reluctance and regret.”

President Bush said Admiral Fallon had served his country with “honor, determination and commitment” and deserved “considerable credit” for the progress in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But despite the warm words from Mr. Bush and Mr. Gates, there was no question that the admiral’s premature departure stemmed from a public appearance of policy differences with the administration, and with Gen. David H. Petraeus, the American commander in Iraq. [complete article]

The man between war and peace
By Thomas P M Barnett, Esquire, March 11, 2008

If, in the dying light of the Bush administration, we go to war with Iran, it’ll all come down to one man. If we do not go to war with Iran, it’ll come down to the same man. He is that rarest of creatures in the Bush universe: the good cop on Iran, and a man of strategic brilliance. His name is William Fallon, although all of his friends call him “Fox,” which was his fighter-pilot call sign decades ago. Forty years into a military career that has seen this admiral rule over America’s two most important combatant commands, Pacific Command and now United States Central Command, it’s impossible to make this guy–as he likes to say–“nervous in the service.” Past American governments have used saber rattling as a useful tactic to get some bad actor on the world stage to fall in line. This government hasn’t mastered that kind of subtlety. When Dick Cheney has rattled his saber, it has generally meant that he intends to use it. And in spite of recent war spasms aimed at Iran from this sclerotic administration, Fallon is in no hurry to pick up any campaign medals for Iran. And therein lies the rub for the hard-liners led by Cheney. Army General David Petraeus, commanding America’s forces in Iraq, may say, “You cannot win in Iraq solely in Iraq,” but Fox Fallon is Petraeus’s boss, and he is the commander of United States Central Command, and Fallon doesn’t extend Petraeus’s logic to mean war against Iran. [complete article]

Commander rejects article of praise
By Thomas E. Ricks, Washington Post, March 6, 2008

The top U.S. commander in the Middle East is the subject of a glowing magazine article describing him as the only person who might stop the Bush administration from going to war against Iran.

Esquire magazine’s forthcoming profile of Adm. William “Fox” Fallon portrays the chief of the U.S. Central Command as “brazenly challenging” President Bush on Iran, pushing back “against what he saw as an ill-advised action.”

Written by Thomas P.M. Barnett, a former professor at the Naval War College, the article in the magazine’s April issue predicts that if Fallon leaves his position at Central Command, “it may well mean that the president and vice president intend to take military action against Iran before the end of this year and don’t want a commander standing in their way.”

The article is written in an admiring fashion, praising Fallon as “a man of strategic brilliance” whose understanding of the tumultuous situation in Pakistan “is far more complex than anyone else’s.”

Asked about the article yesterday, Fallon called it “poison pen stuff” that is “really disrespectful and ugly.” He did not cite specific objections. [complete article]

Facebooktwittermail

CAMPAIGN 08 & EDITOR’S COMMENT: The Hillary hoodwink

Clinton camp: Obama must pass ‘security threshold’ to be veep
By Sam Youngman, The Hill, March 10, 2008

Senior advisers to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) on Monday sought to reconcile the campaign’s assertion that rival Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has not passed the “commander-in-chief test” with the Clintons’ hints in recent days that the New York senator would tap Obama as a running mate.

Howard Wolfson, Clinton’s chief spokesman, said during a conference call with reporters that Clinton would reject any running mate who has not met the “national security threshold,” as Clinton’s military advisers and Wolfson put it on the call. But he added that it is possible Obama could meet that threshold by this summer’s Democratic convention.

Wolfson repeated Clinton’s weekend assertion that picking Obama is “not something she would rule out at this point,” but he also reiterated that Obama is not ready to be commander in chief, a key requirement to being Clinton’s running mate.

When asked if Obama could do something to cross that “threshold,” Wolfson said, “It’s not something that I’m prepared to rule out at this time.” [complete article]

Editor’s Comment — Let’s see. Are we to suppose that the Clinton campaign is secretly putting together a VP crash course so that Obama can pass the “security threshold” just in time for the convention? For Hillary it took a lifetime of experience, but Obama’s such a quick study he’ll be able to do it in just four months. But hey, if he could do that, maybe that’s why he has the audacity to claim he’s ready now. But then again….

Maybe something else is going on. Maybe the Clinton campaign has pin-pointed a key demographic segment that they’re eager to grab – a chunk of the undecided voters that the analysts are far too polite to name: voters who can easily be hoodwinked. Here’s the pitch: “You know, I’ve said some pretty nasty things about Barak and in the unlikely event that I fail to win the nomination, he probably won’t want me as a running mate. He might even have the nerve to say he wants someone more experienced than me. But I’m big hearted and big minded and I care about what’s best for the Democratic party, so if you vote for me, I’ll bring him along too. He’s a good kid and I could knock him into shape in a few weeks. So, if you’re not a delusional dreamer who’s just a sucker for a good speech but you still like Obama, then vote for me. You know it makes sense. Repeat after me: I support Obama, so I will vote for Hillary. I support Obama, so I will vote for Hillary…. And when you get in the voting booth and you’re thinking, ‘I’m gonna vote for Obama,’ just remember: check the box next to the name ‘Clinton.'”

Facebooktwittermail