Walking Into A Corner

The Clinton campaign's constant denigrating of Obama's national security credentials, paired with their support of a "unity ticket" with Obama as Vice-President, is getting them into a lot of trouble.

Hillary advisers were asked by reporters how it is that Hillary could raise the possibility of Obama as her veep if he hadn't crossed the "commander-in-chief threshold," as she and her surrogates have been suggesting.

A good question indeed.

But Hillary spokesperson Howard Wolfson was prepared with a hedge. He said that the possibility of Obama as veep is not something that she is "prepared to rule out at this point," adding: "At the same time we continued to believe that Senator Obama has not passed the key commander-in-chief test at least at this point."

A bit later in the call, Wolfson was pressed on this question, and said:

"Senator Clinton will not choose any candidate who has not at the time of choosing passed the national security threshold. But we have a long way to go until Denver, and it's not something she's prepared to rule out at this point."

Great, I'm so excited for four years of endless parsing and having to be a lawyer to actually understand these statements.

Obama is pouncing on this contradiction, by the way. Clinton's own "commander-in-chief threshold" argument is coming under fire, too, with people noting that Hillary did not have security clearance when she was First Lady, as well as the numerous exaggerations that characterize her national security credentials. This post about Clinton and Rwanda is a must-read. It's infuriating to me that any Democrat would try to use the embarrassing experience in Rwanda as a net positive.

First, if Hillary Clinton did press for military intervention in Rwanda, her advocacy left no trace in the world. I have read quite a lot about the Rwandan genocide and the US reaction towards it, and Hillary Clinton's involvement comes as news to me. I just went through my various books on the Rwandan genocide (there are eight), and she is not mentioned in any of them [...]

Clinton didn't mention that she advocated military intervention in Rwanda in her memoirs. Neither did Madeleine Albright. Neither, as far as I can tell, did anyone else. Military intervention was not considered as an option, "never even debated", which means that any advocacy she did engage in must have been pretty ineffective.

But it's worse than that. The Clinton administration did not simply fail to intervene militarily in Rwanda. It took a number of steps that made it easier for genocide to be committed. Not taking these steps would have been much, much easier than sending actual troops to Rwanda. They would have made a real difference. And yet the Clinton administration failed to take them.

You can't, unless you've sat in that chair for a few years, ever announce that you have the relevant experience to be commander-in-chief. To use it as an argument against your opponent, and to try to make that case when talking about RWANDA, is "grotesque," as Hilzoy puts it.

In the end, this focus on national security could seriously backfire on Senator Clinton.

McCain/Clinton '08

It's ridiculous for Hillary Clinton to continue to praise John McCain and the lifetime of experience he'll being to the White House, reinforcing that only Republicans can steer the national security ship, and I have no problem denouncing and rejecting that right-wing frame. It's an argument she'll lose in November, and then we'll be playing on Republican turf, trying to not talk about the war and emphasize kitchen-table issues, which has sunk us in numerous elections. Also, when the Republicans get through with articles like this, we'll be in big, big trouble.

In Clinton's case, she may well have exercised influence on foreign policy that is hard to document because she had a unique opportunity to offer private counsel to her husband, President Bill Clinton.

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.

'Ancillary' to process

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.

"In my review of the records, I didn't find anything to suggest that military intervention was put on the table in NSC [National Security Council] deliberations," said Gail Smith, a Clinton NSC official who did a review for the White House of the administration's handling of the Rwandan genocide. Smith is an Obama supporter.

As would ANYONE be who reviewed the Clinton Administration's Rwanda policy. They did NOTHING to help the Rwandan people. Nearly a million died while they dithered over whether or not to call it genocide in an infamous Dee Dee Meyers press conference. Bill Clinton has since apologized for his inaction but not in any meaningful way. If this were a hard-nosed campaign, the response to the 3AM ad would be a room full of Tutsi skulls. That was how that crisis was handled in 1994, and it was the ultimate "red phone" moment. Hillary can either associate herself with that horrific and stomach-turning policy to justify her national security credentials, or she can come clean with the fact that she was a first lady doing first lady things abroad. She did not win the peace in Northern Ireland. That's nutty.

And all of this would come out in a general election. She needs to stop this foolishness that there's a magic national security threshold that you have to cross to be President. If that were true practically everyone who has been President would be disqualified. In addition to her.

The President Of The United States Of America

He's on his latest "Innocent Abroad" trip in Africa, and first there's this unbelievable quote:

GOLER: The president says it's better that African nations deal with African problems. White soldiers in Darfur, he believes, would be targets for all sides.

BUSH: A clear lesson I learned in the museum was that outside forces tend to divide people up inside their country and are unbelievably counterproductive.

He said this after coming out of the Rwandan genocide museum. Now, there's a somewhat credible explanation, that the Belgian imperialists set the Hutus against the Tutsis and indirectly caused what occurred in 1994. But should GEORGE BUSH be talking about how outside forces are counterproductive?

Then there's this unbelievable exchange from Liberia, where Bush is given a medal and then, seriously, breaks the medal.

It really makes you want to hide inside a box or something.

The Great Rationalizer

This BBC interview with George W. Bush is truly amazing. He should put it on display at his future Presidential library (where it can stand in for all the missing books). The logical contortions that this guy has to make just to go on living are truly remarkable. It's like watching a yoga master twist himself into a knot. Here's Bushie on Darfur:

Frei: You were very tough in your speech about Darfur. And, yet again, you called what's happening there genocide?

Mr Bush: Yeah.

Frei: Is enough being done by your administration to stop that?

Mr Bush: I think we are. Yeah. You know, I had to make a seminal decision. And that is whether or not I would commit US troops into Darfur. And I was pretty well backed off of it by - you know, a lot of folks - here in America that care deeply about the issue. And so, once you make that decision, then you have to rely upon an international organisation like the United Nations to provide the oomph - necessary manpower...

Frei: Yesterday, Steven Spielberg - the Hollywood director - pulled out of the Beijing Olympics over Darfur. He said the Chinese aren't doing enough to stop the killing in Darfur. Do you applaud his move?

Mr Bush: That's up to him. I'm going to the Olympics. I view the Olympics as a sporting event. On the other hand, I have a little different platform than Steven Spielberg so, I get to talk to President Hu Jintao. And I do remind him that he can do more to relieve the suffering in Darfur. There's a lot of issues that I suspect people are gonna, you know, opine, about during the Olympics. I mean, you got the Dali Lama crowd. You've got global warming folks. You've got, you know, Darfur and... I am not gonna you know, go and use the Olympics as an opportunity to express my opinions to the Chinese people in a public way 'cause I do it all the time with the president. I mean. So, people are gonna be able to choose - pick and choose how they view the Olympics.

On sleeping well:

Frei: I mention the genocide thing also because your predecessor, President Clinton, says that the one thing - one of the key things that keeps him up at night is that he didn't do enough over at Rwanda to stop the killing there. Is it possible that Darfur might become your Rwanda?

Mr Bush: I don't think so. I certainly hope not. I mean, Rwanda was, you know, I think 900,000 people in a very quick period of time of just wholesale slaughter. And I, you know, I appreciate President Clinton's compassion and concern. And, you know, I'm comfortable with making' a decision that I think is the best decision. And comfortable with the notion that once that decision is made we're keeping the world's focus as best as we can on that amongst other issues.

On Iraq:

Frei: But, do you regret, rather, I should say that you didn't listen to your - some of your commanders earlier, to send more troops to Iraq to achieve the kind of results that we're seeing now?

Mr Bush: You know, my commanders didn't tell me that early. My commanders said, "We got the right level of troops."

On torture:

Frei: But, given Guantanamo Bay, given also Abu Ghraib, given renditions, does this not send the wrong signal to the world?

Mr Bush: It should send a signal that America is going to respect law. But, it's gonna take actions necessary to protect ourselves and find information that may protect others. Unless, of course, people say, "Well, there's no threat. They're just making up the threat. These people aren't problematic." But, I don't see how you can say that in Great Britain after people came and, you know, blew up bombs in subways. I suspect the families of those victims are - understand the nature of killers. And, so, what people gotta understand is that we'll make decisions based upon law. We're a nation of law [...]

Frei: Can you honestly say, Mr President, that today America still occupies the moral high ground?

Mr Bush: Absolutely - absolutely. We believe in human rights and human dignity. We believe in the human condition. We believe in freedom. And we're willing to take the lead.

I mean, those are some world-class justifications there. Olympic level, actually. There oughta be an event.

UPDATE: Here's another rationalization - good news, we haven't waterboarded in the fashion of the Spanish during the Inquisition or the Japanese in World War II, but only in the fashion of the Khmer Rouge or the French in Algeria! I feel so much better about my country!

World Report

I've got a lot of international stories that probably aren't worth a full post, so here goes:

• Opium: it's not just for Afghanistan anymore.

The cultivation of opium poppies whose product is turned into heroin is spreading rapidly across Iraq as farmers find they can no longer make a living through growing traditional crops.

Afghan with experience in planting poppies have been helping farmers switch to producing opium in fertile parts of Diyala province, once famous for its oranges and pomegranates, north- east of Baghdad.

Failed states eventually become narco-states. It's a fact of life. And the real question is whether or not this money is flowing, like to the Taliban in Afghanistan, to insurgent and anti-government forces.

• By the way, Pakistan is a complete mess. A fort in Waziristan has been overrun by Islamists, and the intelligence service has lost control of the key elements of the militant networks there. At the same time, the United States is slowly creeping forward with a greater military role inside the country, leading us into yet another untenable conflict.

• In Kenya, amidst credible evidence that the election was rigged, the resulting unrest has once again turned violent, with riot police using live ammo and killing protestors. The anti-government forces are now looking to economic boycotts and other peaceful protests to make themselves heard. What is very worrisome is the continued tribal violence, which is not limited to Kenya inside the region. Just next door in Rwanda, the ideology of genocide is still being taught in schools.

• Nicolas Sarkozy is no longer the darling of the right, I'd gather, after the fairly trashy saga of marrying an ex-model months after a messy divorce, after his ex-wife called him "a man who likes no-one, not even his children." Of course, the Republicans are the party of Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Henry Hyde, Bob Livingston... so maybe it's not a big deal.

• The fallout from President Bush's "Ignorant Abroad" act through the Middle East is just starting to be felt. After a right-wing faction pulled out of Ehud Olmert's government because of the slightest hint of peace talks with the Palestinians, Olmert put his hawkish hat on.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert vowed on Thursday to wage a "war" to stop Gaza militants firing rockets into Israel, despite warnings by Palestinian leaders that Israeli military strikes would harm peacemaking.

"A war is going on in the south, every day, every night," Olmert said in a speech.

"We cannot and will not tolerate this unceasing fire at Israeli citizens ... so we will continue to operate, with wisdom and daring, with the maximum precision that will enable us to hit those who want to attack us," Olmert said, minutes after the air strike.

Israel has a right to defend themselves, but it seems to me that the immediate fallout from Bush's visit was a break away from peace and talk of war.

• Elsewhere, the Ignorant Abroad talked about freedom and democracy in Saudi Arabia while not meeting any democracy activists or dissidents, claimed that Egypt is moving toward political reform when he has done nothing of the sort, and basically spent his trip lavishing gifts on the Gulf states in the hopes that they would raise production of oil. And by the way, got no concession for his efforts. So, lies, incompetence, and failure. Just like at home!

Hutu Power

Rush Limbaugh compares liberals to cockroaches. That's exactly what RTLM did in Rwanda to demonize Tutsis prior to the genocide. I mean EXACTLY.

Second, Rwandan hate radio sought to demonize and “dehumanize” Tutsis in order to create the impression that killing Tutsis was not akin to killing other humans, thus making the act somehow more acceptable and easier to carry out. RTLM broadcasters frequently referred to RPF soldiers as inyenzi, literally meaning “cockroaches,” and tried to spread the myth that Tutsis were inhuman in their thirst for blood, urging listeners to “understand that the cruelty of the inyenzi is incurable, the cruelty of the inyenzi can be cured only by their total extermination.”

But you know, Michael Moore is fat and bloggers say mean things on the Internets.