Uncategorized

Hillary Clinton and the U.N. (Then and Now)

By Michael Crowley | @CrowleyTIME | March 16, 2011 | +

More from Clinton’s CNN interview today, on the question of a no-fly zone over Libya:

“We don’t want any ambiguity,” she said. “Only the Security Council can authorize action, and if they do authorize action, there needs to be a true international response, including Arab leadership and partnership.”

And here she was in February of 2008, as a presidential candidate, defending her vote against Democratic Senator Carl Levin’s amendment to the Senate’s 2002 Iraq war resolution:

“I have the greatest respect for my friend and colleague, Senator Levin,” she said. “The way that amendment was drafted suggested that the United States would subordinate whatever our judgment might be going forward to the United Nations Security Council. I don’t think that was a good precedent. Therefore, I voted against it.”

It seems that Clinton’s thinking has evolved, or she’s playing the good soldier for her president–or maybe a little of both.

Related Topics: Uncategorized

  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / White House
    Gay Marriage May 24, 2012

    Obama’s Persuasive Powers on Gay Marriage Manifest in Maryland

    When President Obama endorsed gay marriage earlier this month, the media grappled with two basic political questions: Was his personal “evolution” a case of  a politician transparently following a national trend toward accepting same-sex unions (accelerated, perhaps, by his chatty number two), and would it hurt his re-election chances by alienating socially conservative voters like black churchgoers? Sure, there was a recognition that it marked a gratifying moment for gay marriage advocates—as well as some grumbling about the President’s view that it remains a state issue, not a federal one. But by and large, there were few suggestions that one man, even the President, would shift public opinion on the issue or affect public policy. Based on a new Public Policy Polling survey out of Maryland, it seems this possibility was underestimated.

    From our Partners

    Lewis Eisenberg, Major Romney Donor, Accuses Obama Of Demonizing Wall StreetHuffPost Politics

    2012 Election May 24, 2012

    Cherokee Zero

    Apparently, Massachusetts voters don’t mind that Elizabeth Warren foolishly identified herself as a Native American early in her academic career–it was, apparently, a case of family pride and wishful thinking about a Cherokee ancestor. That’s good. Warren may be the best public figure when it comes to explaining the depredations of the financial industry and [...]

  • http://shortplaysaboutrealpeople.wordpress.com Michael Maiello

    Or she’s talking about two entirely different things, in two entirely different circumstances. Which is, you know… what’s going on there.

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    Don’t be so obtuse. If you want military engagment, you invoke sovereignty. If you don’t want military engagement, you invoke the UN. Since when is there a requirement to be consistent?

  • newfreedomblog

    “Since when is there a requirement to be consistent?”

    .
    Since Democrats have seized control of Washington?

  • http://shortplaysaboutrealpeople.wordpress.com Michael Maiello

    Paul, we’re also talking a difference of 9 years and two very different issues. Isn’t 9 years a bit long a time frame for this kind of gotcha game?

  • afguy

    I’m with Paul on this…
    .
    I’d really like to see some consistency (especially of the moral kind) out of our diplomats and politicians. We’re embarrassing ourselves… and the situation has been of our own making for the past 60 years.
    .
    The time frame has little to do with it. It’s precisely that type of moral and temporal “relativism” that now has us the laughing stock of the ME, diplomatically.
    .
    We HOPE people forget what we said the last time a similar situation arose. The problem is… they tend to remember and expect us to be, if not totally consistent, at least enough so that we don’t motivate other countries to ridicule us openly, whenever we try to lecture them on human rights, for example.

  • square1

    It is easy to be cynical, but it is equally easy to distinguish between the two situations.

    Speaking as an opponent of intervention in Iraq, and as someone who has nothing but contempt for those who were bamboozled into voting for the AUMF, I can still acknowledge that there remains a distinction between taking military action ostensibly for self-defense and taking military action for humanitarian reasons.

    In the former case, I can accept why one wouldn’t want to require the proverbial “permission slip” from the UN SC before taking action. If the U.S. genuinely faces an imminent threat — which Iraq clearly didn’t pose — then there is no reason why China or Russia should be able to veto defensive actions.

    OTOH, the harm faced by the people of Libya does not present an existential crisis for the U.S. It only makes sense to obtain some measure of international consensus before acting. The only alternative is to give every country the power declare any military action to be “humanitarian” in nature, including, e.g., Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait.

  • square1

    My above comment aside, one thing this administration has mastered is the art of finding a scapegoat for inaction.

  • formerlyjames

    We will support and follow the UN when it is convenient. Unless we are running for office. Then we will consider all of the implications. We will agree with the world community, except when we don’t. Always, however, our agents abroad have a license to kill, and we will pay big bucks for that. Our great democracy and freedom end when it comes to our great CIA and foreign policy establishment. It only makes sense. To us. We are only doing our best, within our established order, to improve the world. No need for thanks, it’s our job.

  • Paul-no not that one

    So no one else noticed that the first link goes to Calabresi’s post below (which doesn’t include the no fly zone quote) and the second link defending her vote gets an “Error-Page Not Found”?
    .
    Not that readers expect context but if you include a link…

  • http://elvisberg.wordpress.com Elvis Elvisberg

    Ugh, how silly this is.
    -
    First off, she’s in a wildly different role.
    -
    Second off, invading Iraq was sold (without justification, we all know now) as a as a defensive matter. No one is saying that about Libya. And that matters a great deal, legally & politically, as to a UNSC resolution.
    -
    Third off, this kind of drive-by, no-context “flip flop” claim serves to enhance cynicism without the benefit of insight.

  • Paul-no not that one

    “(T)his kind of drive-by, no-context “flip flop” claim serves to enhance cynicism without the benefit of insight.”
    .
    You can take the boy out of The New Republic.

  • formerlyjames

    Yes. Insight. Who could have known. Especially in the middle of the Iraq attack lead up. There were a few, but they weren’t heard during the mayhem. Sorry, but HC’s past positions and prevarication are not forgivable with me. Her only redemption is that she is not alone in that clique. There is a large membership of such well educated, presumably competent, idiots.

  • square1

    Sorry, but HC’s past positions and prevarication are not forgivable with me.
    .
    I don’t forgive HRC for her vote. But that isn’t relevant here.
    .
    The operative question is whether it is logically inconsistent to require international approval before engaging in a “humanitarian” military action to stop a despot from killing his own citizens while not requiring international approval before engaging in military action to stop a despot from threatening the U.S. (leaving aside for the moment whether Iraq met the criteria.)
    .
    Those aren’t inconsistent positions.

  • formerlyjames

    square1, short answer to your question categorizing consistency of types of military action: Yes.

blog comments powered by Disqus