Hillary Clinton’s Unapologetically Hawkish Record Faces 2016 Test

Burned by Iraq in 2008, but still a strong voice for military action

  • Share
  • Read Later
Win McNamee / Getty Images

Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivers remarks after being presented the 2013 Tom Lantos Human Rights Prize Dec. 6, 2013 in Washington, DC.

Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates’s new memoir hasn’t been a welcome development for Hillary Clinton. In one of the book’s most quoted passages, Gates writes that he witnessed Clinton make a startling confession to Barack Obama: she had opposed George W. Bush‘s last-ditch effort to salvage the Iraq war, the 2007 troop “surge,” because the politics of the 2008 Democratic primaries demanded it.

Clinton’s critics were quick to celebrate the new evidence of the former Secretary of State’s expedience. Clinton, hissed a statement from the conservative Stop Hillary PAC, “will do anything, including mislead the country by putting her political ambitions ahead of the safety of Americans at home and abroad.”

Whatever the truth of that surge anecdote—Clinton’s camp won’t comment on it—the larger truth is impossible to deny. Clinton has demonstrated a well-documented willingness to use American military power overseas. Gates’ book is just the latest evidence, along with previous reporting and original interviews with current and former Obama officials, of the strikingly hawkish voice Clinton offered during Obama Situation Room debates.

(MORE: The Real Reason Hillary Rented Her Email List: To Get It Back)

As Secretary of State, Clinton backed a bold escalation of the Afghanistan war. She pressed Obama to arm the Syrian rebels, and later endorsed air strikes against the Assad regime. She backed intervention in Libya, and her State Department helped enable Obama’s expansion of lethal drone strikes. In fact, Clinton may have been the administration’s most reliable advocate for military action. On at least three crucial issues—Afghanistan, Libya, and the bin Laden raid—Clinton took a more aggressive line than Gates, a Bush-appointed Republican.

Former administration officials also tell TIME that Clinton was an advocate for maintaining a residual troop force after the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq—an issue of renewed interest given al Qaeda’s resurgence there. They also describe her as skeptical of diplomacy with Iran, and firmly opposed to talk of a “containment” policy that would be an alternative to military action should negotiations with Tehran fail.

Recent comparisons of Secretary of State John Kerry’s frenetic globe-trotting to Clinton’s arguably modest diplomatic achievements have tended to overlook this less visible aspect of her tenure. But no assessment of her time in Obama’s administration would be complete without noting the way Clinton hewed to the liberal hawk philosophy she adopted during her husband’s presidency in the 1990s, and which contributed, less happily, to her 2002 vote to authorize force against Iraq. “The Democratic party has two wings—a pacifist wing and a Scoop Jackson wing. And I think she is clearly in the Scoop Jackson wing,” says former Democratic Congresswoman Jane Harman, now director of the Wilson Center. (Jackson, a Cold War-era Democratic Senator from Washington state, mixed progressive domestic politics with staunch anti-communism, support for a strong military, and backing for the Vietnam War.)

Clinton’s allies resist the word “hawk,” and say a focus on military power doesn’t do justice to her fuller record. “You can’t really pigeonhole her,” says Clinton’s press secretary, Nick Merrill. “She was pragmatic, and wasn’t afraid to use the tools in our proverbial toolbox, as long as it was part of a larger strategy. Her approach was always that diplomacy, development and defense were only effective if used together.”

(VIDEO: Clinton vs. Kerry: Who’s a Better Secretary Of State?)

But potential 2016 opponents may not acknowledge such nuances—particularly given the way the country has grown ever-more wary of foreign entanglements. Consider the recent record:

1. Iraq Clinton paid a political price in the 2008 campaign for warning that a hasty exit from Iraq might be dangerous. But she stayed true to that view once inside Obama’s administration. As Obama began withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, Clinton supported an effort to leave behind several thousands soldiers for training, advisory and counter-terror missions, says James Jeffrey, who was the U.S. ambassador to Baghdad at the time. Jeffrey says Clinton sided with military officials urging a larger troop presence than the roughly 3,000 favored by some White House officials eager to bring the Iraq era to an end—including some who didn’t want to leave any troops in the country.

“Hillary Clinton was a very strong supporter of a residual troop presence and effectively backed my and the military’s views several times with others in the administration,” says Jeffrey. “At times when I felt I was being pushed around at levels below the President and Biden, she was a good person to go fix it,” Jeffrey adds. Obama wound up trying to secure an agreement with the Iraqi government for a modest residual force. But in the end, Jeffrey says, Iraqi politics would not allow for such an agreement on terms acceptable to the U.S., and no troops remained after December 2011.

2. Afghanistan After the top U.S. commander in Kabul, General Stanley McChrystal, asked Obama for another 40,000 more troops to fight the Taliban in mid-2009, several top officials—including Vice President Joe Biden—resisted, arguing in part that the public had lost patience with the conflict.

Clinton sided with the generals, and “strongly supported McChrystal’s approach,” Gates writes. He adds that Clinton actually wound up favoring slightly more surge troops than he did. Obama ultimately sent another 30,000 more American soldiers to Afghanistan. (A former Clinton State Department official says the focus on troop levels alone oversimplifies her position, which included a “civilian surge” to promote development, and the diplomatic efforts of her Afghanistan-Pakistan point man, Richard Holbrooke.)

When a White House debate later flared over when to bring the surge troops home, Clinton stood firm again. “Clinton argued forcefully that withdrawing the surge [before the end of 2012] would signal we were abandoning Afghanistan,” Gates writes. The troops departed in September 2012.

(VIDEO: Potential Rival Takes Shot At Hillary Clinton’s Iraq Vote)

3. Libya The political grief Clinton has suffered over the September 11, 2012 attack on a U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya, comes with an ironic twist: the tragic episode might never occurred had Clinton not supported intervening in Libya’s civil war.

Gates bridled at getting mixed up in another Arab country, insisting that vital U.S. interests were not at stake. But as Muammar Gaddafi’s forces gained momentum and threatened to massacre innocents in early 2011, influential Obama advisors, including then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and national security aides Ben Rhodes and Samantha Power argued for air strikes. Even with public opinion running more than 2-1 against them, Clinton sided with the interventionists. “In the final phase of the internal debate,” Gates writes, “Hillary threw her considerable clout behind Rice, Rhodes and Power.”

That clout may have been decisive: Obama later told Gates that his decision to approve air strikes had been a 51-49 call. Had Clinton taken the other side, Obama might have, too. (For his part, Gates says he considered resigning over the issue.)

Libya is another example of Hillary’s belief in pairing diplomacy with force, says the former State Department official. “On Libya, what convinced her was being able to build a diplomatic coalition” that included the Arab League and the United Nations. “I don’t think you can separate those two things from each other.”

4. Syria Obama had no such appetite for intervening in Syria’s civil war, however, even as the country plunged into chaos in 2012. Clinton came to worry that the cost of inaction was outweighing the risk of intervention. So she teamed up with C.I.A. director David Petraeus to devise a plan to arm and train moderate rebel factions, which the two presented to Obama. The plan echoed the views of some leading Republicans, like John McCain and Lindsey Graham. But few in the White House agreed—including Obama, who rejected it.

Hillary never spoke publicly about the plan, although in June her husband urged Obama to be less cautious about Syria. “Some people say, ‘Okay, see what a big mess it is? Stay out!’ I think that’s a big mistake,” Bill Clinton said.

When Obama threatened air strikes last fall to punish the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons, Hillary Clinton did support him with a pair of public statements. She was apparently undaunted by polling that showed more than 70 percent of Americans opposed to military action.

(MORE: Team Hillary Seeks to Woo More Young Women in 2016)

5. Iran Clinton brought a hard-line background to the topic of Iran. In April 2008 she warned that the U.S. could “totally obliterate” Iran in retaliation for a nuclear attack on Israel—prompting Obama to chastise her for using “language that’s reflective of George Bush.”

In Obama administration debates about Tehran’s nuclear program, Clinton opposed talk of ‘containment,’ a policy option that plans for a world in which Iran possesses a nuclear weapon. Preparing for containment implies a decision not to use military force to prevent an Iranian bomb in the event that diplomacy fails.

“She was not a fan of containment, believing that it would not work,” says Dennis Ross, a former top Middle East policy staffer in the Obama White House.

Clinton does not share the view that diplomacy with Iran is hopeless, however. She was the first Obama official to suggest that Iran could maintain a domestic uranium enrichment program under an international nuclear deal. And one of her most trusted State Department aides, Jake Sullivan, conducted secret talks with the Iranians in Oman. “She was skeptical that diplomacy would work with the Iranians but absolutely convinced that we had to test the possibilities,” Ross adds.

6. Al Qaeda Though it looks like a no-brainer in hindsight, Obama’s national security team was not unanimous about the wisdom of the May 2011 Navy SEAL raid to kill Osama bin Laden. But while Gates and Biden opposed the operation, Clinton was for it—as she has boasted since leaving office. And while some observers wondered if the liberal background of her hand-picked State Department legal advisor, Harold Koh, might produce new restrictions on lethal drone strikes, Koh instead devised legal reasoning that supported Obama’s aggressively expanded drone campaign.

If Clinton runs for president in 2016, she’s likely to emphasize the more dovish aspects of her record—including her public diplomacy to repair America’s international image, her focus on building ties in Asia, and her attention to women’s rights and development issues.

But at a time when fewer Americans support an active U.S. role in foreign affairs, Clinton’s comfort with the harder side of American power could be a vulnerability. A liberal primary challenger might well reprise Barack Obama’s 2007 line that Hillary’s record amounts to “Bush-Cheney lite.” One potential contender, Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer, has already been zinging her over her 2002 Iraq vote. “When George Bush got a bunch of [Democrats] to vote for that war, I was just shaking my head in Montana,” he said recently. Whether such attacks will hold even a fraction of the valence they did at the Iraq war’s peak remains to be seen.

And in a scenario that would have seemed absurd  in 2008, Clinton might even wind up defending her left flank against a Republican general election opponent. At a moment of rising isolationism in both parties, a GOP nominee could bash Clinton for defying public opinion on Afghanistan, Syria and Libya. Even a relative GOP centrist like Marco Rubio opposed Obama’s planned air strikes against Syria.

Such a dynamic could scramble American politics in surprising ways. In August, the New Republic asked John McCain whom he would support in a matchup between Clinton and the Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, a fulsome critic of American military interventions. “Tough choice,” McCain replied.

70 comments
LaDa
LaDa

There is a rapidly approaching Israeli Civil War - with Lapid, Hillary, and the post-Bill Kristol AIPAC enucleating the Judeofascist infiltrators into Palestine -- but it can only be avoided by one last critical coordination between Hillary and Netanyahu...

SNAP! It's WAY too late

You KNOW there is no way and STILL you hope. Abandon all hope, you're on the way to the ICC in Sept to be condemned as an Apartheid state - and that's when Hillary and the New AIPAC Splinter group LOSES America and the indicted AIPAC forced to register as an agent of an unfriendly foreign government and then declared ILLEGAL

Look at the bright side, Hillary! - Hillary's new book - 'Why I became an Israeli Shill in order to Win the American Presidency' will be a bestseller

KACHING !

Tom Friedman, David Brooks, and Mort Zuckerman will be envious at how much money you made off this book, and will kick themselves for not writing it themselves

bgamall
bgamall

She is disgusting, but the Republicans are even more hawkish.

WallyLind
WallyLind

Luckily the choice between Clinton and Paul is not possible. The hard right cannot get a candidate nominated in the GOP, they look too much like crackpots. We will have a more moderate nominee like Christie or Rubio or possibly Ryan, none of whom have the negative image of Mrs Clinton.  I think it is unlikely, but not impossible for her to win, but it is definitely not a good time, for the sake of the country.

Tiger-Pi
Tiger-Pi

Talking from hindsight, many of the decisions taken by Obama, backed by Hilary Clinton and the US military, have actually helped the US notwithstanding the  criticism by Gates and company.  The  insistence of Hilary to have a bigger troop reserve complement during the evacuation from Iraq  would have prevented the present crisis where the Al-Qaeda have become a menace once again. The decision on Syria was to prevent the Assad regime from  wiping out its own people and ultimately the US -Russian pressure did lead to the removal of the regime's chemical arsenal.  the hard line on Iran has worked as it has brought them to the discussion table on nuclear matters.  Libya was a bomb about to go off and there was no way the US or other nations could have avoided taking sides as the 'Arab Spring' had blown off the top off these restrictive African regimes. As for the removal of Osama bin -Laden , the Pakistani military [ISI] must have  facilitated it as a 'sacrifice' to further their own ends.  But  the elimination of the arch terrorist has weakened the Al-Qaeda to a great extent and had  been welcomed by almost everyone (except  hard boiled  anarchists). I wonder if just  being the POTUS  had prevented Obama one from being tough on issues that     strongly affect  US interests abroad as he has to watch out for the daggers drawn up by his detractors in the US Congress and Senate.     

Tiger-Pi
Tiger-Pi

Talking from hindsight, many of the decisions taken by Obama, backed by Hilary Clinton and the US military, have actually helped the US notwithstanding the  criticism by Gates and company.  The  insistence of Hilary to have a bigger troop reerve complement during the evacuation from Iraq  would have prevented the present crisis where the Al-queda have become a menace once again. The decision on Syria was to prevent the Assad regime from  wiping out its own people and ultimately the US -Russian pressure did lead to the removal of the regime's chemical arsenal.  the hard line on Iran has worked as it has brought them to the discussion table on nuclear matters.  Libya was a bomb about to go off and there was no way the US or other nations could have avoided taking sides as the 'Arab Spring' had blown off the top off these restrictive African regimes. As for the removal of Osama bin -Laden , the Pakistani military [ISI] must have  facilitated it as a 'sacrifice' to further their own ends.  But  the elimination of the arch terrorist has weakened the Al-Queda to a great extent and had  been welcomed by almost everyone (except  hard boiled  anarchists). I wonder if just  being the POTUS  had prevented Obama one from being tough on issues that     strongly affect  US interests abroad as he has to watch out for the daggers drawn up by his detrators in the US Congress and Senate.                                                                    

LesLegato
LesLegato

HRC supported the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt, the MB and AQ in Libya and Syria and had a MB agent as her chief of staff.

She also built up the jihadistinians at the expense of Israel and laid the groundwork for Obama's and Kerry's appeasement of Iran's nuclear program.

She was also involved will her husband selling US missile tech to China exchange for campaign donations.

The woman belongs in orange PJs not the WH.

profwatson
profwatson

Clinton is a Republican. She was on Wall Mart's Board of Directors and opposed unionization. She was raised a Republican and only converted to being a Democrat for her own ambitions.

MikhailKryzhanovsky1
MikhailKryzhanovsky1

HILLARY CLINTON - MIKHAIL KRYZHANOVSKY 2016
SHE WORKED FOR KGB AND  WE CAN BUILD COMMUNISM TOGETHER


 In 1995, I, a former KGB spy , was recruited by CIA. I had  to spy on the White House and the United States Congress. More important - Bill Clinton was a target and we were discussing his "neutralization" - I hope, you understand perfectly well what is this. In 2001 I've asked Senator Hillary Clinton for help. I refused to cooperate with CIA and had big problems. She said "no"  and  I had to blackmail her saying that I've saved her husband's life refusing to work for CIA. Finally, she helped me to fight CIA on my side.
Gallup poll released on December 30, 2013 : Clinton earned the top spot among most admired women for the 12th consecutive year and 18th time overall, more than any other woman in the poll's history. That's good for  us. She'll announce her decision to run in November, 2014, after the midterm congressional elections - Democrats will still hold the Senate.
 I'm ready to join her 2016 presidential campaign and build communism in America.
Mikhail Kryzhanovsky,
a former KGB and CIA "Filament",
the author of the White House Special Handbook (KGB instructions for Bill Clinton, used now by Obama)
http://i.imgur.com/zfDPsPt.png

SpikeLee
SpikeLee

TIME magazine and Swampland have consistently been pro-war, so I imagine that they'll try spin any and every plausible candidate as supporting whatever war they try and sell us next.

JerseyGirlB
JerseyGirlB

After several members of Chris Christie's staff blamed an "insensitive" YouTube video for the George Washington bridge closing this afternoon, Hillary Clinton took umbrage, calling Chris Matthew's show on MSNBC and condemning the story. http://bit.ly/1hnmvab

renfieldc
renfieldc

Hillary is the ideal choice to be the next President. With all post WWII Presidents enjoying their Wars, even Obama, Hillary fits the bill for a successful continuation of the Industry.

JTShroyer
JTShroyer

Benghazi Facts Republicans Ignore: 

1. Over 50 people died from embassy/consulate attacks under George Bush’s Presidency. Where was the Republican outrage over that?
2. The nonpartisan Accountability Review Board did not find Hillary Rodham Clinton responsible for the Benghazi attacks.3. Republicans cut millions and millions of dollars in “embassy security.” Cuts that Hillary Clinton called “detrimental” to our security overseas. 
4. The Obama Administration did not “cover-up” the Benghazi attacks. Counterterrorism Director Matthew Olsen told Senator Joe Lieberman that Benghazi was a “terrorist attack”. This was only a few days after Susan Rice went on the Sunday morning talk-shows. Therefore, this would have to be the shortest “cover-up” in history.

Senator Joe Lieberman: “Let me begin by asking you whether you would say that Ambassador Stevens and the three other Americans died as a result of a terrorist attack.”
Counterterrorism Director Matthew Olsen: “Certainly on that particular question I would say, yes. They were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy.” 
5. Hillary’s quote, "What difference, at this point, does it make" has been taken out of context. Hillary was referring to the Republican’s obsession with what Susan Rice said, not Benghazi itself. We now know the intelligence communities talking points that Susan Rice presented were incorrect. But to accuse the Administration of intentionally lying (when Counterterrorism Director Matthew Olsen called it a “terrorist attack” only a few days after Susan Rice went on the Sunday morning talk shows) is dishonest.6. The reason the YouTube video was cited as a possible reason for Benghazi is because violent protests had been erupting throughout the Middle East when Benghazi took place. Some of the protests had to do with the YouTube video, which is why it was originally thought Benghazi was also related to the YouTube video. Now, the NYTimes is reporting that the video *DID* have to do with Benghazi. 

gumOnShoe
gumOnShoe

I'd vote for her over any Republican, but I'd vote for any Liberal over her at this point.

ReneDemonteverde
ReneDemonteverde

Keep up the boosting, Time. One thing and one thing stands alone. Gates revelations of her comment with Obama shows a deceitful woman that cannot be trusted to handle this nations`s defense. Benghazi will be an albatross on her neck. She is a miserable failure as Sec of State. If not for Bill Clinton doubtful if we even hear of her.

jmac
jmac

She's a hawk!  No doubt about it.  If Democrats want to throw away her lifetime of fighting for Democratic policies (she's no Blue- Dog- Obama on most issues) because she's as hawkish as Jane Harman - then so be it.   They can vote accordingly.  


She wanted to go after Bin Ladin.  Gates didn't.  Biden didn't.  We got the guy who hit us on 9/11.   Kudos to the pacifist Obama and the hawk Hillary.   

TucsonTerpFan
TucsonTerpFan

And nobody can forget Hillary dodging all those bullets as her plane landed, and she had to disembark under heavy "enemy" fire!  She's not only a "hawk"; at times, she's a little "cuckoo."

formerlyjames
formerlyjames

That Scoop Jackson tag implies connection to the worst of the W. Bush neocons.  Wolfowitz, Perle, Abrams, Feith.  I doubt that even a  Republican candidate would want to be associated with that. 

sacredh
sacredh

President Clinton. It has a nice ring to it.

Sibir_Russia
Sibir_Russia

There is no evidence that Osama Ben Ladenkilled in may 2011, in addition to this photo where Hillary Clinton first time exclaimed his famous "Wow!".

columbare1
columbare1

I am against political dynasties ,just because your father, or husband ,or brother ,was President in no way qualifies a relative to have what it takes.   And having seen Bush Jr. and his momentous hubris and mistakes only makes me more certain that I want no more family dynasties in office.

NikatoMuirhead
NikatoMuirhead

It is hard to trust anything Mr. Gates says. His statements are unverified and libelous.  The only one benefitting is himself and his book sales. If other former Obama administration officials come forward and verify then Mr. Gates words may be trusted. 

obummer
obummer

Having a leader who would go to war to protect us, and freedom.  Time makes that sound scary, now that's what is scary!

jmac
jmac

@JerseyGirlB I bet you Christie's not laughing at your 'satire'.   More subpoenas on the way.  Redacted emails unredacted.  Federal investigation.   It is to laugh.  

Whatanotion
Whatanotion

@renfieldc Wow.  Rarely does so much get said with so little.  Sadly I totally understood you.

ReneDemonteverde
ReneDemonteverde

@jmac Time to wake up Jmac. And smell the coffee. You are up to your delusional dreams again.

ReneDemonteverde
ReneDemonteverde

@TucsonTerpFan Running down the runway with firing back with an M 16 and Chelsea behind her.  Who could forget her. You hear that Jmac. 

tommyudo
tommyudo

@columbare1 


You are correct, just because a relative was POTUS doesn't mean the next person has what it takes to assume that office. I have no love for a corporate shill like Hillary, and I may even sit on my hands on voting day if she is the nominee. However, I don't doubt her intelligence and would never lump her togrether with Bush two , who is a certified moron, as well as a war criminal.

manslagt
manslagt

@NikatoMuirheadIf they are libelous, we would see lawsuits. Given that Gates has written about Obma, Hillary, and Biden, all of whom are confirmed to be pathological liars, I have to side with Gates.

ReneDemonteverde
ReneDemonteverde

@NikatoMuirhead Statements are unverified and libelouw. But you never heard Obama said no, I did not say that or no did not happen.

PaulDirks
PaulDirks

@obummer Scary? How about stupid?


In case you haven't noticed, the only actual threats to the USA don't even have armies.



jmac
jmac

@ReneDemonteverde @TucsonTerpFan If the incident happened (she's been backed up on that one) but she had the timeline wrong and you want to skewer her - be my guest.  

TucsonTerpFan
TucsonTerpFan

@ReneDemonteverde@TucsonTerpFan HBO in conjunction with MSNBC and "Bill Maher Productions" are already developing a movie about this "event" scheduled to be released just before the 2016 election.   Rumor has it that Reese Witherspoon will star as Hillary.  Search continues for an actor to play Chelsea, but unconfirmed Hollywood sources do say that Chris Hayes may be in the running! 

ReneDemonteverde
ReneDemonteverde

@tommyudo @columbare1 Got proof of her intelligence ? No, Benghazi does not count. As Charles Krauthammer dares his co panelists. Name me one of Hillary positive achievement. Just one.

jmac
jmac

@ReneDemonteverde  Bush six months after 9/ll:   I just really don't want to spend that much time on him (bin Ladin) to be honest with you. 


  In 2006,  Weekly Standard editor Barnes told Hannity that in a recent meeting with Bush, "bin Laden doesn't fit with the administration's strategy for combating terrorism."   He wanted to fight terrorism by going after a petty dictator who had nothing to do with 9/11 so he could kick some butt.   I'll give him credit for finding Saddam in a hidey hole.  


jmac
jmac

@ReneDemonteverde @jmac Bush abandoned bin Ladin at Toro Boro to invade Iraq - a country that did nothing to us on 9/11.  


Facts are facts.   And Bush has Saddam's gun in his library to prove it.   He wasn't interest in al Qaeda and he made that clear from week one and the day after 9/11 when he told his terrorist tsar to tell him Saddam did it.  He had laser-like vision on one thing - Saddam.  Certainly not bin Ladin.  

ReneDemonteverde
ReneDemonteverde

@jmac @ReneDemonteverde bin Laden was captured after years of searching. It was Bush who set up the the search system by offering rewards and constant monitoring with the help of the Pakistani intelligence. Obama was at the right time and the right place when he approved the go signal to capture bin Laden. Dont be greedy with the credit. Share some with those who made it possible.  Although it is true that Obama tried to abort the mission three times upon advice of Jarrett but Hillary forced his hand. 

TucsonTerpFan
TucsonTerpFan

@jmac@TucsonTerpFan

It's obvious that you don't want to face the truth that is clearly displayed above in the previous quotes and links; and facts that are supported by Hillary Clinton's own words and the various videos.. 

There's no need to continue this "non-discussion" because "discussion is an exchange of knowledge; argument is an exchange of ignorance." 

You have presented no facts, no quotes, no links, only a reference to "[t]he military guy that was in the plane." 

Please, in addition to the facts of the case, your ignorance is also clearly displayed.


jmac
jmac

@TucsonTerpFan  The military guy that was in the plane with her confirmed her story - she had the place and date wrong.   That doesn't mean the incident didn't happen.  

TucsonTerpFan
TucsonTerpFan

@jmac@ReneDemonteverde@TucsonTerpFan


Nice try Jmac, but your post is a complete lie!


Washington Post fact checker:  http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/03/hillarys_balkan_adventures_par.html    (read the entire story at this link)

"Excerpt from the Post:"  "You can see CBS News footage of the arrival ceremony here. The footage shows Clinton walking calmly out of the back of the C-17 military transport plane that brought her from Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany."


From the UK Daily Mail:   http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-544633/Clinton-Video-contradicts-Hillarys-claim-ran-sniper-shots-Bosnia.html      (Read the entire story at this link)


"Excerpt from the story:   "The Bosnia goodwill trip had become a centrepiece of her foreign policy boasts. But last night, as the CBS video was posted on YouTube, the candidate was left squirming as she tried to play down the story, saying she "misspoke" in her speech last week."


(See the video of her plan landing and her disembarking)


http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/03/26/us-usa-politics-clinton-idUSN2540811420080326  (See the entire story at this link)

"Hillary Clinton calls Bosnia sniper story a mistake

“(Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said on Tuesday she made a mistake when she claimed she had come under sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia in 1996 while she was first lady.

In a speech in Washington and in several interviews last week Clinton described how she and her daughter, Chelsea, ran for cover under hostile fire shortly after her plane landed in Tuzla, Bosnia.

Several news outlets disputed the claim and a video of the trip, showed Clinton walking from the plane, accompanied by her daughter. They were greeted by a young girl in a small ceremony on the tarmac and there was no sign of tension or any danger.”

Sorry, Jmac, but your claim, like Hillary's initial claim, was untrue; at least, Hillary has now admitted it.  You're attempt at defense...at spin...is nothing but a lie!




ReneDemonteverde
ReneDemonteverde

@PaulDirks @ReneDemonteverde OK then libertarians. If. also traitorous librarians, then contrarians, and to finish it all groups with ians at end of their tags. That should keep you busy for a while.

PaulDirks
PaulDirks

@ReneDemonteverde @PaulDirks Either way, it's still wrong. Acting as if their fellow countrymen are 'the enemy' is precisely how the Tea party is managing to make an utter hash of things. If America stands for anything at all, it's that EVERYONE gets a voice in determining our future.