Clinton Says Obama Rash On Foreign Policy

Democratic Hopeful Suggests Rival Wavers Between Naive Mediation And Unilateral Action

(AP)  Hillary Rodham Clinton characterized rival Barack Obama on Monday as rash and inconsistent on foreign policy issues.

Shifting to foreign policy after two days of hammering the Illinois senator over their differences on health care, Clinton paired two of Obama's campaign statements to support her conclusion.

"He wavers from seeming to believe that mediation and meetings without preconditions can solve some of the world's most intractable problems to advocating rash, unilateral military action without the cooperation of our allies in the most sensitive part of the world," Clinton said in a speech at The George Washington University.

The former first lady has sharply criticized her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination for saying during a televised debate last summer that he would be willing as president to meet with the leaders of Cuba, Iran and other hostile nations without preconditions. He reiterated that willingness last week.

"We simply cannot legitimize rogue regimes or weaken American prestige by impulsively agreeing to presidential talks that have no preconditions," Clinton said. "It may sound good, but it doesn't meet the real world test of foreign policy."

Obama has also said he would be willing to send U.S. troops into Pakistan if there were "actionable intelligence" that the country is harboring terrorists.

Anticipating Clinton's criticism, Obama's foreign policy advisers held a conference call with reporters before she delivered her speech. Top Obama adviser Susan Rice said the New York senator had shown poor judgment on a range of issues, including voting to authorize the invasion of Iraq and supporting legislation declaring the Iranian National Guard as a terrorist organization.

"Those are critical foreign policy judgments. They are judgments that any candidate should be held accountable for. And obviously we look forward to Senator Clinton's explanation of how and why she got those critical judgments wrong," Rice said.

Hoping to slow Obama's surging candidacy before primaries in Texas and Ohio next week, Clinton painted a picture of a dangerous world in need of seasoned and wise U.S. leadership. She portrayed Obama as a national security novice and suggested he would need a "foreign policy instruction manual" to keep the country safe.

Once again, she compared her Democratic rival's foreign experience to that of President Bush upon taking office eight years ago.

Voters have already seen the "tragic result" of electing a commander in chief with little experience in national security and global affairs, she said. "We can't let that happen again. America has already taken that chance one time too many."

On a campaign trip for her through Ohio, her husband, former President Bill Clinton, urged undecideds among a crowd in Portsmouth to vote for her "if you believe that the fact of change is more important than the feeling of change."

Before her speech in Washington, Clinton was introduced by a group of distinguished military veterans who praised her work on international challenges in the Senate Armed Services Committee and as first lady during her husband's White House years.

"She's walked the walk in addition to talking the talk," said Togo West, who served as Army Secretary and Veterans Affairs Secretary during the Clinton administration.

As she has in the past, Clinton vowed as president to begin redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq within 60 days of taking office. She also pledged to address the global AIDS epidemic, work with other nations to reduce global warming, and tackle the challenges associated with the growth of China.

[taddles-2009]

"If she did such a terrible job in the first six years, explain how she was re-elected for another term. Think about it.

Posted by Future_Watch at 03:11 PM : Feb 26, 2008"


She ran against Guiliani in 2000 who had to withdraw late in the race due to medical and marital reasons and was replaced by a relative unknow rick Lazio. She won the election by 12%, hardly a landslide in the largely Dem NY. In 2006 she ran against a completely unknown John Spencer. In both races she ran against very weak Rep candidates. Even a fat old man like me can win a race against a guy with no legs.

[taddles-2009]

So Hillary slags on Obama for stating that if he intelligence he would attack Al Quida in Pakistan. My question is why didn''t she slag on Bush when he had missiles fired into Pakistan to kill a primary Al Quida leader last month...huh must not be such a stupid idea after all.

Guess Hillary doesn''t really know what you are supposed to do as Commander in Chief when faced with just such a situation.

[taddles-2009]

"I say McCain wins by substantial margin in general election. Probably by 10% in each state if not more...

Posted by teatea7 at 05:07 PM : Feb 26, 2008"

Uh huh...good luck with that.

[evillein1243]

WOW, poor judgement for naming Iranian National Guard a terrorist organization?? Yeah that''s really poor judgement since that''s what they are.....

[kansas1946]

I have another question about Mr. Obama. Why is it that he has abandoned the people of Illinois, who elected him to serve as their senator.
Posted by Future_Watch
***************************************

LOL. Well, aren''t people in Illinois Americans? It is not like he is running for president of Mexico. The Illinois people will still have him. Only they will have him as their president.

[wardoglrs]

If Americans Knew For god''s sake wakeup.

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/if-americans-knew-aipac-adl-zionist-control-of-america/2704972319

[boatdocster]

Future Watch

The first race was closer 55 to 47 percent; the second race she won in the high 60''s to a 37 % on the GOP side.

However, the GOP refused to support or fund their senate candidate in the second race. May have had an impact on the overall election numbers.

Her vote for the bogus Iraq war and agreeing to many Bush policies is still a deal breaker for me and many others.

[teatea7]

If Obama thinks the republicans that are voting for him now, are voting because they like him and his policies he is badly mistaken. So in the general, if you take away, 10% Republican support away from him, then another 47% of the democrats that voted for Hillary. I say McCain wins by substantial margin in general election. Probably by 10% in each state if not more, that is assuming that Hillary does not win the nomination. I believe she has to win in order for the democrat to be president.

[future_watch]

In NY, Hillary was elected by the majority of the state residents not once but twice. Nobody gave that to her, she earned it. I don''t care what a couple of posts here say. Facts are facts. If she did such a terrible job in the first six years, explain how she was re-elected for another term. Think about it.

[boatdocster]

Future_Watch

There have been quite a few posts here by folks from NY stating HRC has really done nothing for them as a Senator. Moved to a state at the last minute and ran for the Senate to get the Presidential race today. If 9/11 had not happened, I think HRC would have run against The Shrub in 2004, but knew that was a political time bomb after 9/11. HRC is more about her and less about the people.

Obama is moving quickly as well, but at least he is coming from the place he has lived in for the last 10 years or so, not just a place he moved to to get elected.

[future_watch]

Sorry, I apparently used a politically incorrect word. *** = gender.

[future_watch]

I am not quite sure how you define downtrodden mases, but it is clear to me that there is bias in the reporting of this election. And there is in fact statistical evidence that supports that women are still not paid equally or promoted equally. Why...because they are not viewed equally. There is all too often equal education, drive, and ambition, but not equal recognition. The old boys clubs aren''t gone yet. Source for income data by *** (and other classifications) is available from the US Census Web site. Wage comparisons are available at http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032007/perinc/new10_000.htm

Am I voting for Hillary because she is a woman?--not on your life. I am voting for her because she is the best person for the job. I am frustrated by the slanted news media.

[vet_sk]

Future_Watc: Seems as though you feel women are the downtrodden masses yearning to be free. I consider them equals, you should too. To vote for someone just because they are a man or a woman; back or white or Hispanic or anything else seems like a very poor idea.

Then FromMaine says that he does not have the experience in foriegn policy. But people like Colin Powell and Joe Biden are specifically supporting this foreign policy where we talk to our enemies. I am just totally stunned that anyone thinks that that is a bad idea. Can you tell me what that has accomplished us regarding Cuban relations over the last 40 plus years?

That is another reason I like Obama over Clinton but the main one is her Iraq vote. I knew it was bogus because the weapons inspectors were all over the tube telling us it was bogus. Iraq did not have WMDs.

So now who would you trust to sit on your jury if you were wrongly indicted? Indicted as a country; indicted as a person: Those are the decisions that Obama appears to be much better at. You don''t have to be able to parse the DNA in a lab yourself.

[jack3213]

Such hypocrisy in the minds of Democrats! ..the never satisfied generation of narrow minded people that live comfortably in the dark. Nothing is ever right according to a Democrat- first you want something -then you don''''t- and then you blame someone else as a first response when you change your mind. McCain is a far cry from the inexperiance in Obama and far cry from the lies of the Clintons. That is it folks, only one choice : Make it RIGHT.

[future_watch]

I have another question about Mr. Obama. Why is it that he has abandoned the people of Illinois, who elected him to serve as their senator, after only two years? Actually less if you consider the amount of time he has spent on the campaign trail. Hillary has been painted as conniving and self-serving for her aspirations, but what about Obama''s? That she has been depicted as calculating and manipulative for her path to this point in time when no one has questioned his promises to those who elected him to serve the state of Illinois is yet another example of gender bias. The underlying message is that men can chart a course to propel themselves forward, but women get condemned and disparaged. My feminist ethos is insulted by the double standard that seems to prevail.

[prinzowhales]

The Demopublican dogs are led by a man who calls our Constitution "just a God D---d piece of paper". The Patriot Act was passed by the Demopublican Congress-- EVEN THOUGH THEY DID NOT READ THE DOCUMENT!!

These Demopublican dogs support the North American Union! They support such things as the Trans-Texas Corridor which will funnel the goods of Asia through non-union Mexican ports over US taxpayer built roads and rails to Mexican customs houses in Kansas City Missouri.

These Demopublican dogs gave you NAFTA! They support expanding it! They have betrayed the American people and the soldiers of the Republic by using them in wars of aggression based on lies against innocent peoples abroad for the sake of the Anglo-American Oligarchy.

Put the seal of death on your childrens'' future! Vote Demopublican! Do it! You''ve got the gun to head America--Pull the F--king Trigger!

[frommaine]

Obama supporters only point to his speech as the example of his judgement to be commander in cheif and they ignore all his other statements which are very troubling (meeting with rougue leaders without pre-conditions & bombing in Pakistan with or without their permission). Isn''t attacking a soverign nation - who is actually an ally - on the same level as Iraq? Who is is top advisor in this area - Colin Powell? The same guy all the Obama supporters were ripping apart - because he was the guy that went before the UN to make the case for war. It seems a bit hypocritical for him to criticize Hillary for her vote - when he did not have the same intelligence being handed to him & the same people working the table to show the vote was necessary - but to have Colin Powell on his team. Why not criticize Colin Powell? Why listen to him - he made a far more stark decision on Iraq than Hillary did? How would Obama have actually voted is unknown - how would he have reacted if Colin Powell had worked him back then?

[prinzowhales]

The same Demopublican Congress that was able to justify its support of the war on the basis of the helpful lies manufactured by the Demopublican Regime, supports the war to this date with full knowledge that the war was based on lies and has failed to punish those whose lies provided the rationalizations for their actions.

As Bush did nothing but punish those who brought the truth regarding Iraqi WMDs to his attention, the Demopublican Congress did nothing to obtain redress for them--or to help whistleblowers like Sibel Edmonds, the FBI translator who remains under a national security gag order.

During the 2006 Congressional elections the US Representative for Israel based in Chicago who ran the Democrats Re-election Committee, Rahm Emmanuel, aided the pro-war Democratic candidates while not helping the anti-war candidates.

What did the 2006 elections give us?--A Congress that would back the surge!! A congress that would NOT impeach Bush and Cheney!! A Congress that has backed resolutions against Iran with even less proof than it had against the Iraqis!

Obama''s foreign policy team is run by the Brzezinski faction which wants war with Russia! Obama has called for strikes against Pakistani targets without the OK of its government. Ron Paul is the only Republican in the race who was against and is against the war. Mike Gravel, if he is still in the race, is the only Democrat who is against the war and for immediate withdrawal.

[future_watch]

I am going to say this again because I think gender bias is important to discuss: Why is it that when a woman is tough, people perceive her negatively? Women possess a variety of emotions and showing them in no way reflects character flaws. We get angry and happy, worried and relaxed, excited and calm and we show it. Anyone who projects the same emotion all the time is faking it and disingenuous. Why can''''t Hillary be honored to be running for President against a bi-racial man. When she graduated from college, that was just a dream. Now that it''''s a reality, and she''''s happy for it. It is also perfectly appropriate to be outraged when somebody publicly mis-represents your positions deliberately. These aren''''t two different people--this is one real live woman--not a robotic idealist spouting platitudes over and over. All women should be outraged at the characterizations of Hillary the media and others are putting forward because she expresses herself honestly.

[future_watch]

Hillary''s back is against the wall? Come on, there are only a hundred delegates separating her from Barack (or less depending on which news Web site you follow). This is a very competitive race and they are very very closely matched. Despite his recent wins, Obama has not exactly run away with this. If we go with the 100 delegate spread between the two and 2025 needed to win, she has 62% of what is needed and he has 67%. There are big states coming and they will decide the nominee. But, his back is against the wall to win just as much as hers. Wake up to reality.