Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

[Hillary] Clinton Says U.S. Must Increase NATO, UN Role in Iraq [is it treason YET?]
bloomberg no url | 12/15/3

Posted on 12/15/2003 10:45:33 AM PST by NativeNewYorker

Dec. 15 (Bloomberg) -- New York Senator Hillary Clinton said the U.S. should use the opportunity created by the capture of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to increase the involvement of the United Nations and NATO in Iraq's reconstruction.

Clinton, a Democrat, called for the U.S. to form an Iraqi reconstruction and stabilization authority -- including the UN and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization -- to oversee the planned changeover next July to a transitional government from U.S. control.

Clinton said the handoff, coupled with the rotation of U.S. troops in Iraq at that time, may increase attacks by insurgents loyal to Hussein.

``This moment cannot be just about congratulating ourselves,'' Clinton said in a 45-minute speech at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. ``It should be a moment where we step back and consider how to go forward. What is it we can do today to strengthen our hand?''

U.S. opponents of Republican President George W. Bush's Iraq policies, such as Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean, said yesterday that Hussein's capture may be a catalyst for greater international cooperation in rebuilding the Middle Eastern country, as did Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee.

Britain's Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the U.K. envoy to Iraq, said Friday in London that he favored NATO, the military alliance including U.S. and European nations, getting involved in security operations in Iraq, now being run by the U.S.-led coalition that includes the U.K. The UN, Greenstock said, probably would only get involved after nations with troops in Iraq can ensure security.

Major Speech

The Council on Foreign Relations, a policy analysis group, said the address was Clinton's first major foreign policy speech since the wife of former U.S. President Bill Clinton was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2000.

While saying she was ``thrilled'' with the news of Hussein's capture, Clinton said the U.S. should consider maintaining or increasing current troop levels in Iraq, repair relations with countries such as France and Germany that opposed the war in Iraq and have been frozen out of reconstruction contracts, and use former members of Hussein's Baathist party to aid the reconstruction.

Criticism of Bush

Clinton, who has said she isn't running for president, is favored by more Democrats for the party's 2004 presidential nomination than any of the nine declared candidates, according to a poll taken in October. She would be the pick of 43 percent of 403 Democrats surveyed by Quinnipiac University.

Clinton has been increasingly critical of the Bush administration since returning from a trip last month to Afghanistan and Iraq.

In an interview with the Houston Chronicle published Dec. 6, Clinton said Bush has pursued an ``extremist agenda'' since taking office and underestimated the commitment needed to rebuild Iraq with a politically motivated policy. She told the Chronicle Bush has been ``dismissive'' of international assistance in Iraq and should ``level'' with the American people about the cost and sacrifice needed to rebuild the country.

``We need to build a world with more friends and fewer terrorists by examining new ways to enhance and deepen relations around the world,'' Clinton said today. ``The more we throw our weight around the more we encourage other nations to join with each other as a counter weight.''

U.S. `Unprepared'

The U.S. was ``unprepared'' for the challenges of rebuilding Iraq after the war and ``would be further along, have more legitimacy and diminish the opposition and resentment that is fueling the insurgency had we been willing to internationalize our presence in Iraq,'' Clinton said.

She called for the UN to take the lead as soon as possible to oversee the process leading to elections in Iraq next year, and for NATO to send troops to the relatively calm, Kurdishcontrolled northern part of Iraq. That would allow the U.S. to shift forces to the Baghdad area, she said.

Clinton also called for the U.S. to do more to stabilize Afghanistan, including education and health programs, enhanced military forces along the border with Pakistan and support for Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.

Concerning the North Korean nuclear crisis, Clinton said she couldn't understand Bush administration's policy, and that the U.S. should return to an accord to trade aid for agreement not to develop a nuclear weapons program that her husband as president negotiated with the North Koreans in 1994.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: hillary; iraq; saddam; thatwoman; tokyohillary
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-39 last
To: Kleon
I'm just pointing out how it's often bad to take the "blame Clinton" approach, because it's too easy and dilutes arguments.

But it's so damned much fun to throw them under the bus!!!!

21 posted on 12/15/2003 11:41:17 AM PST by alaskanfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: alaskanfan
"We would have more troops to put in Iraq if your husband hadn't cut our military so drastically during his administration."
That was over 3 years ago - GWB could have increased the military more if that's what he wanted to do. Seems to me Rummy has been saying the armed forces need to be re-sized (down) and be more mobile. How long will it be before GWB is held accountable for his own policies (3 years after he's gone)?

22 posted on 12/15/2003 11:41:20 AM PST by familyofman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
``This moment cannot be just about congratulating ourselves,''

Just exactly what should the wicked witch be cangratulating herself for? Talk about her ol take credit for everything self. W captured Saddamn and Hilary captured Elian! Must hurt to lose your biggest club, two clubs counting the obvious silence about WMDs???

Pray for W and Merry Christmas to Our Troops

23 posted on 12/15/2003 11:45:42 AM PST by bray (The Wicked Witch of NY is Taking the Rats Down in Flames!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kleon
I'm not blaming the VP of doing anything wrong, I'm just pointing out how it's often bad to take the "blame Clinton" approach, because it's too easy and dilutes arguments.

Awesome. Too many times here, the facts are ignored so people can say: "They are bad, stupid, dumb, evil, etc. and we are good, smart, wise, etc." I like knowing the facts as they are... You report, I decide. :)
24 posted on 12/15/2003 11:47:16 AM PST by brownsfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: brownsfan
23-20 in OT again?

&^)

25 posted on 12/15/2003 11:50:40 AM PST by SGCOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: bray
Maybe we should just take this opportunity to surrender. Now that we have the President of Iraq, couln't we just surrender to him and go home?
26 posted on 12/15/2003 11:50:47 AM PST by alaskanfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Kleon
Those cuts were pushed by Dick Cheney during the first Bush presidency

National defense budget= 1980, 134; 1985, 253; 1990, 299; 1995 272;

There ws no reduction in the 80's while there was a very sharp reduction from 1995 to 1992.

27 posted on 12/15/2003 11:53:14 AM PST by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SGCOS
23-20 in OT again?

Yeah, didn't hurt so bad this time. Somehow, when you're 4-8 losing isn't such a big deal. The 1986 playoff game though... that hurt. Damn that Elway! :)
28 posted on 12/15/2003 11:55:29 AM PST by brownsfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: NativeNewYorker
-- New York Senator Hillary Clinton said the U.S. should use the opportunity created by the capture of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to increase the involvement of the United Nations and NATO in Iraq's reconstruction.

Nothing could be more indicative that a huge victory for our side is looming than this incessant call to involve the UN, NATO, ANYONE to water down the success of the lately undefeated, ON A ROLL, George W. Bush-led United States.

Could it be that the most sacred tenets of the left are being exposed one by one as, let's be magnanimous here, INOPERATIVE? Or is it simply their fear of a victory for CAPITALISM?

29 posted on 12/15/2003 12:05:07 PM PST by wayoverontheright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NativeNewYorker
Silly hilleree is grabbing at straws...she's finished for 2004 and she knows it. What she says is irrelevant! She is nothing. No one respects her.
30 posted on 12/15/2003 12:17:49 PM PST by cubreporter (I trust Rush...he will prevail in spite of the naysayers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NativeNewYorker
Every one of the people that wants President Bush to LOSE the next election wants him to hand Iraq over to the U.N. - that should tell everyone something. It is the exact WRONG thing to do.
31 posted on 12/15/2003 12:18:27 PM PST by Wait4Truth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NativeNewYorker
Let's see we fight NATO's ( Europe ) War in the Balkans and they sit on their asses while our military fought in Iraq but now they have to cut them in on the reconstruction .

Yeah I am sure the American Public will understand that ( the ones that even remember the Balkan War that is )
32 posted on 12/15/2003 12:28:50 PM PST by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NativeNewYorker
``We need to build a world with more friends and fewer terrorists by examining new ways to enhance and deepen relations around the world,'' Clinton said today. ``The more we throw our weight around the more we encourage other nations to join with each other as a counter weight.''

YOu mean like the way yourslime bag husband did in Haiti Somalia and the Balkans
33 posted on 12/15/2003 12:30:13 PM PST by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NativeNewYorker
Clinton, a Democrat,

Did anyone not know this?

34 posted on 12/15/2003 2:40:03 PM PST by BulletBobCo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NativeNewYorker
Concerning the North Korean nuclear crisis, Clinton said she couldn't understand Bush administration's policy, and that the U.S. should return to an accord to trade aid for agreement not to develop a nuclear weapons program that her husband as president negotiated with the North Koreans in 1994.

And which were just a smashing success!

Also I think her line about "not just congratulating ourselves" is an attempt to oh-so-subtlely take some of the credit for Saddam's capture.

35 posted on 12/15/2003 2:46:52 PM PST by cyncooper ("The evil is in plain sight")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: familyofman
How long will it be before GWB is held accountable for his own policies (3 years after he's gone)?

He's accountable, and for much, much longer than 3 years he will be remembered as one of our greatest presidents.

36 posted on 12/15/2003 2:53:36 PM PST by cyncooper ("The evil is in plain sight")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: brownsfan; Kleon
If you want facts, then I wouldn't call that one quote the end all and be all of the situation.

Saying Cheney advocated some cuts back then, and acting like that is the end of the story won't cut it here.

latimes.com: Cheney acknowledges defense cuts began on his watch

EXCERPTS:

Dick Cheney, the Republican vice presidential nominee, acknowledged Wednesday that military cutbacks began during the Bush administration but said further cuts under President Clinton had "gone too far."

-snip-

"We were victorious in the Cold War, and in the aftermath of that, we did in fact significantly reduce the overall size of the U.S. military," Cheney said. "But I think we've gone too far with it. I think we've shrunk the force now at the same time we've been adding commitments, and so we're stretched pretty thin."

So no, the cuts the original poster referred to indeed trace back to clinton, not Cheney.

37 posted on 12/15/2003 3:02:36 PM PST by cyncooper ("The evil is in plain sight")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
So no, the cuts the original poster referred to indeed trace back to clinton, not Cheney.

I drove to Homer today for a haircut. It was a long drive (about 2 hours)and the roads were icy, but I listened to Rush on the way down. He reiterated the same thing that you and I have both said here that it was the Clinton administration that cut the military.

Although I have not had time to research this, (just got home) I'm convinced that a high profile radio commentator like Rush would not have made a statement like this if it were false.

38 posted on 12/16/2003 5:00:10 PM PST by alaskanfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Kleon
Those cuts were pushed by Dick Cheney during the first Bush presidency

Do you have a source?

39 posted on 12/16/2003 5:45:55 PM PST by alaskanfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-39 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson