Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper

« Previous | Main | Next »

Hillary's Foreign Policy Memories

March 18, 2008 5:38 PM

She visited more than 80 counties as First Lady, so it's only natural that she'd confuse some facts here and there. Some of those facts have come under the microscope as of late -- as with her sniper-threatened landing in Bosnia, which comedian Sinbad has questioned.

Today Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, at an event with former Ambassador Joe Wilson, said, "I'm delighted to be here with Ambassador Wilson. He and I did travel together to Africa and, sort of, paved the way for the president's trip the following year, which was historic."

That Africa trip was in March 1997.

Wilson didn't start as Senior Director for African Affairs at the NSC until later that year.

Is it possible Clinton was confusing Wilson with Susan Rice, Wilson's predecessor, who did go with her on that trip?

Rice says yes.

"Actually, Senator Clinton may not recall this, but Joe Wilson did not start at the NSC until some months after her trip to Africa in 1997," Rice says in an email. "I was the senior NSC staffer who accompanied her on that trip."

Not a big deal.

Except for two reasons.

1) Rice is a senior adviser to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, and has been harshly critical of the way Clinton has described her foreign policy bona fides, saying the former First Lady has exaggerated them considerably. (Neutral arbiters, such as Factcheck.org, agree.)

2) In hyping her foreign policy experience, Clinton's memories have run against those of other participants.

- jpt

UPDATE: Let me make clear: the trip Hillary Clinton made which "paved the way" for Bill Clinton's historic trip to Africa was in 1997. Bill Clinton's historic trip was in 1998.

March 18, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (81)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

BKMC
Susan Rice is the one that went to Africa on the trip the First Lady went on and is "counting" as experience. She accidentaly said it was Wilson that went with her.

By the way, Rice was saying that Senator Clinton has no experience. Yet had to admit it was her that went on that trip with the great Senator from N.Y. and First Lady of these great United States of America!! I think this great American has always been proud of her country as a youngster and as an adult..let me think...Yeah Yeah she has been!!
That was obamas wife that hasn't been proud of her Harvard and Princeton (or Columbia) experience as an American. Yeah let me think ...Yeah it was her ..not proud just well educated..earning 300k from her not for profit job!!!
I cant remember was it Michelle obama that said that "Hillary can't control her own house, how does she think she can control her The White House"? I think that is sexist.. let me think.. Yeah Yeah that is very sexist!!
Never mind her husband of change can't control the racism and hate for America in his little bitty church house...how is he going to control the White House??
Just a thought!!

Posted by: Brenda P. | Mar 19, 2008 8:49:50 PM

Her experience was tested when she voted for the war in Iraq...A war that's still going on.
Hillary voted to please her NY backers and the AIPACs, but the price was paid by the whole country.
Now she is trying to claim that she did not know then in year 2002 what she was doing when she voted 'yes' to send the nation to war. A heck of experience ..!!
Fool me once .....

Posted by: thunder | Mar 19, 2008 7:51:57 PM

james: from RTE TV, 3.18.08 --

"Anchor: The Taoiseach has said it would be very unfair for anyone to deny Hilary Clinton credit for her role in the peace process. Speaking in Washington Mr. Ahern said she had played an important role in the process along with her husband.

Reporter: A busy round of official engagements in Washington today finished at Congress with a lunch hosted by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi. The three candidates for the presidency weren’t there, but Mr. Ahern did meet Hillary Clinton and speak on the phone to Barack Obama this morning. The Obama campaign has been questioning Senator Clinton’s involvement in the peace process but Mr. Ahern said she had played a significant and important role.

Ahern: “I have to say in my conversation this morning that was totally acknowledged by Senator Obama. So I’m not getting into the politics of this but I think for anyone to try to question the Clinton’s huge support and start trying to nit-pick.” [RTE TV, 3/18/08]

Posted by: cappamore | Mar 19, 2008 4:19:59 PM

"The Irish PM recently backed her up."

Backed up what: her involvement in the Irish Peace Process was marginal at best? where did you read this?

thanks,
james

Posted by: james d granata | Mar 19, 2008 12:56:14 PM

Liars are always liars...it is like sickens...it is a character that will never go away. Hillary has lied about her experience and her resume is skewed. You all will see many more lies coming out soon.

Posted by: Dan | Mar 19, 2008 12:19:40 PM

This confusion is understandable. HRC thought Joe Wilson was the CIA undercover agent posing as Rice. If we were "in the know" like HRC, we'd have understood this. She's so smart.

Posted by: Maccabees | Mar 19, 2008 12:06:39 PM

Oh...shocking!! Please we all know these Clinton's are liars. They think they can get away with anything. Well, not this time. I am sure more lies will come out...

Posted by: Daniel | Mar 19, 2008 11:57:42 AM

Hillary lying? How shocking! You mean a Clinton stretching the truth to fit their own political ends? Why am I not surprised. Hillary's entire life experience is a lie and her resume a FRAUD.

Posted by: Christopher London | Mar 19, 2008 11:34:50 AM

At the tea parties, they were more focused on how gosh awful she dressed that what she had to say.

"You know..." "sort of..." "is"

Hillary is nothing more than a bundle of money and cliches.

Posted by: JB | Mar 19, 2008 10:12:03 AM

What is really shameful is that this is only the first time that anyone bothered to fact-check Hillary's rhetoric. She talks about her 35 years of experience with impunity yet there is no credible evidence that she has infact served the antion in elective office for that long.

Posted by: Stealth | Mar 19, 2008 8:56:13 AM

This "35 years of experience" is such a crock its ridiculous.

Posted by: tracy | Mar 19, 2008 8:47:57 AM

Hillary's problem is that she always smirks when she's running a bluff (lying) ... not a clever tactic in a high stakes poker game. Seems like she is always smirking.

Hillary is blind to the obvious precaution that no one should make up stories that can be blown away by witnesses. Sinbad did a job on her "life-threatening" foreign policy achievements with him present on USO tours. She proclaims that she was the envoy that brought peace to Northern Ireland and that lie was exposed by the former Irish Prime Minister who said she only attended a couple of tea socials with prominent women.

The "experience" that make her fit to be president on day one is a total, laughable FARCE! It's like the wife of an NFL quarterback saying she is ready to take over his job at any given time. Oh well, she has achieved status as the master of the Clinton philosophy ... "when in doubt lie!" but here is a news flash for Hillary: IF YOU GET CAUGHT LYING ON YOUR RESUME', YOU DON'T GET THE JOB!

Posted by: doofus | Mar 19, 2008 6:40:34 AM

Clinton says Obama is running on words, she is running on experience.

So it's OK to critique his words, but not OK to critique her experience?

Do I have this correct?

Posted by: James Andre | Mar 19, 2008 3:52:26 AM

Hmmm.

Senator Obama forgets to wear a green tie on St. Patrick's day.

Senator Clinton forgets who she was with while 'paving the way' for a historic visit.


Let's weigh this....

Posted by: James Andre | Mar 19, 2008 3:48:34 AM

Why is it that critics of Clinton attack Clinton, but critics of Barack attack Barack supporters for criticizing Clinton? Do they really think murdering the messenger of criticism will win an election? Isn't this the exact kind of character assassination that the Bushies have been engaging in for over 7 years? It seems to go like this: person B: "I don't trust Hillary because one moment she says she's proud to stand next to Obama and then the next day she displays calculated fake outrage toward him." Then person C responds: "Because you criticized her, I'm gonna vote McCain's 100 year war in Iraq." The mentality seems to be something like, "you noticed I need to practice my jump shot, so I'm gonna shoot the family dog."

Posted by: Jackie | Mar 19, 2008 3:06:35 AM

win333, the Obama supporters have to resort to this because they have a paper candidate. He can't stand on his accomplishments. Part of that is his youth, and not his fault, the other part is he votes for the corporations every time.

Posted by: hopeful1 | Mar 19, 2008 2:29:21 AM

factsyoucantrust, you know if Obama wins the nominee I'd vote for Nader, unless McCain had Clinton as the VP. I wouldn't be so smug. I can't beleive there could be a senerio that I'd vote for McCain, but there it is.

Posted by: hopeful1 | Mar 19, 2008 2:22:02 AM

I see the Obama supporters whose anti-women hate have turned me off to the point that I'd vote for Nader over him are back smearing Hillary Clinton. Do you really think you can turn off so many women by the way you're acting and we're just going to vote for you? I don't vote for people who hate my gender. If I did, I'd vote Republican.

If you want to talk about experience somebody should check out the Canadian television interview Rice gave around the time they were telling lies about the NAFTA memo, when she was so aggressive and culturally insensitive about Canada sending more troops to Afghanistan that the reporter looked shocked beyond belief. You want us to throw away the wonderful national resource we have in the Clintons, in these dangerous times, for an untried rookie who's proven to me, and many others who are paying attention, by the nasty way he's run this campaign, that he can't claim the higher ground either. Forget it. Funny campaign that irrevocably alienates a huge proportion of their potential votes.

Posted by: hopeful1 | Mar 19, 2008 2:18:23 AM


Has Susan Rice considered how Barack Obama has had no real foreign policy experience?

Please wake up - everyone who is for Barack, there is no way he could win against the Republicans with all the ammo they now have against him.

If Barack is our nominee, we will lose to McCain.

He has made many mistakes. He has shown very poor judgement. The Republicans will not let him put any of this behind him.

They will portray him as an "inexperienced anti-war liberal," his dealings with Rezko after he knew Rezko was being investigated for Fraud, extortion, money laundering, etc., his long and deep associations with the pastor - these things will play more and more poorly with swing voters and independents as the Republicans showcase them.

Nothing will rally the Republican base more, and polarize the country more - than Barack being the Democratic Presidential nominee.

Yes, it's true - they now like Hillary much more compared to him. He is much scarier to them.

And the majority will not want to elect such an untested candidate who has shown such questionable judgement during such a time of crisis.

Contrary to all the immensely unfair and inaccurate spin proponed by her opponents, Hillary Clinton is a very good woman. She was voted the Senate's brainiest candiate. She has done so much work that she never gets enough credit for; she is our most qualified candidate. And because she has learned and will be smarter on defense, and is also very smart on the economy - she is in the best position to beat John McCain.

Many people who don't know her get her wrong, but the people who know her know her heart is in the right place, she is very knowledgeable and capable, and she is a moderate centrist.


Goodnight ~

Posted by: Lauren | Mar 19, 2008 1:46:40 AM

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has obtained the official pardon application submitted to the Clinton White House by attorney Jack Quinn December 11, 2000, on behalf of former fugitive Marc Rich, who fled the United States in 1983 to avoid prosecution on racketeering, wire fraud and tax evasion charges. The fugitive Rich was one of about 140 criminals who received pardons from Bill Clinton in the last hours of his administration on January 20, 2001. The pardon application was made available in response to a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request made on August 8, 2006.

The Rich pardon was particularly scandalous because of large contributions made by Denise Rich, Marc Rich’s ex-wife, to Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaign and to the Clinton Presidential Library foundation in the months leading up to the Rich pardon. The Rich pardon application includes a letter excerpt from Denise Rich: “My husband and I could not return to the United States because… no one would listen -- all the prosecutors appeared to think about was the prospect of imprisoning Marc for the rest of his life. With a life sentence at stake, and press and media fueled by the US. Attorney, we felt he had no choice but to remain out of the country,” Denise Rich wrote. The National Archives, under the direction of Bill Clinton, continues to withhold from public disclosure hundreds of pages regarding the pardons.

“Denise Rich personally appealed to the Clinton administration to pardon her ex-husband while she was dumping large amounts of cash into the Clintons’ coffers,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “If that’s not a quid pro quo, I don’t know what is.”

Key members of Bill Clinton’s own staff were opposed to the Rich pardon. Three White House officials, White House Chief of Staff John Podesta, White House counsel Beth Nolan and deputy counsel Bruce Lindsey all testified to Congress that they recommended against granting a pardon to Rich. Just one month after he received the pardon, Rich reportedly served as a middle man for several of Iraq’s suspect oil deals in the infamous UN Oil-for-Food scandal, which allowed Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi regime to pocket billions of dollars intended for humanitarian aid to the Iraqi people. (R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., in his recent book The Clinton Crack-Up, reports that Bill Clinton met with Rich in Geneva since leaving the White House.)

In other news related to Judicial Watch’s investigation of Clinton Presidential Library records, Judicial Watch expects to receive 10,000 pages of former First Lady Hillary Clinton’s daily schedule records by March 20, 2008, the date of a status hearing in Judicial Watch’s lawsuit in the matter [Judicial Watch, Inc. v U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Civil Action No: 1:07-cv-01267 (JR)].

For more information on Judicial Watch’s campaign to force the release of Hillary Clinton’s White House records,

Posted by: Your Conscience | Mar 19, 2008 1:08:59 AM

Post a comment





 

POLITICAL VIDEOS