« Previous | Main | Next »

Holbrooke on Clinton

Share

December 20, 2007 4:18 PM

ABC News' Eloise Harper reports: Someone in the Clinton camp might want to tell  former Ambassador Richard Holbrooke what Sen. Hillary Clinton has been up to lately -- because it doesn't seem like he agrees. Clinton launched a foreign policy-themed day as Holbrooke stood on stage with retired Army  Gen. Wesley Clark, former VA Secretary Togo Dennis West and retired Lt. Gen. Robert Gard,  and re-enforced their committment to Clinton and her experience and strength to lead.

Holbrooke was asked after the event if he agreed with Clinton when she inferred she was the face of her husband's foreign policy arm.

Holbrooke said, "that's not what she said -- I think what she said is that at times she represented the nation as First Lady." He added"...she was a vitally important part of representing the nation, many other people participated in that with her and she never claimed to be the face of American foreign policy."

He was asked if he agreed with her plan to bring troops out of Iraq. "What she has said is she'll get all the troops, the combat troops out." 

When I reminded him that Clinton has said that she plans to leave some residual troops behind -- Holbrooke said, "she said she keeps open the option of a residual force." Unfortunately that is not the position of Sen. Clinton who has said she plans to keep combat troops inside Iraq after the majority of forces leave to deal with counterterrorism issues and al Qaeda.

Holbrooke was also asked by ABC news if he agreed with Clinton's vote to label the Iranian Revolutionary guard a terrorist organization. He said he agreed that he supported the vote. When asked if he was consulted about her decision before the vote he did not comment.

December 20, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (5)

User Comments

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

Does Hillary Clinton's right arm know what her left is doing? If not, serious consideration needs to be given as to whether she should be in control of the "football." Her right hand might think it's calling for a servant, whilst her left hand is nuking Europe.

Posted by: Jim | Dec 20, 2007 5:09:41 PM

Sen. Hillary Clinton wants to sink America.

The demographic winter is coming to the US.

Good information on the subject.

Posted by: Solange Miller | Dec 20, 2007 5:10:35 PM

This interviewer needs to get his or her facts straight before giving Holbrooke a hard time.

"inferred" measn the author is interpreting Clinton';s remarks. But there is a contradiction. Watch:

(1) Holbrooke was asked after the event if he agreed with Clinton when she inferred she was the face of her husband's foreign policy arm.
(2) Holbrooke said, "that's not what she said -- I think what she said is that at times she represented the nation as first lady."
(3)I informed him that she had in fact said that and so did former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack.

So, what did she INFER, and what did she SAY?
Answer: Holbrooke, "she was a vitally important part of representing the nation, many other people participated in that with her and she never claimed to be the face of American foreign policy."

Also, the author claimed:
Holbrooke said, "she said she keeps open the option of a residual force." Unfortunately that is not the position of Sen. Clinton who has said she plans to keep combat troops inside Iraq after the majority of forces leave to deal with counterterrorism issues and al Qaeda.

SORRY, Clinton said her goal was to have all troops out of iraq. In fact, she said just yesterday that one brigade can responsibily be re-deployed each month and that would take about 19 months.

She did say that we have no idea what Bush will actually hand over, so, depending on the circumstances that greet her, she MAY need to leave troops there.

Posted by: Jan | Dec 20, 2007 5:39:41 PM

"She did say that we have no idea what Bush will actually hand over, so, depending on the circumstances that greet her, she MAY need to leave troops there."

Just bring them troops home. The reason we had the pre-emptive war was based upon lies. It does not matter what the circumstances are when Bush leaves office, we should not be occupying IRAQ period. How many more Americans and Iraqies have to die to save face?

Posted by: Greg | Dec 20, 2007 8:06:52 PM

Greg, I really appreciate this comment:
"Just bring them troops home. The reason we had the pre-emptive war was based upon lies. It does not matter what the circumstances are when Bush leaves office..."

We are a military family. We had a shipmate killed aboard the USS Cole. My husband is a combat vet from Gulf War I and we were NEVER in favor of the invasion of Iraq.

But I just want you to know that it DOES matter what the circumstances are when Bush leaves office.
Bush had no plan for the peace, and for that he should be impeached.

But Bush Republicans rubberstamp Bush, so our gov's balance of power is crippled right now.

My husband supports Kucinch in order to make the very statement YOU are making. However, he himself concedes that Kucinch won't be our next President.

Keep faith. I just wanted you to be aware that Bush has made it a logistical nightmare in Iraq, since he didn't ever have a plan to leave when he invaded.
Peace.

Posted by: Jan | Dec 21, 2007 7:35:32 AM

Post a comment