served as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations from August 2005 until December 2006 as a recess appointee. He has an article that assesses Hillary Clinton's reputation as a "hawk" in U.S. foreign affairs, using her book, "Hard Choices," as the basis of his insight to her philosophy. (Just because your obnoxious doesn't mean you're stupid.) Here is a bit of it:
Clinton has Rice and Power asserting that America bore a responsibility to protect” innocent civilians threatened by Gadhafi. This so-called “duty of humanitarian intervention,” a fixture of the international left for years, was the central rationale for Obama's Libya intervention. Clinton describes the qualifications and limits Obama placed on U.S. involvement — but never implies disagreeing with them, before or after the intervention.
She also showed eagerness to subordinate America's role to international approval. Her caveat about the absence of “international authorization” essentially adopts John Kerry's 2004 “global test” for the legitimacy of U.S. policy, namely that Washington should act only with approval by the U.N. Security Council or some comparable body.
Clinton has Rice and Power asserting that America bore a responsibility to protect” innocent civilians threatened by Gadhafi. This so-called “duty of humanitarian intervention,” a fixture of the international left for years, was the central rationale for Obama's Libya intervention. Clinton describes the qualifications and limits Obama placed on U.S. involvement — but never implies disagreeing with them, before or after the intervention.
She also showed eagerness to subordinate America's role to international approval. Her caveat about the absence of “international authorization” essentially adopts John Kerry's 2004 “global test” for the legitimacy of U.S. policy, namely that Washington should act only with approval by the U.N. Security Council or some comparable body.
Obama plainly shared this perspective, stressing in his public announcement of U.S. military action that “the writ of the international community must be enforced. That is the cause of this coalition.”
Bolton's conclusion? "Hillary Clinton's 'hawkishness,' by contrast, is decidedly tilted ideologically. It subordinates U.S. discretion to international organizations and disconnects military action from American national interests as historically understood. And we can justifiably surmise that Clinton's passivity as an adviser will be even more pronounced when the mantle of decision-making rests on her shoulders rather than another's. That is Hillary Clinton's unspinnable message to voters, in her very own words."
No comments:
Post a Comment