Eli F's Bookmarks tagged hillary → View Popular

You are here: Diigo Home > Eli F's Bookmarks

Expand All 1 - 20 of 21 Next ›

1Expand

HillaryClinton.com - Speech

But we cannot win their civil war. There is no military solution.

Tags: Hillary, Clinton, Iraq on 2008-04-17 -All Annotations (0) -About

more fromwww.hillaryclinton.com

1Expand

Hillary's hard-won experience

Interview with Clinton - And there may well be vital national security interests that require a continuing presence, although I do not support permanent bases or a permanent occupation.

Tags: Hillary, Clinton, Iraq on 2008-04-17 -All Annotations (0) -About

more fromwww.salon.com

33Expand

Security and Opportunity for the Twenty-first Century - Hillary Rodham Clinton

Clinton's essay on foreign policy for Foreign Affairs.

Summary: The next U.S. president will have a moment of opportunity to reintroduce America to the world and restore our leadership. To build a world that is safe, prosperous, and just, we must get out of Iraq, rediscover the value of statesmanship, and live up to the democratic values that are the deepest source of our strength.

Tags: Hillary, Clinton, foreign, policy, Middle, East on 2008-04-17 -All Annotations (0) -About

more fromwww.foreignaffairs.org

After 9/11, the world rallied behind the United States as never before, supporting our efforts to remove the Taliban in Afghanistan and go after the al Qaeda leadership. We had a historic opportunity to build a broad global coalition to combat terror, increase the impact of our diplomacy, and create a world with more partners and fewer adversaries.
But we lost that opportunity by refusing to let the UN inspectors finish their work in Iraq and rushing to war instead. Moreover, we diverted vital military and financial resources from the struggle against al Qaeda and the daunting task of building a Muslim democracy in Afghanistan.
At the same time, we embarked on an unprecedented course of unilateralism: refusing to pursue ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, abandoning our commitment to nuclear nonproliferation, and turning our backs on the search for peace in the Middle East
. The next president will have a moment of opportunity to restore America's global standing and convince the world that America can lead once again. As president, I will seize that opportunity by reintroducing ourselves to the world. I will rebuild our power and ensure that the United States is committed to building a world we want, rather than simply defending against a world we fear.
The next president will be the first to inherit two wars, a long-term campaign against global terrorist networks, and growing tension with Iran as it seeks to acquire nuclear weapons.
The United States will face a resurgent Russia whose future orientation is uncertain and a rapidly growing China that must be integrated into the international system. Moreover, the next administration will have to confront an unpredictable and dangerous situation in the Middle East that threatens Israel and could potentially bring down the global economy by disrupting oil supplies
To meet these challenges, we will have to replenish American power by getting out of Iraq, rebuilding our military, and developing a much broader arsenal of tools in the fight against terrorism
There is a time for force and a time for diplomacy; when properly deployed, the two can reinforce each other. U.S. foreign policy must be guided by a preference for multilateralism, with unilateralism as an option when absolutely necessary to protect our security or avert an avoidable tragedy.
Make international institutions work, and work through them when possible. Contrary to what many in the current administration appear to believe, international institutions are tools rather than traps. The United States must be prepared to act on its own to defend its vital interests, but effective international institutions make it much less likely that we will have to do so. Both Republican and Democratic presidents have understood this for decades. When such institutions work well, they enhance our influence.
Calls for expanding civil and political rights in countries plagued by mass poverty and ruled by tiny wealthy elites will fall on deaf ears unless democracy actually delivers enough material benefits to improve people's lives.
Ending the war in Iraq is the first step toward restoring the United States' global leadership. The war is sapping our military strength, absorbing our strategic assets, diverting attention and resources from Afghanistan, alienating our allies, and dividing our people. The war in Iraq has also stretched our military to the breaking point. We must rebuild our armed services and restore them body and soul.
We must withdraw from Iraq in a way that brings our troops home safely, begins to restore stability to the region, and replaces military force with a new diplomatic initiative to engage countries around the world in securing Iraq's future.
While working to stabilize Iraq as our forces withdraw, I will focus U.S. aid on helping Iraqis, not propping up the Iraqi government. Financial resources will go only where they will be used properly, rather than to government ministries or ministers that hoard, steal, or waste them.
As we leave Iraq militarily, I will replace our military force with an intensive diplomatic initiative in the region. The Bush administration has belatedly begun to engage Iran and Syria in talks about the future of Iraq. This is a step in the right direction, but much more must be done. As president, I will convene a regional stabilization group composed of key allies, other global powers, and all the states bordering Iraq.
Finally, we need to engage the world in a global humanitarian effort to confront the human costs of this war. We must address the plight of the two million Iraqis who have fled their country and the two million more who have been displaced internally.
As we redeploy our troops from Iraq, we must not let down our guard against terrorism. I will order specialized units to engage in targeted operations against al Qaeda in Iraq and other terrorist organizations in the region.
Getting out of Iraq will enable us to play a constructive role in a renewed Middle East peace process that would mean security and normal relations for Israel and the Palestinians. The fundamental elements of a final agreement have been clear since 2000: a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank in return for a declaration that the conflict is over, recognition of Israel's right to exist, guarantees of Israeli security, diplomatic recognition of Israel, and normalization of its relations with Arab states.
U.S. diplomacy is critical in helping to resolve this conflict. In addition to facilitating negotiations, we must engage in regional diplomacy to gain Arab support for a Palestinian leadership that is committed to peace and willing to engage in a dialogue with the Israelis.
I will work to expand and modernize the military so that fighting wars no longer comes at the expense of deployments for long-term deterrence, military readiness, or responses to urgent needs at home.
We must develop a comprehensive strategy focusing on education, intelligence, and law enforcement to counter not only the terrorists themselves but also the larger forces fueling support for their extremism.
The forgotten frontline in the war on terror is Afghanistan, where our military effort must be reinforced. The Taliban cannot be allowed to regain power in Afghanistan; if they return, al Qaeda will return with them.
We must also strengthen the national and local governments and resolve the problems along Afghanistan's border.
it would also signal to our NATO partners that the war in Afghanistan and the broader fight against extremism in South Asia are battles that we can and must win. Yet we cannot succeed unless we design a strategy that treats the entire region as an interconnected whole, where crises overlap with one another and the danger of a chain reaction of disasters is real.
To maximize our effectiveness, we have to rebuild our alliances. The problem we face is global; we must therefore be attentive to the values, concerns, and interests of our allies and partners. That means doing a better job of building counterterrorist capacity around the world.
True statesmanship requires that we engage with our adversaries, not for the sake of talking but because robust diplomacy is a prerequisite to achieving our aims.
The Bush administration refuses to talk to Iran about its nuclear program, preferring to ignore bad behavior rather than challenge it.
As a result, we have lost precious time. Iran must conform to its nonproliferation obligations and must not be permitted to build or acquire nuclear weapons. If Iran does not comply with its own commitments and the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table.
On the other hand, if Iran is in fact willing to end its nuclear weapons program, renounce sponsorship of terrorism, support Middle East peace, and play a constructive role in stabilizing Iraq, the United States should be prepared to offer Iran a carefully calibrated package of incentives.
Neither North Korea nor Iran will change course as a result of what we do with our own nuclear weapons, but taking dramatic steps to reduce our nuclear arsenal would build support for the coalitions we need to address the threat of nuclear proliferation and help the United States regain the moral high ground.
To build the world we want, we must begin by speaking honestly about the problems we face.
Education is the foundation of economic opportunity and should lie at the heart of America's foreign assistance efforts.
In 1825, 50 years after the Battle of Bunker Hill, the great secretary of state Daniel Webster laid the cornerstone of the Bunker Hill Monument that stands today in Boston. He exulted in the simple fact that America had survived and flourished, and he celebrated "the benefit which the example of our country has produced, and is likely to produce, on human freedom and human happiness." He gloried not in American power but rather in the power of the American idea, the idea that "with wisdom and knowledge men may govern themselves." And he urged his audience, and all Americans, to maintain this example and "take care that nothing may weaken its authority with the world."
Two centuries later, our economic power and military might have grown beyond anything that our forefathers could have imagined. But that power and might can only be sustained and renewed if we can regain our authority with the world, the authority not simply of a large and wealthy nation but of the American idea. If we can live up to that idea, if we can exercise our power wisely and well, we can make America great again.

The War Over the Wonks

A list of the national security and foreign policy advisers to the leading presidential candidates from both parties.

Tags: John, McCain, Hillary, Clinton, Barack, Obama, foreign, policy, Middle, East on 2008-04-16 -All Annotations (0) -About

more fromwww.washingtonpost.com

17Expand

Hillary Rodham Clinton's speech to the National Jewish Democratic Council

Full transcript.

Tags: Hillary, Clinton, NJDC, speech, Middle, East on 2008-04-16 -All Annotations (0) -About

more fromwww.pjvoice.com

We stand with Israel because it is a beacon of democracy in a neighborhood that is shadowed by radicalism, extremism, despotism, and terrorism.
And we have shared values. To go back to Brandeis' point, we are founded on a common bond, and our bond and our values are exemplified every day in our vigorous democracies.
I well remember the long days and nights of negotiations and phone calls trying to figure out a way to create an environment in which Israel's security was guaranteed and the Palestinians were given the opportunity to take responsibility for themselves.
Obviously today, we face an even more dangerous set of circumstances.
We cannot, we should not, and we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. That has to be our starting point. And in dealing with this threat, no option can be taken off the table
If the administration had been smarter about engaging with Iran, Syria and others -- I'm not saying we would be further along or our situation or Israel's dangers would be lessened -- but I am saying that a process of direct engagement with these adversaries is important for several reasons.
Our president says his current policy is, "I don't talk to bad people." I don't that's a very smart policy when it comes to managing the threats we face. I believe it has been a mistake and we have lost valuable time
When it comes to Iran, we don't really even know who makes the decisions.
I think it is the clerical leadership and the Supreme Leader who call the shots.
We are failing at public diplomacy. We still haven't gotten it right. We still don't have a vigorous effort to convey American values, to draw the contrasts.
And finally, if we do have to take offensive military action against Iran, it would be far better if the rest of the world saw it as a position of last resort, not first resort, because the effects and consequences will be globally felt.
We also need to be much more publicly vigorous in insisting that Hezbollah and Hamas immediately and unconditionally release the three kidnapped soldiers that they continue to hold captive.
-is not that the United States should withdraw from the world or shrink our role in standing up for freedom and democracy. If we do so--if we turn our back on the dangers that we face today--that will not only hurt us in the long run but it will hurt Israel as well.
I think it's a great idea. I think it's being called "disinvest in terrorism," I think that's the name of the campaign, and I think it's something we really have to look at.
Iran you have to look at all of those: tough sanctions, working with our allies around the world to help enforce those sanctions which is, as you know, difficult, but the United Nations Security Council at least has made a step in that direction, and then trying to get Iran engaged in these regional conferences about Iraq.
I applaud the Secretary of State for having said repeatedly she hopes Iran will show up at this regional stability and security conference, and then engaging with Iran, trying to, in effect, gauge who's really calling the shots and what we can do to try to pressure them.
I think we should generally extend it to all those who basically use propaganda and disinformation to pollute the minds of young children and turn them into terrorists, into suicide bombers, everything we know happens.

S. 670: Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction Act of 2007 (GovTrack.us)

HIllary Clinton introduced (no cosponsors, no vote on): Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction Act of 2007 - Prohibits, with a limited presidential national security waiver, U.S. military force levels in Iraq after the date of the enactment of this Act from exceeding such levels as of January 1, 2007.

Tags: Hillary, Clinton, Iraq, Middle, East on 2008-04-16 -All Annotations (0) -About

more fromwww.govtrack.us

17Expand

Hillary Rodham Clinton: Addressing the National Security Challenges of Our Time: Fighting Terror and the Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction

2004. So, this morning, I'd like to talk about the dangers of pursuing a policy of unilateralism and the need for allies in every aspect of our security. Critical to fighting this new 21st century war is a fundamental re-orientation away from a unilateral posture to a multilateral strategy that strengthens all who participate.

Tags: Hillary, Clinton, multilateralism, foreign, policy, Middle, East on 2008-04-16 -All Annotations (0) -About

more fromclinton.senate.gov

Thesis: Critical to fighting this new 21st century war is a fundamental re-orientation away from a unilateral posture to a multilateral strategy that strengthens all who participate.
post by efeghali on 2008-04-16

So, this morning, I'd like to talk about the dangers of pursuing a policy of unilateralism and the need for allies in every aspect of our security. Critical to fighting this new 21st century war is a fundamental re-orientation away from a unilateral posture to a multilateral strategy that strengthens all who participate.
Having achieved quick military success, we should not repeat the same mistakes that were made in 1989. Yet, I fear that unless we and our NATO allies ramp up our involvement in this forgotten front line in the War in Terror, we stand in danger of doing so.
take a hard look at how we treat our allies and how we expect them to work with us in providing security and reconstruction in these two countries.
Republican Senators Hagel and McCain; Representatives Wolf and Shays, along with Joe Biden, and a chorus of Democrats, understand that to gain allies we need to share control.
Now, I believe, as I think any American believes that we should never put alliances before our own security, but it's my point that abandonment of alliances can harm our security. And I think we're beginning to understand that.
We also have to consider creating new institutions and alliances. I really appreciate the proposals by Senator Biden to create an international antiterrorist organization to deal with security threats that we face in common.

Modeled on NATO, such an organization would focus on the unique military and non-military challenges that terrorism poses. We understand that terrorism has a global reach. We need to have a global cooperative approach in order to deal with it.
our own military forces are being stretched too thin.
That means, more, not fewer troops.

That's why I've joined Senator Jack Reed and Senator Chuck Hagel and others to push for a larger army. It is just recognizing the reality that we are above authorized levels and there's no real end in sight for the continuing stresses and expectations that our Army, in particular, is going to be expected to meet
But I also believe that winning the War on Terror will not happen by military strength alone. This is fundamentally about America's values and leadership. President Bush has said that the terrorists hate freedom. And he is absolutely right
First, the idea of winning hearts and minds has been derided by some. But I don't think that we can overlook its singular importance. And we need to do more to combat the influence of hatred and bias and, for example, I think, with respect to education, we are doing far too little around the world.
Second, we need to fully fund our development programs and I applaud the Administration for its efforts in the Millennium Challenge Account
But I am supporting the effort to try to create conditions in which at least we can build support within the Congress for more foreign aid to go to many of the most distressed parts of the world.
We also have to do more on women's rights and roles.
By far, the smartest most effective, easiest thing we could do right now is to expand the Nunn-Lugar Act. This bipartisan law signed by the first President Bush and strongly supported by my husband, during his terms, channels money to the former Soviet Union to destroy weapons and to employ the scientists who created the weapons of the WMDs there. And to ensure that plutonium and uranium are rendered useless.

We know that, thanks to Nunn-Lugar, enough fissile material to make five thousand nuclear bombs is now out of harm's way. As much good as that law has accomplished already, it could do even more if we expanded it. But efforts to do so have been rebuffed at every turn.
Well, I believe that we do need a tough-minded muscular foreign and defense policy. But one that respects our allies and seeks new friends even as we move against known enemies.
Now, I say this not simply to propound some golden rule of international affairs. But because I really do think this is in our national security. You know, throw-weight used to be a term to describe the explosive power of a nuclear missile. In this Administration, throw-weight seems to be how much we can bully other nations to do our way.

Back to Balancing - Brookings Institution

HIllary Clinton's foreign policy advisor's newest position paper about America's relationship to the Middle East.

Tags: Hillary, Clinton, Middle, East, foreign, policy, Martin, Indyk on 2008-04-15 -All Annotations (0) -About

more fromwww.brookings.edu

1Expand

Hillary Rodham Clinton - Council on Foreign Relations

A great summary page of Clinton's foreign policy views with links to primary source documents.

Tags: Hillary, Clinton, foreign, policy, Council, relations, CFR, Middle, East on 2008-04-15 -All Annotations (0) -About

more fromwww.cfr.org

3Expand

CLINTON IN THE MIDEAST: THE FIRST LADY; Hillary Clinton Tiptoes Through Praise in Gaza - New York Times

1998 NYT times article, when Hillary appread more pro-Palestinian - Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has been hailed here as a champion of Palestinian statehood, walked a careful diplomatic line in public appearances today, praising Palestinian national aspirations while avoiding comments that could be considered a call for sovereignty.

Tags: Hillary, Clinton, Palestine, Israel, Arafat, Middle, East on 2008-04-15 -All Annotations (0) -About

more fromquery.nytimes.com

4Expand

Hillary Rodham Clinton, Senator for New York: Clinton, Voinovich Demand Immediate Release of Kidnapped Israeli Soldiers

The resolution condemns Hamas and Hezbollah for cross border attacks that led to the kidnappings last year and urges the militant groups to allow prompt medical treatment of the soldiers by representatives of the International Red Cross. It also expresses vigorous support and unwavering commitment to the welfare and survival of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state and encourages strong support and deep interest in achieving a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The resolution also expresses ongoing concern and sympathy for the families of the three soldiers and all other missing soldiers of Israel.

Tags: Hezbollah, Hamas, Israel, HIllary, Clinton, kidnapped, soldiers, Voinovich, Middle, East on 2008-04-15 -All Annotations (0) -About

more fromclinton.senate.gov

24Expand

Senator Clinton's Remarks to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)

Clinton's speech to AIPAC on Feb 1, 2007

Tags: Clinton, Hillary, AIPAC, Israel, Iran, Iraq, Election, 08, Middle, East on 2008-04-15 -All Annotations (0) -About

more fromclinton.senate.gov

That's because the bond shared between the U.S. and Israel is based on shared interests but is rooted in the strength we derive from our shared values.
At this moment of peril, what is vital is that we stand by our friend and our ally and we stand by our own values. Israel is a beacon of what's right in a neighborhood overshadowed by the wrongs of radicalism, extremism, despotism and terrorism
Iran poses a threat not only to Israel, but to the entire Middle East and beyond, including the U.S.
The regime's pro-terrorist, anti-American, anti-Israeli rhetoric only underscores the urgency of our response to the threat we face.
U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot, we should not, we must not, permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. And in dealing with this threat as I have said for a very long time, no option can be taken off the table.
it uses its influence and its revenues in the region to support terrorist elements that are attacking innocent Israelis; and now we believe attacking American soldiers
The kidnapping of Israeli soldiers, that precipitated the conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon last summer, have not yet been resolved. And it is essential that Israel's abducted soldiers are returned unconditionally.
I have long said that Hamas must not be recognized until it renounces violence and terror and recognizes Israel's right to exist. And now Hamas and Hezbollah must return Israel's abducted soldiers and to stop their terror campaign against Israelis.
Hezbollah is second only to Al Qaeda to the number of American lives it has claimed. We know too of the deep and dangerous connections these terrorists share with the governments of Syria and Iran;
We must insist that Hamas and indeed all Palestinian parties renounce terror and recognize Israel.
In 1999 I raised the problem of anti-Semitism in Palestinian textbooks, now eight years later we continue to hear disturbing reports that these textbooks have not been changed
But Eilat is a tragic reminder of the threats that Israel faces everyday and underscores the importance of our continued support for Israel's right to protect and defend her people
I've been a strong supporter of Israel's right to build a security barrier to keep terrorists out. I have spoken out against the International Court of Justice for questioning Israel's right to build that fence of security
Magen David Adom. I've long supported the MDA and for decades it was denied admission to the International Committee of the Red Cross despite the fact it had deployed its volunteers and resources to help victims of disaster worldwide
I have advocated engagement with our enemies and Israel's enemies because I want to understand better what we can do to defeat those who are aiming their hatred, their extremism, their weapons at us. And I believe we can gain valuable knowledge and leverage from being part of a process again that enables us to get a better idea of how to take on and defeat our adversaries.
There are many, including our President who rejects any kind of process of any sort of engagement with countries like Syria and Iran. I do believe that that is certainly a good faith position to take, but I am not sure it is the smartest strategy that will take us to the goals that we share.
And what do I mean by engagement or some kind of a process? Well I'm not sure anything positive would come out of it, I have no expectations whatsoever. But there are a number of factors that I think argue for some attempt to do what I am suggesting: number one I don't think we know enough about how Iranian society and their government really functions.
I want to understand better what the leverage we can bring to bear on them will actually produce. I want to get a better sense of what the real power centers and influentials are. And I also want to send a message if we ever do have to take war, drastic action to the rest of the world that we exhausted all possibilities because we need friends and allies to stand with us as we stand with Israel in this long war against terrorism and extremism
There are no good analogies that we can pull from history because we're living with new threats and asymmetric warfare and state actors and non-state actors
. And all during the Cold War we met with the Soviet Union while they had thousands of missiles pointed at our cities while their leaders threatened to bury us while they sowed discord and military uprisings and actions against us and our allies. That was a smart strategy even though it was a difficult one.
The problems that we face in Iraq today have certainly caused many Americans to move away from a belief that the United States has a role in promoting freedom and democracy. If we withdraw from the world, if we turn our back on the dangers we face that I believe will cause problems for us and very big problems for Israel.
We need American support first and foremost for American leadership in combating the dangers of extremism and terrorism.
And we need to use every tool at our disposal including diplomatic and economic in addition to the threatened use of military force.
That is why we stand with Israel because it is a beacon of democracy in the region; that is why we stand with Israel because its very existence is a defiant affront to anti-Semitism; that is why we stand with Israel because in defeating terror because Israel's cause is our cause. And that is why we stand with Israel because of our shared values and our shared belief in the dignity of men and women and the right to live without fear or oppression.

1Expand

President's Portrayal of 'The Enemy' Often Flawed - washingtonpost.com

Similarly, Bush asserted that Shia Hezbollah, which has won seats in the Lebanese government, is a terrorist group "second only to al-Qaeda in the American lives it has taken."

Tags: Bush, Hillary, Clinton, Middle, East, Hezbollah on 2008-04-15 -All Annotations (0) -About

more fromwww.washingtonpost.com

3Expand

Hillary Clinton on the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment

in order to apply greater diplomatic pressure on Iran. This resolution in no way authorizes or sanctions military action against Iran and instead seeks to end the Bush Administration's diplomatic inaction in the region.

Tags: Hillary, Clinton, Iran, Middle, East on 2008-04-15 -All Annotations (0) -About

more fromclinton.senate.gov