Hillary's false Ireland claim

[Hortical]

Nobel winner: Hillary Clinton's 'silly' Irish peace claims


By Toby Harnden in Washington
Last Updated: 9:30am GMT 08/03/2008
Page 1 of 2


Hillary Clinton had no direct role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland and is a "wee bit silly" for exaggerating the part she played, according to Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and former First Minister of the province.

Hillary Clinton with the Rev Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness after their meeting in Washington last year "I don’t know there was much she did apart from accompanying Bill [Clinton] going around," he said. Her recent statements about being deeply involved were merely "the sort of thing people put in their canvassing leaflets" during elections. "She visited when things were happening, saw what was going on, she can certainly say it was part of her experience. I don’t want to rain on the thing for her but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player."
Mrs Clinton has made Northern Ireland key to her claims of having extensive foreign policy experience, which helped her defeat Barack Obama in Ohio and Texas on Tuesday after she presented herself as being ready to tackle foreign policy crises at 3am.
"I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland," she told CNN on Wednesday. But negotiators from the parties that helped broker the Good Friday Agreement in 1998 told The Daily Telegraph that her role was peripheral and that she played no part in the gruelling political talks over the years.
Lord Trimble shared the Nobel Peace Prize with John Hume, leader of the nationalist Social Democratic and Labour Party, in 1998. Conall McDevitt, an SDLP negotiator and aide to Mr Hume during the talks, said: "There would have been no contact with her either in person or on the phone. I was with Hume regularly during calls in the months leading up to the Good Friday Agreement when he was taking calls from the White House and they were invariably coming from the president."
advertisement


if(command.indexOf('tz')!=-1)eval(command);
Central to Mrs Clinton’s claim of an important Northern Ireland role is a meeting she attended in Belfast in with a group of women from cross-community groups. "I actually went to Northern Ireland more than my husband did," she said in Nashua, New Hampshire on January 6th.
"I remember a meeting that I pulled together in Belfast, in the town hall there, bringing together for the first time Catholics and Protestants from both traditions, having them sitting a room where they had never been before with each other because they don’t go to school together, they don’t live together and it was only in large measure because I really asked them to come that they were there.
"And I wasn’t sure it was going to be very successful and finally a Catholic woman on one side of the table said, ’You know, every time my husband leaves for work in the morning I worry he won’t come home at night.
"And then a Protestant woman on the other side said, ’Every time my son tries to go out at night I worry he won’t come home again’. And suddenly instead of seeing each other as caricatures and stereotypes they saw each other as human beings and the slow, hard work of peace-making could move forward."
There is no record of a meeting at Belfast City Hall, though Mrs Clinton attended a ceremony there when her husband turned on the Christmas tree lights in November 1995. The former First Lady appears to be referring a 50-minute event the same day, arranged by the US Consulate, the same day at the Lamp Lighter Café on the city’s Ormeau Road.
The "Belfast Telegraph" reported the next day that the café meeting was crammed with reporters, cameramen and Secret Service agents. Conversation "seemed a little bit stilted, a little prepared at times" and Mrs Clinton admired a stainless steel tea pot, which was duly given to her, for keeping the brew "so nice and hot".
Hillary Clinton meeting with Belfast women
in 1995 and the teapot she admired

Among those attending were women from groups representing single parents, relationship counsellors, youth workers and a cultural society. In her 2003 autobiography "Living History", Mrs Clinton wrote about the meeting in some detail but made no claim that it was significant.
Rather than it being the first time the women had met, Mrs Clinton wrote: "Because they were willing to work across the religious divide, they had found common ground." Mary Fox, the wife of a former IRA prisoner and one of the seven women at the meeting, said she had been there on behalf of the Footprints community centre. "It was quite a political change for the women’s sector after the visit of Hillary Clinton. We would love to see her as president. She spoke to each of us and was very interested in our work. She was lovely."
Mr McDevitt said: "I’ve always had a theory that these people were already well networked. Maybe they needed a bit of bringing together and she [Mrs Clinton] was an ideal focus point." Once a peace deal was in place, Mrs Clinton supported women politicians and was always available if they visited Washington "to give them a pat on the back, give them moral support", he added.

Nobel winner: Hillary Clinton's 'silly' Irish peace claims


By Toby Harnden in Washington
Last Updated: 9:30am GMT 08/03/2008
Page 2 of 2


"So in a classic woman politicky sort of way I think she was active...She was certainly investing some time, no doubt about it. Whether she was involved on the issue side I think probably not." Some of the people Mrs Clinton met went on to help found the Women’s Coalition, which took part in the Good Friday talks. Lord Trimble said: "The Women’s Coalition will think they were important. Other people beg to differ."
Steven King, a negotiator with Lord Trimble’s Ulster Unionist Party, argued that Mrs Clinton might even have helped delay the chances of peace. "She was invited along to some pre-arranged meetings but I don’t think she exactly brought anybody together that hadn’t been brought together already," he said. Mrs Clinton was "a cheerleader for the Irish republican side of the argument", he added.
"She really lost all credibility when on Bill Clinton’s last visit to Northern Ireland [in December 2000] when she hugged and kissed [Sinn Fein leaders] Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness."



Responding to inquiries from this newspaper, Hillary Clinton’s campaign issued a statement from Mr Hume. "I am quite surprised that anyone would suggest that Hillary Clinton did not perform important foreign policy work as First Lady," the statement said.
"I can state from firsthand experience that she played a positive role for over a decade in helping to bring peace to Northern Ireland. She visited Northern Ireland, met with very many people and gave very decisive support to the peace process.
"There is no doubt that the people of Northern Ireland think very positively of Hillary Clinton’s support for our peace process, due to her visits to Northern Ireland and her meetings with so many people. In private she made countless calls and contacts, speaking to leaders and opinion makers on all sides, urging them to keep moving forward."

[Karl]

Even if she was there as reason for meetings of persons who would otherwise not have met then...persons who were at each others throats...persons from widely differing groups...persons from groups that were killing each other...to eventual see each other as worth having relations that would even eventually perclude killing each other she would have helped and helped in a significant way.

It is without doubt that others played much more significant roles than did Mrs. Clinton, but I cannot rremember her saying or of anyone saying that she played a major role. ...but even the peeved gentleman had to admit that she brought factions from both sides together...even if he stuck in his backhanded comments...childish comments on previous networks and Mrs. Clinton's receipt of a 'teapot'.

Has there every been a time when warring factions did not have the means to met each other? So is being a part of encouraging and or faciliting of the meetings which advanced the process of arriving at peace suddenly 'wee bit silly'?

Seems to me that the elderly gentleman as his age advances has become more than a 'wee bit silly'!

If we are to follow his logic then the player who makes the sixth pass in an uninterupted thirteen pass movement that leads to a goal on the football field as having not contributed to the scoring of the goal. ...or the scientist that provides information that leads to three or four other discoveries that on the way to finding the final solution on delivering a cure for a major illness as of no significance?

A 'wee bit silly'?
Indeed!

[Gamma]

she "helped" bring peace to nothern ireland? yuh mean you have more insight than the people involved?!

seh wha? you "helped" too?

[Karl]

she "helped" bring peace to nothern ireland? yuh mean you have more insight than the people involved?!

seh wha? you "helped" too?

hehehehehe!!!!
Just because you attended and 'lived at' Campion means your understanding of who were those who helped Campion to the state...enjoy the status it now has is the definitive word on that.

The man it appears was a heavy player in what took place on that road to where Nothern Ireland finds itself. I would bet my bottom dollar there are many who played important parts who he would never acknowlwedge.

There are very few who are honoured who share the acolades with others. ...and I am sure it is not infrequent that more deserving of the honours are overlooked and only a fortunate few get just rewards.

Nothing this pompous ass says negates what Hillary claims. "Wee bit silly"? Indeed?

[Gamma]

yuh too easily blinded!

what is this guy's motivation? why should he care? he is complete third party......

should a believe hilary who is clearly bet on resume padding or a neutral third party.....

[Yuttie]

Greg Craig, former director of the Policy Planning Office, U.S. State Department sent out this memo today:

When your entire campaign is based upon a claim of experience, it is important that you have evidence to support that claim. Hillary Clinton’s argument that she has passed “the Commander- in-Chief test” is simply not supported by her record.

There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton played an important domestic policy role when she was First Lady.


When asked to describe her experience, Senator Clinton has cited a handful of international incidents where she says she played a central role. But any fair-minded and objective judge of these claims – i.e., by someone not affiliated with the Clinton campaign – would conclude that Senator Clinton’s claims of foreign policy experience are exaggerated.

Northern Ireland:

Senator Clinton has said, “I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland.” It is a gross overstatement of the facts for her to claim even partial credit for bringing peace to Northern Ireland. She did travel to Northern Ireland, it is true. First Ladies often travel to places that are a focus of U.S. foreign policy. But at no time did she play any role in the critical negotiations that ultimately produced the peace. As the Associated Press recently reported, “[S]he was not directly involved in negotiating the Good Friday peace accord.” With regard to her main claim that she helped bring women together, she did participate in a meeting with women, but, according to those who know best, she did not play a pivotal role. The person in charge of the negotiations, former Senator George Mitchell, said that “[The First Lady] was one of many people who participated in encouraging women to get involved, not the only one.”

News of Senator Clinton’s claims has raised eyebrows across the ocean. Her reference to an important meeting at the Belfast town hall was debunked. Her ONLY appearance at the Belfast City Hall was to see Christmas lights turned on.

(Yes!)

She also attended a 50-minute meeting which, according to the Belfast Daily Telegraph’s report at the time, “[was] a little bit stilted, a little prepared at times." Brian Feeney, an Irish author and former politician, sums it up: “The road to peace was carefully documented, and she wasn’t on it.”

Questions: only? ...also?
Which is it ONLY or more than ONLY? ...and if there is such a blatant lie here...blatant self-professing lie here, are there other lies not spoken of?

Bosnia:

Senator Clinton has pointed to a March 1996 trip to Bosnia as proof that her foreign travel involved a life-risking mission into a war zone. She has described dodging sniper fire. While she did travel to Bosnia in March 1996, the visit was not a high-stakes mission to a war zone. On March 26, 1996, the New York Times reported that “Hillary Rodham Clinton charmed American troops at a U.S.O. show here, but it didn’t hurt that the singer Sheryl Crow and the comedian Sinbad were also on the stage.”

Questions: ...and the troops and the instalation and or 'lodgings' where not in a war zone? ...and there was no sniper fire anywhere near the party?

Kosovo:

Senator Clinton has said, “I negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo.” It is true that, as First Lady, she traveled to Macedonia and visited a Kosovar refugee camp. It is also true that she met with government officials while she was there. First Ladies frequently meet with government officials. Her claim to have “negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo,” however, is not true. Her trip to Macedonia took place on May 14, 1999. The borders were opened the day before, on May 13, 1999.

The negotiations that led to the opening of the borders were accomplished by the people who ordinarily conduct negotiations with foreign governments – U.S. diplomats. President Clinton’s top envoy to the Balkans, former Ambassador Robert Gelbard, said, “I cannot recall any involvement by Senator Clinton in this issue.” Ivo Daalder worked on the Clinton Administration’s National Security Council and wrote a definitive history of the Kosovo conflict. He recalls that “she had absolutely no role in the dirty work of negotiations.”

Question:
Where is the evidence that Hillary did not help? ...and it would be inconceivable that she would not have helped?! ...as to the degree of help provided that is another matter? So she negotiated...so?

Rwanda:

Last year, former President Clinton asserted that his wife pressed him to intervene with U.S. troops to stop the Rwandan genocide. When asked about this assertion, Hillary Clinton said it was true. There is no evidence, however, to suggest that this ever happened. Even those individuals who were advocating a much more robust U.S. effort to stop the genocide did not argue for the use of U.S. troops. No one recalls hearing that Hillary Clinton had any interest in this course of action. Based on a fair and thorough review of National Security Council deliberations during those tragic months, there is no evidence to suggest that U.S. military intervention was ever discussed. Prudence Bushnell, the Assistant Secretary of State with responsibility for Africa, has recalled that there was no consideration of U.S. military intervention.

At no time prior to her campaign for the presidency did Senator Clinton ever make the claim that she supported intervening militarily to stop the Rwandan genocide. It is noteworthy that she failed to mention this anecdote – urging President Clinton to intervene militarily in Rwanda – in her memoirs. President Clinton makes no mention of such a conversation with his wife in his memoirs. And Madeline Albright, who was Ambassador to the United Nations at the time, makes no mention of any such event in her memoirs.

Hillary Clinton did visit Rwanda in March 1998 and, during that visit, her husband apologized for America’s failure to do more to prevent the genocide.

Question: That last paragraph seem to suggest that at the very least the President was sorry he did not do more...is it inconceivable to think that as the Republicans claimed...the meddling Hillary who had so much influence on Bill never discussed this issue?

China

Senator Clinton also points to a speech that she delivered in Beijing in 1995 as proof of her ability to answer a 3 AM crisis phone call. It is strange that Senator Clinton would base her own foreign policy experience on a speech that she gave over a decade ago, since she so frequently belittles Barack Obama’s speeches opposing the Iraq War six years ago. Let there be no doubt: she gave a good speech in Beijing, and she stood up for women’s rights. But Senator Obama’s opposition to the War in Iraq in 2002 is relevant to the question of whether he, as Commander-in-Chief, will make wise judgments about the use of military force. Senator Clinton’s speech in Beijing is not.

Senator Obama’s speech opposing the war in Iraq shows independence and courage as well as good judgment. In the speech that Senator Clinton says does not qualify him to be Commander in Chief, Obama criticized what he called “a rash war . . . a war based not on reason, but on passion, not on principle, but on politics.” In that speech, he said prophetically: “[E]ven a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.” He predicted that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would “fan the flames of the Middle East,” and “strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda.” He urged the United States first to “finish the fight with Bin Laden and al Qaeda.”

If the U.S. government had followed Barack Obama’s advice in 2002, we would have avoided one of the greatest foreign policy catastrophes in our nation’s history. Some of the most “experienced” men in national security affairs – Vice President Cheney and Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others – led this nation into that catastrophe. That lesson should teach us something about the value of judgment over experience. Longevity in Washington, D.C. does not guarantee either wisdom of judgment.

Question: Is there not a difference in on the one hand 'preaching' the same line consistently over the years and on the other making a speech in 2002 and voting consistently to support the war effort?

Conclusion:

The Clinton campaign’s argument is nothing more than mere assertion, dramatized in a scary television commercial with a telephone ringing in the middle of the night. There is no support for or substance in the claim that Senator Clinton has passed “the Commander-in-Chief test.” That claim – as the TV ad – consists of nothing more than making the assertion, repeating it frequently to the voters and hoping that they will believe it.

Question: ...and Obama does not...did not make mere assertion, dramatized in a scary television commercial with a telephone ringing in the middle of the night...saying he should be the one answering the phone?

On the most critical foreign policy judgment of our generation – the War in Iraq – Senator Clinton voted in support of a resolution entitled “The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of U.S. Military Force Against Iraq.” As she cast that vote, she said: “This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.” In this campaign, Senator Clinton has argued – remarkably – that she wasn’t actually voting for war, she was voting for diplomacy. That claim is no more credible than her other claims of foreign policy experience.

The above on Hillary Clinton's vote is a lie! A baldface lie!
The vote was based on at least two steps - One giving diplomacy and the investigators time to prove or disprove that Saddam either had no weapons of Mass Destruction...in which case there would be NO WAR...or had weapons of Mass Destruction in which case he would allow the weapons to be destroyed and there would be NO WAR...or if such weapons were found and Sadamm attempted to prevent their destruction they would be forcefully removed...i.e. THERE WOULD BE WAR!

Evidence was presented by the Bush administration that such a course of steps was reasonable.

The members of the US House had to make a decision based on that eveidence. What the hell did OBAMA base his decision on - GUT FEELINGS?

The real tragedy is that we are still living with the terrible consequences of her misjudgment. The Bush Administration continues to cite that resolution as its authorization – like a blank check – to fight on with no end in sight.

Barack Obama has a very simple case. On the most important commander in chief test of our generation, he got it right, and Senator Clinton got it wrong. In truth, Senator Obama has much more foreign policy experience than either Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan had when they were elected. Senator Obama has worked to confront 21st century challenges like proliferation and genocide on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He possesses the personal attributes of a great leader – an even temperament, an open-minded approach to even the most challenging problems, a willingness to listen to all views, clarity of vision, the ability to inspire, conviction and courage.

And Barack Obama does not use false charges and exaggerated claims to play politics with national security.

Questions: That is a damn lie!
In a debate Obama said the slum-lord was a friend for 20 years...and HE NEVER KNEW OF HIS TROUBLES WITH AN ETHICS PROBE!

He also has not explained how it is that he benefitted by thousands of dollars in the real estate transaction that got him his home and an adjoining piece of land?

It must be a reasonable to ponder if he got a "Pay-off" for aiding his slum-lord friend? He should present those documents along with an explanation on them...right?

Obama has also told other fibs in the debates and on the campaign trail!

...and btw - is this writer really trying to claim that the years Hillary Clinton served on the Armed Services Commission she was never a part of decisions made affecting the Armed Services and thus in a very many cases our Foreign Policy?

...if so - perhaps the BIGGEST LIE of all! ...like Obama's speeches sweet sounding but empty gas!

[Karl]

yuh too easily blinded!

what is this guy's motivation? why should he care? he is complete third party......

should a believe hilary who is clearly bet on resume padding or a neutral third party.....

Third party?
Was he lauded for his role?
Would having it known that many others played a part cause pause...and or double take on the weight of the role he played?
Would it be in his interest to say quelch knowledge of weight others played?
Third party?
Do not think so!!!!

[Gamma]

yuh righted inna yuh head?!