Bill Confirms it: Hillary's Role in the Bosnia Debacle

Yes that's right. Bill Clinton confirms Hillary was against intervening in Bosnia in 1993.

I've posted two diaries on this subject now, and though there have been some thoughtful responses from Democrats supporting either candidate, there have also been numerous attempts to suggest Hillary was FOR intervention when all the evidence suggests she was not .

If you want to discuss the merits of intervention etc, you can check out my other diary

But here I am specifically talking about Hillary's role in the war itself and how this explains her distortions in the Tuzla story. This speaks to both her experience and her judgement.

I have been accused of 'rewriting history' on this. As the sources prove, including now a quote from Bill himself, this is an example of transference. Those who say Hillary was pro-intervention have rewritten history. I hope this will settle the matter. Hillary's sin was not just lying, but also covering up a truth - her involvement in prolonging the Bosnian war.

Just to reiterate: I'm not pushing this issue for simple hit diary reasons. I think, as a potential presidential nominee for the worlds remaining superpower, you should be held accountable for your rhetoric, and any past actions - especially if they involve the biggest war and genocide in Europe since World War II.

The link to the previous diary is here
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/31/1623 39/309

And the relevant quotes below the fold.

To put this in a context bigger than mere sleep deprivation or false memory syndrome:

Roger Cohen: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/opinio n/27Cohen.html

Here's some news for Hillary Clinton: the Bosnian war was over in 1996.

Those of us, like myself, who first went to Bosnia at the start of the war in 1992 and then, in 1994 and 1995, endured President Bill Clinton's circumlocutions as we sat in an encircled Sarajevo watching pregnant women getting blown away by shelling from Serbian gunners, know that.

We know that as President Clinton mumbled about "enmities that go back 500 years, some would say almost a thousand years," Bosnia burned. We know what that talk of intractable grievances dating back to 995 was meant to communicate: no western intervention could achieve anything in the Balkan pit.

Only after the mass murder of Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica, three years after the initial Serbian genocide of 1992 against that population (and one year after a genocide on his watch in Rwanda), did the gelatinous Clinton develop some backbone. NATO bombed, Richard Holbrooke did his brilliant work at Dayton in November 1995, and the guns fell silent in Bosnia.

Since my two diaries I've had constant comments asserting that Hillary was in favour of Lift and Strike, and an active voice arguing for intervention.

But according to Sally Bedell Smith (LOVE OF POLITICS, pp 157-8) Hillary was arguing the opposite.

"Taking the advice of Al Gore and National Security Advisor Tony Lake, Bill agreed to a proposal to bomb Serbian military positions while helping the Muslims acquire weapons to defend themselves--the fulfillment of a pledge he had made during the 1992 campaign. But instead of pushing European leaders, he directed Secretary of State Warren Christopher merely to consult with them. When they balked at the plan, Bill quickly retreated, creating a "perception of drift." The key factor in Bill's policy reversal was Hillary, who was said to have "deep misgivings" and viewed the situation as "a Vietnam that would compromise health-care reform." The United States took no further action in Bosnia, and the "ethnic cleansing" by the Serbs was to continue for four more years, resulting in the deaths of more than 250,000 people."

   I can personally witness to the truth of this, too. I can remember, first, one of the Clintons' closest personal advisers--Sidney Blumenthal--referring with acid contempt to Warren Christopher as "a blend of Pontius Pilate with Ichabod Crane." I can remember, second, a meeting with Clinton's then-Secretary of Defense Les Aspin at the British Embassy. When I challenged him on the sellout of the Bosnians, he drew me aside and told me that he had asked the White House for permission to land his own plane at Sarajevo airport, if only as a gesture of reassurance that the United States had not forgotten its commitments. The response from the happy couple was unambiguous: He was to do no such thing, lest it distract attention from the first lady's health care "initiative."

Yet there are some who are still asking for other quotations, from more Hillary friendly sources. I found this by a favourable biographer, who was present during many of the deliberations in the first year of Clinton's administration. Here's Bill Reeves, author of Running in Place.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/ shows/choice/bill/reeves.html

I think the Bosnian policy of the United States, which I don't disapprove of, is a perfect example of the Clinton presidency. That is, the President wakes up new each morning and so we have had 365 Bosnian policies a day. He may have been talking about it at home, he may have read something, he may have heard something. He is open to information. This is not a closed man, which changes his take on it.

The most dramatic example came toward the end of the first year, when he agreed, at a series of meetings on policy called "Lift and Strike," lift the arms embargo on the Bosnian Muslims and strike at Bosnian- Serb targets. That happened on a Friday. Warren Christopher went to Europe to tell NATO allies what we were going to do, and that Monday morning there was a meeting in the Oval Office between Clinton, Colin Powell, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs-of-Staff, and Les Aspin, then Secretary of Defense. And as he walked into the room, Clinton was carrying a book called Balkan Ghosts, by Robert Kaplan. And he said, "My wife read this and I read some of it too. And it says that we can't succeed doing anything in that society. They've been killing each other for thousands of years and they're going to keep doing it." And Les Aspin said later, he was sitting there thinking, "He's going to go south on Lift and Strike." And he called Europe, got Christopher, and said, "Don't say anything. The President's going to change his mind." And in fact the President did.

So over to you guys. Doesn't this just darken the deceit. Isn't Hillary not only lying about her role in a non war zone, she's also concealing her true role and guilt in prolonging the war?



Display:


We're done with this (none / 0)

We know it's a big to-do.  Clinton made a regrettable error of judgement in her story, and the damage is not easily reperable.

We don't need to delight in her troubles.  Let it go.  Focus on building bridges and making sure that Clinton's voters feel alright voting for Obama.

Remember, Obama's campaign is bottom-up, not top-down. We're all representatives for the future of the party.  Act with some dignity.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:25:13 AM EST

Re: We're done with this (2.00 / 1)

At least the diarist is engaging in an issue that matters, the question of intervening in Bosnia and the larger question of when the United States should intervene militarily. I grant you that the Obama camp has beaten Clinton's Tuzla comment to death, but I see no reason to drop the conversation as it turns from smears to real issues.

And I'm a Clinton supporter.


by souvarine on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:50:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We're done with this (none / 0)

Unfortunately, from a European perspective, this is still big news. But I just needed to get that last bit of information out to answer those who are trying to rewrite history. It's a big issue.

Now the record has been set straight I will concentrate, as I have done in many (reasonable) discussions with Hillary supporters, in healing the wounds. But the wound needs to be cleansed first. Sorry. I just feel this way about this one issue.


by brit on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:52:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Fair enough... (none / 0)

But I don't really see this diary having the intended effect.  The chances of Clinton becoming the nominee are very small at this point, and I think it's more productive to let it go.

I'll leave you to it, though.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:54:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fair enough... (2.00 / 1)

You say that as if you're certain, and I really don't see it, at all, in terms of her NOT becoming the nominee.

But if she doesn't, I can guarantee, it will be less power for those who back McCain, and Obama, and I mean the big money people.

Ultimately, that is the system that must be dismantled, "the astroturfers."

I mean, Rezko's trial,  and Fitzgerald's investigations go on, and we're not speaking an intangible in terms of Wright, we're speaking prison in terms of kickbacks, et al.

Boy, that head is firmly in the sand.


by Marsha1 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:35:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill Confirms it: Hillary's Role in the Bosnia (2.00 / 2)

So when we hear reports that Hillary was against Bosnia, we are to believe them.

When we hear that she was against NAFTA, we are to believe that she is a lying bitch and so are those who tell us so.


by Dave B on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:32:31 AM EST

Re: Bill Confirms it: Hillary's Role in the Bosnia (none / 0)

I doubt we can believe anything she says.  Her credibility is shot.


If I had to make a prediction right now, I'd say Barack Obama is going to be the next president.
by Andre X on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:34:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill Confirms it: Hillary's Role in the Bosnia (2.00 / 3)

Bill Clinton did vacillate on Bosnia, and I have no idea what advice Hillary Clinton gave him. All your Reeve quote suggests is that Hillary Clinton read Balkan Ghosts.

The decision to use U.S. troops, especially to intervene in a civil war, is not one that the U.S. President should take lightly. We would be in much better shape today had George Bush vacillated a bit and thought through various alternative arguments before invading Iraq. I agree with you that we should have intervened earlier in Bosnia, but there were powerful arguments against intervening.


by souvarine on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:41:46 AM EST

Thanks souvarine (2.00 / 1)

For making everyone remember that, no matter how bitter some of these issues, we can have a dialogue about this.

Richard Reeves quotes Bill as saying her input was critical. If you buy that, then it does speak something in her favour a) She really WAS heavily involved in goverment and B) she was very cautious about military intervention. This makes her AUMF vote a little harder to explain, but I suppose there was so much popular pressure at the time.

Once again, good on you for dealing with the issues.


by brit on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:57:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill Confirms it: (2.00 / 4)

This is a hit diary.

We are now to believe Sally Bedell Smith?

And I am supposed to hate Hillary for putting health care reform first in her mind even back then?

Sorry...not gonna happen.


by americanincanada on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:42:21 AM EST

Which is it? (none / 0)

You've got a good point about Health care reform. But that's from a writer you're quick to discredit.

But what about the Reeves quotation?


by brit on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:00:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Which is it? (2.00 / 5)

All the Reeves quotation shows me is that she read a book, encouraged Bill to read it and seemingly encouraged him to be very cautious about military intervention. I wish Bush would have had someone suggest such to him. Perhaps a little more information from varying sources would have stopped him, though I doubt it.

I have always known that Hillary was pragmatic and cautious about using military fource which is why her explanation about her AUMF vote rang true to me.


by americanincanada on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:08:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Amen. n/t (2.00 / 1)


by Xanthe on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:55:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Was Reeves pesent at this (2.00 / 1)

conversation wherein Hillary convinced Bill to stay out of Bosnia?  did Bill tell him that Hillary changed his mind.  Reeves says bill changed his mind consistently - well perhaps someone else intervened in the mind-changing - perhaps his driver or someone he talked to on the street.  

Where was Europe, btw?  And what was the feeling of the american people?  Or is a president not to take that into consideration.

What you are saying that Hillary is responsible for deaths in bosnia.  And many on these blogs consider Iraq the Hillary War, not the bush war.  

Look at the difficulty of a potential war in Bosnia.
The Army paid a high price in VietNam - in blood and its psychology.  At the Pentagon, its senior people served directly in the Vietnam War.  State at that time had younger people - not tied to the VietNam war.  It was a particularly confusing time.  Americans were not looking forward to another VietNam either.  On Main Street, we weren't at all sure we could be the policeman of the world.  Let's face it - we got out of Nam less than honorably - and the military was not anxious to go to war in the Balkins.  Shouldn't a president listen to his generals? Perhaps Dubrovnik might be easy to protect - but what about Vukovar?  That would be more blood - considering the terrain.

As well, Les Aspin died at 56 - he's not around to comment  
According to Christopher the Europeans fought hard against any change in policy - if anything was going to be done - we had to do it.

You make it all so simple - I wish it were simple -  


by Xanthe on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:52:43 AM EST

Re: Was Reeves pesent at this (none / 0)

Lee Aspin was, and Reeves notes were taken from an interview with Aspin before he died.

I'm not trying to revisit the debate about intervention, I'm not actually saying Hillary was wrong (though I think she was), I'm merely refuting through multiple sources the misapprehension that Hillary was FOR intervention, and Bill held her back. It was clearly the other way round, though Hillary was not alone in her wavering.

The key thing is, when she's spoken about visiting a 'war zone' under extreme danger, the truth is she argued against intervening in that same war. Claiming heroic military risk in visiting Bosnia - this was her preface to her big Foreign Policy speech in March - while simultaneously having argued against military risk in Bosnia, doesn't that take her deceit to a deeper level, regardless of whether you supported US intervention or not?


by brit on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:14:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

she may have argued for (2.00 / 1)

and against off and on with her husband.  I don't see enough proof that she and she alone was responsible for the President's decision, if at all.

Lee Aspin was present at a moment when bill walked in with a book under his arm and mentioned his wife said such and such.  Was Aspin present when the Clintons argued back and forth about intervention.  and it may have been on more than one occasion.  thin gruel indeed.

I did read your diary as a hit against Hillary because she didn't push for intervention - and don't say you don't want to revisit the intervention - it's the center of your argument.
Yes she lied.  Politicians lie.  all politicians - she spoke without thinking or thinking she'd get away with it - and it's not going to get away.  I understand.  I still prefer her to Sen. Obama.

But this war in Iraq will hang around our necks not only for the lives we lost and the money that may push us into a gd depression (and it is the bush war - not the Hillary War) it will also affect our foreign policy in years to come. that aftermath may in fact cause more harm than the bloody war.

If we went into Dubrovnik - we'd probably do Vukovar as well.  Powell knew this well. McPeak, a new member, however, disagreed with the others - so perhaps we will have other bombings and wars to come - if he asserts any authority under an Obama presidency.        


by Xanthe on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:55:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bosnia (2.00 / 1)


So Bill Clinton was cautious about using a military solution?  And when he did in Bosnia, wasn't it pretty successful?  And is that the military operation where not one American life (soldier) was lost?
by moevaughn on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:17:47 PM EST

Yup (none / 0)

That would be the same war during which 250,000 lost their lives. Your point?


by brit on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:28:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yup (2.00 / 0)

i actually tried to delete that before it appeared because I screwed up.  Do you know how to delete a comment after it's posted? Thanks


by moevaughn on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:30:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No worries (none / 0)

Good on you for 'fessing up. I can try to hide rate it, but it might need a couple of people to do it, and I'll  probably get called a 'troll'.

But if you're big enough, so am I.

Have a great day


by brit on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:43:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bosnia (none / 0)

I always thought the U.S. military death toll was 9.  And no one even talked about the $ cost - unlike the Iraq clusterfuck we're in now.


by cameoanne on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:38:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bosnia (none / 0)

I'm pretty sure none of these deaths was from enemy action, but mines, accidents etc. But the comparison the debacle in Iraq is true regardless


by brit on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:24:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.