Or, as an alternative title: "Mixed Messages"
We begin in December of 2003, when Senator Clinton was still speaking of Iraq in the following manner:
I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote. I have had many disputes and disagreements with the administration over how that authority has been used, but I stand by the vote to provide the authority because I think it was a necessary step in order to maximize the outcome that did occur in the Security Council with the unanimous vote to send in inspectors. And I also knew that our military forces would be successful. But what we did not appreciate fully and what the administration was unprepared for was what would happen the day after.
Emphasis added.
It was in this same speech before the Council on Foreign Relations that Clinton remarked:
we have to do more along the Afghan-Pakistan border. And we were reminded yesterday, with the assassination attempt on President Musharraf, how difficult that effort to control that border remains. We met with President Musharraf at around midnight on Thanksgiving night, after coming from our visits in Kabul, Bagram and Kandahar. And he is a man in a very difficult position. He has been a very vocal and helpful ally to the United States in the war against terror. He has for the first time attempted to put troops into the tribal areas along the border in Pakistan. But he faces considerable risks at moving more effectively against the Taliban and the al Qaeda. We have to support him in every way that we possibly can, and we have to make clear that we need and expect that support.
CFR
Speaking of Clinton's foreign policy approach with respect to Pakistan requires the context of the Iraq War authorization. The political unrest and deterioration of Pakistan cannot be taken outside the context of not only our invasion of Afghanistan, but also the continuing unrest of that country in light of shifting our resources to a second front. Our inability to address the problem of Afghanistan's integrity and the al Qaeda/Taliban stronghold of the northwest tribal areas of Pakistan is a direct consequence of our overextended military and exhausted dimplomatic standing in Iraq. Degradation of democratic instistutions in Pakistan has been further enabled by a narrative Clinton happily indulged: Pervez Musharraf is our ally in the "war on terror."
Just as is the case with the Iraq War, no one in Congress in '01 and '02 voting on appropriations receives a "pass" on enabling untraceable funding of the Musharraf regime in the name of anti-terrorism. Some wouldn't even take one, as we saw Christopher Dodd defending the support of Musharraf in defiance of democratic principle at yesterday's debate, in which he is at least being consistent as his position remains apparently unchanged from three months ago and 6 years ago alike. Where, in the meantime, has Hillary Clinton's position gone?
In January of '05, Clinton signed on as a cosponsor of a Joe Biden bill authorizing aid to Pakistan that thankfully included many of the necessary caveats - that Pakistan work towards democratic reform and that, lamentably, died in committee. Clinton did not, to my knowledge, chastise herself for in any way implying that Musharraf was wholly devoted to promoting democracy. Appropriations for aid and infrastructure in rural regions involved in the bill, and that Clinton also gave passing mention in October '06, and back in February '04 is indeed quite admirable. It's 2007 where the message gets hazy again.
January:
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — U.S. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton met with the Pakistani president on Sunday, shortly after she arrived for a brief visit, an official said.
The meeting took place after Clinton — a Democrat from New York who is considering running for president — arrived at the Lahore international airport from Afghanistan, said the official on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to media.
The two discussed a range of issues, including the situation in Afghanistan and the Middle East, he said, quoting Musharraf as telling Clinton that Pakistan was in favor of a "stable, strong and prosperous Afghanistan" and that Islamabad was extending full support to the world community in the fight against terrorism.
Musharraf also informed Clinton about the steps his government had taken to curb militancy and secure the Pakistani border with Afghanistan to check militants' activities, the official said.
The official said Clinton praised Pakistan's role in the fight against terrorism.
USA Today
On her return her statement included...
Obviously, from President Musharraf’s perspective, he has some legitimate questions about how best to work with his Afghan counterparts that he shared with us. He raised his concerns about the state of relationship between Afghanistan and Pakistan. And I am concerned that when we most need troops on the ground in Afghanistan and a very tight relationship that is focused on good intelligence and military intervention to prevent the resurgence of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, we might have some difficulties between our two great allies.
I discussed with both President Karzai and President Musharraf whether a high level United States envoy on a continuing basis would be helpful and they both expressed a positive reaction. As some of you might remember, President Bush had both Presidents to dinner together to try to work out some of their concerns. And upon returning to the United States, I placed a call to the White House and spoke with the National Security Advisor, Steve Hadley, to urge that the President consider appointing such a high-level Presidential envoy
clinton.senate.gov
...with no particular mention of democratic reform or concerns over the commitment of the Musharraf regime. How effective Pakistan has been in the past couple years as a "great ally" in the war on terror is a matter subject to considerable debate.
June, at the New Hampshire debate:
QUESTION: A number of the candidates have talked about alliance- building. I want to ask about a specific country. The U.S. has had close relations with Pakistan as part of the war in Afghanistan and part of the war on terror.
How do you reconcile our security interests with Pakistan with our interest in promoting liberal democracy? Pakistan is not a democratic country.
BLITZER: Let's ask -- let's throw that question to Senator Clinton.
CLINTON: Well, it's a really important question, because we have been supporting Pakistan through President Musharraf now for a number of years. And it is clear that he has not moved toward democracy, but has solidified his rule and become quite anti-democratic, with his removal of the chief justice and many of the other moves that he's taken.
At the same time, we depend upon him to try to control the tribal areas out of which come the resurgent Taliban and Al Qaida fighters who cross the border into Afghanistan.
Again, this is an area where I think the United States needs to be just focused, like the proverbial laser.
When I was in Pakistan and Afghanistan in January, I met with both President Karzai and President Musharraf.
CLINTON: And I asked them if it would help to have a high-level presidential envoy working with both of them to try to figure out how we can move toward what are American interests and how we can keep Pakistan from undermining the war against the Taliban and Al Qaida.
BLITZER: All right.
CLINTON: And unfortunately when I got back and I called the White House and I made this suggestion, it fell on deaf ears.
We see above that that's a rather strange reading of her call for a high-level envoy in January. At the time she gave no mention to the issues of democratic reform in Pakistan, which makes her June statement in the debate somewhat self-serving. Again there was no indication that talking in such a manner about Musharraf would be any way out of bounds for a presidential candidate.
In August, however...
"I am concerned about talking about it," she said. "I think everyone agrees that our goal should be to capture or kill bin Laden and his lieutenants but how we do it should not be telegraphed and discussed for obvious reasons."
...in response to Barack Obama's focus on al Qaeda on the Pakistan border and caution concerning Musharraf's democratic principles. Later, she extended upon those criticisms (along with Dodd) at the AFL-CIO debate
SEN. CLINTON: Well, I do not believe people running for president should engage in hypotheticals. And it may well be that the strategy we have to pursue on the basis of actionable intelligence -- but remember, we’ve had some real difficult experiences with actionable intelligence -- might lead to a certain action.
But I think it is a very big mistake to telegraph that and to destabilize the Musharraf regime, which is fighting for its life against the Islamic extremists who are in bed with al Qaeda and Taliban. And remember, Pakistan has nuclear weapons. The last thing we want is to have al Qaeda-like followers in charge of Pakistan and having access to nuclear weapons.
So you can think big, but remember, you shouldn’t always say everything you think if you’re running for president, because it has consequences across the world. And we don’t need that right now.
She endorsed the false frame that Musharraf is placed in strict, bipolar opposition to Islamic extremists in Pakistan, the same frame that he has used to crack down on moderate opposition, all while criticizing Obama for making a very similar statement regarding strikes on al Qaeda to that Clinton had made herself when questioned on the matter. In early November, Clinton had no further qualms about discussing Pakistan...
Just a day after Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf declared a state of emergency, Sen. Hillary Clinton called the current U.S. policy toward Pakistan "fundamentally incoherent" and said the "failed policies" of President Bush were partially to blame for Pervez's actions.
The administration has "diverted resources, time, and attention away from Afghanistan and from the volatile Afghanistan-Pakistan border," Clinton, D-New York, said Sunday. "They have sent mixed messages over several years now to President Musharraf that rendered our policy toward Pakistan fundamentally incoherent, and now we face a situation where it's deteriorating in terms of safety."
Clinton added that the threat is "in large measure — if not caused by — certainly contributed to by the Bush administration."
"Mixed messages."
Clinton is absolutely correct to criticize the conduct of the Bush admin. and its contribution to the Pakistani political crisis, but disingenuous to fail to acknowledge her endorsement of the same foreign policy perspective that Bush embraced in Musharraf's support.
Yesterday:
MR. BLITZER: You say national security is more important than human rights.
Senator Clinton, what do you say?
SEN. CLINTON: I agree with that completely. I mean the first obligation of the president of the United States is to protect and defend the United States of America. That doesn't mean that it is to the exclusion of other interests.
And there's absolutely a connection between a democratic regime and heightened security for the United States. That's what's so tragic about this situation. After 9/11, President Bush had a chance to chart a different course, both in Pakistan and in Afghanistan, and could have been very clear about what our expectations were. We are now in a bind, and it is partly -- not completely, but partly -- a result of the failed policies of the Bush administration.
So, where we are today means that we have to say to President Musharraf: Look, this is not in your interest either. This is not in the interest of the United States. It is not in your interest to either stay in power or stay alive. We have to figure out how we're going to navigate this.
When I was meet ing with him earlier this year, I asked him if he would accept a high-level presidential envoy to begin to negotiate some of these issues.
He said, yes, I got back; I called the White House; I asked them to send such a high-level envoy. They did not do it; they're going to send one now.
So I mean, you've got to stay on top of this and you have to manage it all the time. That requires presidential attention. We haven't had that, and part of the reason is obvious now. (Cheers, applause.)
What a difference 3 months (or 4 years) makes...
This record does not argue that Clinton is exceptionally incompetent. The failures of U.S. foreign policy are a common shame, but that is not a shame that can be conveniently ignored when politicking on the campaign trail. That path leads, eventually, to a president who will inherit, in 2009, a foreign policy crisis unresolved and exacerbated by the Bush administration. The situation demands insight into foreign policy rather than simply a reaction to international affairs, and demands someone who doesn't fall into the frames of foreign policy that have caused such a catastrophic failure.
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. And I think we have to take a number of steps in order to demonstrate that what we believe, our values is the right direction for people to be heading and rallying around.
-Hillary Clinton, February 25th, 2004