Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Hillary Clinton on Her Famous Spouse

By John Solomon
Hillary Clinton is certain already of the work her husband Bill, the ex-president, will do if their roles are switched and she wins the White House this time around.

"He will not have a formal official role. But just as presidents rely on wives, husbands, fathers, friends of long years, he will be my close confidant and adviser, as I was with him," she said in an interview with ABC's This Week aired on Sunday.

Sen. Clinton said the lack of a formal role means the ex-president could have a West Wing office "if he wants one" but would not be allowed to attend National Security Council meetings. "That wouldn't be appropriate," she said.

"I happen to think using former presidents makes a lot of sense. So, I expect to ask him to do many things for our country," said Clinton, who in the past has described her husband's potential role as a sort of roving global ambassador.

"I doubt that there will be an important issue that I won't talk to him about. I don't think there was an important issue that he didn't talk to me about. I don't talk about everything we talked about, because obviously I don't think that's appropriate," she said.

Sen. Clinton, whose experiences as first lady and a senator are key to her closing arguments before voters attend Iowa's caucuses later this week, also went into detail about some of the things her husband asked her to do when she was the first spouse.

Though she never had a security clearance, Clinton said, "I had direct access to all of the decision-makers. I was briefed on a range of issues, often provided classified information. And often when I traveled on behalf of our country. I traveled with representatives from the DOD, the CIA, the State Department."

She also confirmed a story her husband told about the time he spurned her advice as first lady to more forcefully intervene in the genocide in Rwanda in the mid-1990s. "I believe that our government failed. We obviously didn't have a lot of good options. It moved very quickly. It was a difficult, terrible genocide to try to get our arms around and to do something to try to stem or prevent," she said. "It didn't happen, and that is something that the president has apologized for."

Clinton also took credit for playing a behind-the-scenes role in the Clinton administration's successful effort to bring piece to Norther Ireland. "I helped in that process, not just standing by and witnessing, but actually getting my hands into it, creating opportunities for people on both sides of the sectarian divide to come together," she said.

By Post Editor  |  December 30, 2007; 12:59 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Thompson: Work Came Before China Panel
Next: Huckabee Would Criminalize Abortion Providers

Comments

If senator Clinton become president, will her husband be free to make speeches and consult for fee, which will credit theur joint coffers? This will amount to an obvious way to buy influence from the president. Is there a law that can prohubut this?

Posted by: Rami Amit | May 3, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Hillary has confessed to accessing classified information without a clearance. I've had a clearance for years. What she did was a major security violation, and whoever knowingly provided her that information committed a federal crime. But you'd never know that from the WP and the rest of the MSM. Contrast this with their handling of the Valerie Plame incident. The liberal MSM bias is so obvious!

Posted by: result42 | January 11, 2008 11:55 PM | Report abuse

TALK ABOUT RWANDA HAS BEEN IN THE NEWS RECENTLY, .... IN THE NEWS HILLARY SAID/DID NOT SAY, BILL DID/DID NOT, COULD HAVE/SHOULD HAVE.. ...
You have all been talking about Rwanda who did what, who saId what,what you could have done .............

I have a queston for Biden/Obama/Clinton/Edwards/Mcain and all other candidates with all the violence going on Kenya and the electral and judical systems has failed all kenyans what will you do to help make sure that another Rwanda is not happening right under our nose? already report have it that Raila Odinga was the peoples president but the incumbet rigged the election where he had a 115% turnout in some places.

Report coming out are that there are 185 deaths and the Kibaki government is working hard behind the closed door to discredit Raila Odinga and make it look like a tribal war and the western media seems to have bought their ideas. While Kennya of all tribes and all political parties have raisen up against the few who have consolidated power and all but declared state of Emergency in kenya, there is a media blackout, no TV or Radio statio is broadcasting live while police are making political arrests, police have orders of shoot to kill ordinally citizens and all this is mostly missed in by the western media.

Because of corruption from the top down some TV stations are reporting that even some police offices deployed by Kibaki are engaged in rapping women in the Kibera slums and terrolizing the very people they are suppoed to help. We are seeing Kenya, a country that has been very stable and doing well economically fall and nobody is doing anything, what will you do?

Is anybody listening?
Is anybody watching?

we have a dictatorship emerging in Kenya and nobody is listening to the crys of kenyans. Please listen. plaese ask.

What will you do, bare in mind that the electoral system has failed (thank to four whistleblowers who resigned and the EU observers who deemed the election rigged) and the judicial system compromised because it is controlled by Kibaki, what will you do to prevent another Rwanda?

NOTE: One big difference is that in Rwanda there were two tribes fights each other but in this case the people of Kenya are upraising against the vote rigging and the Kibaki government, so to speak, has managed to sell it to the western media as a tribal war, either way there is unrest and Kenya is State of Emergency, all services and businesses are close most airports are closed, the borders with neighbouring countries have been closed in fear of refugees freeing Kenya inlarge number(even though the gov. will tell u otherwise or denies it), people are living in fear and the police and engaged the process of bitting, all political rallies or any meetings have been cancelled and all political figures have been threatened to be arrested, police are people shooting with live ammunition and in some cases rapping women.

Posted by: forjarigirlonly | December 31, 2007 11:04 PM | Report abuse

Are you guys kidding me? You think we should prosecute Nancy Reagan or Laura Bush for anything THEIR husbands told them?

Posted by: JakeD | December 31, 2007 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Though she never had a security clearance, Clinton said, "I was briefed on a range of issues, often provided classified information."

Um....


ATTENTION WASHINGTON POST-

IS IT UNLAWFUL FOR SOMEONE WITHOUT A SECURITY CLEARANCE TO SEE CLASSIFIED MATERIALS????

Posted by: julieds | December 30, 2007 11:57 PM | Report abuse

Now Hillary has set the precedence for anybody with confidential federal information to tell that to their spouses regardless of whether the spouse has a security clearance or not. Then the spouse can tell that to anybody else. No wonder the Chinese stole valuable state secrets while the Clintons were in the white house. With friends like Norman Hsu, all the Chinese had to do was to bundle some money for Hillary through Norman Hsu, and she will give him all the secrets.

Posted by: JohnMcCormick | December 30, 2007 9:56 PM | Report abuse

Another day... more Clinton lies:

"Though she never had a security clearance, Clinton said, "I had direct access to all of the decision-makers. I was briefed on a range of issues, often provided classified information. And often when I traveled on behalf of our country. I traveled with representatives from the DOD, the CIA, the State Department."

She also confirmed a story her husband told about the time he spurned her advice as first lady to more forcefully intervene in the genocide in Rwanda in the mid-1990s. "I believe that our government failed. We obviously didn't have a lot of good options. It moved very quickly. It was a difficult, terrible genocide to try to get our arms around and to do something to try to stem or prevent," she said. "It didn't happen, and that is something that the president has apologized for."


If Hillary Clinton had no security clearance, what was she doing with classified materials? Or did Bill declassify them just for her? Why does someone whose "job" is ceremonial, unofficial, and is at best quasi-governmental need access to the "decision-makers."

With regard to Rwanda, Hillary did no such thing. Here are two among many pieces of documentary evidence which would directly refute Hillary's claim:

From Samantha Power's "Bystanders to Genocide" in Atlantic Monthly:

"n the course of a hundred days in 1994 the Hutu government of Rwanda and its extremist allies very nearly succeeded in exterminating the country's Tutsi minority. Using firearms, machetes, and a variety of garden implements, Hutu militiamen, soldiers, and ordinary citizens murdered some 800,000 Tutsi and politically moderate Hutu. It was the fastest, most efficient killing spree of the twentieth century.

A few years later, in a series in The New Yorker, Philip Gourevitch recounted in horrific detail the story of the genocide and the world's failure to stop it. President Bill Clinton, a famously avid reader, expressed shock. He sent copies of Gourevitch's articles to his second-term national-security adviser, Sandy Berger. The articles bore confused, angry, searching queries in the margins. "Is what he's saying true?" Clinton wrote with a thick black felt-tip pen beside heavily underlined paragraphs. "How did this happen?" he asked, adding, "I want to get to the bottom of this." The President's urgency and outrage were oddly timed. As the terror in Rwanda had unfolded, Clinton had shown virtually no interest in stopping the genocide, and his Administration had stood by as the death toll rose into the hundreds of thousands."

If Hillary had lobbied so forcefully for US action, why is Bill outraged at his "ignorance" of what happened. Surely his memory is not that short.

Powers continues:

"Why did the United States not do more for the Rwandans at the time of the killings? Did the President really not know about the genocide, as his marginalia suggested? Who were the people in his Administration who made the life-and-death decisions that dictated U.S. policy? Why did they decide (or decide not to decide) as they did? Were any voices inside or outside the U.S. government demanding that the United States do more? If so, why weren't they heeded? And most crucial, what could the United States have done to save lives?"

Again, Hillary must not have said it loud enough or to Bill while he was awake. Even the most distracted husband is aware of his wife's nagging.

Again, from Powers:

"In reality the United States did much more than fail to send troops. It led a successful effort to remove most of the UN peacekeepers who were already in Rwanda. It aggressively worked to block the subsequent authorization of UN reinforcements. It refused to use its technology to jam radio broadcasts that were a crucial instrument in the coordination and perpetuation of the genocide. And even as, on average, 8,000 Rwandans were being butchered each day, U.S. officials shunned the term "genocide," for fear of being obliged to act. The United States in fact did virtually nothing "to try to limit what occurred." Indeed, staying out of Rwanda was an explicit U.S. policy objective."

Finally: "On May 25, at the Naval Academy graduation ceremony, Clinton described America's relationship to ethnic trouble spots: "We cannot turn away from them, but our interests are not sufficiently at stake in so many of them to justify a commitment of our folks." "

So much for the active lobbying of Hillary Clinton.

The Clintons believe that they can re-write history just by telling a new and improved version of their lies. Fortunately, there are others who tell the story as it happened.


Posted by: jade_7243 | December 30, 2007 9:10 PM | Report abuse

If you buy the bull from Hillary, I have a bridge I want to sell to you. Hillary's claim about how much Bill consulted with her is all bull. I can see them spending hours fighting over Monica or Paula Jones. When Bill was spending so much time with Monica, any married man or woman will know that there was only friction between the Hill and the Bill. No foreign policy or any policy discussion took place between the two. Hillary also claims that Bill's involvement in Rwanda was a mistake. Why do we want Bill to be an ambassador of the USA? When Bill was president, Hillary roamed the world visiting 80 countries on tax payer money. Now Bill will roam 100 countries on tax payer money. We do not want the Clinton's abusing the power of the presidency. No more Clintons.

Posted by: JohnMcCormick | December 30, 2007 8:37 PM | Report abuse

Geez, are Hillary's supporters really so stupid- or blinded by their adoration for Bill- that they can't grasp the fact that Bill can't be reelected?

Just askin', cause the article stated plainly that Bill won't be allowed into the meetings. So...don't count on Bill subverting the constitution a nailing a 3rd term via Hillary.

Besides, we saw how close Bill and Hill are during Bill's administration. They couldn't have been very close if Bill had enough time away from Hillary to strike up an extramarital affair.

Those who support Hillary just because of her husband- an entirely different human being- should be disqualified from voting.

Posted by: julieds | December 30, 2007 2:10 PM | Report abuse

4 more years! 4 more years!

two for the price of one baby!!

its restoration time!!!!

that may not be what the clinton campaign can say -

but thats what most of us democrats want!!

4 more years! 4 more years!

Posted by: holdencaulfield | December 30, 2007 1:42 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company