Hillary Clinton is now claiming to be the architect of crippling sanctions on the Iranian economy. But during her tenure as Secretary of State, her department repeatedly opposed or deliberately watered down an array of measures that were pushed into law by Democrats and Republicans in Congress.
Clinton became defensive when questioned on this topic during her sit down interview with ABC’s Diane Sawyer.
"Let’s talk about what’s been accomplished, and then let’s talk about continuing threats. Tough sanctions on Iran - that got them to the negotiating table. Now, whether we get an agreement or not, I hope we will," Clinton said.
However, Clinton’s claim of strength and leadership with Iran has recently been scrutinized.
The Weekly Standard’s Joe Winton reports:
By contrast, during Hillary Clinton’s tenure at the State Department, the Obama administration achieved just one Security Council resolution on sanctions, in June 2010, and it was unable to get all members onboard. Turkey and Brazil opposed the measure, while Lebanon abstained.
There are other examples, at home and abroad, that one could invoke to make the same point: If Mrs. Clinton believes sanctions to have been a positive force in attempts to stop Iran’s march toward a nuclear bomb, she is well within her right to trumpet America’s imposition of them as a foreign policy success. She should be candid, though: It was a success in spite of her efforts, not because of them. Instead of taking credit for the work of others, she should explain why her office opposed their endeavors for so long, and with such temerity. That might be history worth listening to.
Hard Choices—Mrs. Clinton’s soon-to-be released memoir—will no doubt be a bestseller, but in which category? If her speech at the AJC is any indication, one should expect to find it next to James Patterson’s Unlucky 13—on the fiction shelves.