The Queen: The Epic Ambition of Hillary and the Coming of a Second "Clinton Era" (35 page)

HH: Would you go on record and just let them know that’s not going to…

MR:
Absolutely, and I already have. And the point, because it’s not, first of all, it’s not an enforceable deal as we made clear in the Cotton letter. It won’t survive this president in terms of you know, a future president will have to decide whether to live by it or not. It’s not enforceable. It doesn’t have the force of law. Now if he brings it to the Congress and can get it passed, that’s a different story. He’s indicated that he prefers to take it to the United Nations instead of the U.S. Congress. The second point I would make is that I think it’ll be difficult to reassemble the international sanctions if this falls apart, but nonetheless, we should be willing to lead unilaterally. And I think others will ultimately see it. And the third is I anticipate the Iranians will take advantage of any loopholes they can find in the deal, and I think they’ll flat out try to violate portions of it. You know, Iran has other challenges ahead. They’re going to have a succession fight fairly soon when the Supreme Leader passes from the scene. And it’s very possible that the new leader of Iran, after the current leader vanishes, could be someone even more radical, as hard as that is to imagine. And that’s something to keep an eye on as well.

HH: Now Senator Rubio, next hour, I’ve got Dan Balz coming up. Last night, he was honored with the Toner award for excellence in political journalism. And when he accepted, he looked out and he saw former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sitting there, and here is what he said.

Dan Balz: Please, thank you very much. Secretary Clinton, thank you for continuing to sit here through this. I didn’t expect that you were going to be here. I’m happy to yield my time back to you if you want to take some questions.

HH: And Senator Rubio, she shook her head and she took no questions. Now she tweets occasionally. Is it admissible, is it acceptable for the former Secretary of State and probably Democratic nominee to say nothing about these Iranian negotiations as they unfold right now?

MR:
Well, I don’t think it is, but ultimately, as of today, she’s still a private citizen that has no formal obligation. The minute she enters the race for president, she’ll have to answer plenty of questions. And she’s the chief architect of the failed foreign policy. I mean, in essence, during her time as Secretary of State, the U.S. has no measurable real achievements in terms of making the world a safer place. And in fact, many of the causes, the root causes of what is global instability from a U.S. perspective were put in place during her leadership at the State Department. The reset in Russia was a failure. The inability to follow through and complete the mission in Libya left behind a vacuum that’s now turned into one of the premiere operational spaces in the world for global jihadists to operate from. The list goes on and on.

HH: I asked your colleague and friend, Jeb Bush, a couple weeks ago if he would be hampered if he became president by the legacy of Bush War I and Bush War II in Iraq. And that actually is for all Republicans. Republicans carry that burden of having to prosecute war in the face of what is alleged war worriedness. What would Marco Rubio say about having to persuade people to go abroad again in defense of interests that may not be so obvious to people?

MR:
Well, part of the leadership is explaining what the interest is. And certainly, the American people are not a war-loving people. We really don’t want to be in war, and we would prefer these things not to exist. I would prefer ISIS never to have existed. I would prefer for Assad never have to govern Syria. I would prefer for Iran to by governed by normal people and not a radical jihadist cleric. But that’s the world we have, and we have to confront it. Now here’s the question. If we don’t lead the world in confronting it, who will lead the world in confronting it, because the truth is, no one can. The United Nations can’t do it, the Russian obviously are in many ways supportive of some of the things that are happening. China has no interest in it. There is no substitute for American leadership on the global stage. And you can ignore our foreign adversaries, but they won’t ignore us. And eventually, you’re going to have to deal with them. So more often than not, the choice before us is do we deal with them now, earlier, when they are easier, not easy, but easier to confront, or do we wait for this problem to grow bigger, costlier, more expensive, and more difficult to confront? And that’s one of the lessons
of foreign policy. When you do something is almost as important as how you do it, in many instances. And again, we’re not looking for wars to be engaged in. We’d prefer not to. And in some instances, we don’t have to be involved in war in the traditional sense. As an example in Iraq today, I mean, we should have really taken a lead early on in putting together a Sunni coalition in the region to confront ISIS on the ground with U.S. air support. Instead, we’ve outsourced it to Shiia militias under the control of Iran, and I think we’re going to pay a terrible price for that in the years to come.

HH: Do you still see the opportunity to find people left in Syria under the banner of the Free Syrian Army or any that would stand both against Assad and al Nusra and ISIS?

MR:
I still think there are individuals that are capable of that. I think it’s harder than ever. They’ve been decimated by attacks from both the regime and competing other groups on the ground. My argument always was that we wanted to get in front early and in power some group that would not be a radical group, and make them the strongest and best-armed group, because if we didn’t, that vacuum that it left would be filled by a more radical group. That’s exactly what happened. ISIS is a result of that vacuum, stepped in, flooded the region with foreign fighters, and as a result, we’ve seen what’s happened. I think it’s more difficult than it’s ever been. It’s still worth trying, but it’s no longer the linchpin of our strategy in the region, because those groups have either folded up under the groups that actually have guns, or are dead, or have left the battlefield.

HH: Last question, Senator Rubio, your speech about Israel last week, I replayed most of it, it was warmly received by most people. Today, the President got a question about his relationship with Benjamin Netanyahu. This is what he said:

President Obama: I have a very businesslike relationship with the Prime Minister. I’ve met with him more than any other world leader. I talk to him all the time. He is representing his country’s interests the way he thinks he needs to, and I’m doing the same. So the issue is not a matter of relations between leaders. The issue is a very clear, substantive challenge. We believe that two states is the best path forward for Israel’s security, for Palestinian aspirations and for regional stability.

HH: Senator Rubio, do you believe him on the “businesslike relationship”?

MR:
No.

HH: And what about this two-state solution at this time in this place?

MR:
No. First of all, he’s wrong on both counts. Number one, he can’t say he has a businesslike relationship or that it isn’t personal when his entire political machine, virtually, some of the top people in his political operation were in Israel, on the ground, trying to defeat Netanyahu, which is unprecedented. You know, he didn’t send anyone in any other country to try to influence the outcome of those elections. And from Jeremy Bird down to others that were deeply and intricately involved in his campaigns in the past, he sent them down there to start the equivalent of a superPAC to try to oust Netanyahu. So I mean, what he’s saying is absurd in terms of it not being personal. That sounds pretty personal to me. As far as the two-state solution, I would say what many Israelis say, which is yeah, that’s the ideal outcome. It’s also the least likely. And here’s why, because you don’t have the conditions today for that to happen. You have a Palestinian Authority that has no interest at this point. Certainly Hamas has none, but the Palestinian Authority has no interest at this moment on being a serious partner for peace. They continue to reward and elevate people they call martyrs, who we call terrorists, who have killed Israelis and even Americans. They’ve walked away from very generous offers over the last, at least twice over the last 15 years that have been made by the Israelis. The conditions just do not exist at this point. They teach their children to hate Jews, that it’s a glorious thing to kill Jews. These are the sorts of things that make it impossible at this moment to have an agreement. And in fact, if you’re standing from the Israeli perspective, what you see is the possibility that that second state that some are calling for would be nothing more than a launching pad for further attacks against Israel in the future.

HH: Senator Marco Rubio, always great to talk with you.

CHAPTER 41

An Interview with then-
Bloomberg
’s Washington Bureau Chief now with TheVox.com. and co-author of
HRC
, Jon Allen, April 18, 2014, discussing comments about Hillary Clinton from
The New York Times
’ Mark Leibovich,
The Washington Post
’s Dana Milbank,
The New York Times’
Maggie Haberman (then of
Politico
), MSNBC’s Joy-Ann Reid and
The Daily Beast
’s Jonathan Alter

HH: I’m talking about Hillary Rodham Clinton. Specifically, I’m talking about a brand new
New York Times
bestseller about her titled
HRC: State Secrets And the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton
by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes. And I want to begin by saying it’s an absolute must-read for the center-right, especially for conservatives who are interested in 2016. It is the best portrait of Hillary available that is not comprehensive, because it begins in 2008 through the present day. But it is detailed, it is insightful, and I am pleased to welcome the co-author, Jonathan Allen, who is the
Bloomberg
White House correspondent. Jon, welcome, it’s great to have you.

JA:
Thank you.

HH: I want to begin at the end of the book, because you tracked down Jason Chaffetz, who’s the rising star of the House Oversight Governmental Affairs Committee, and I think he got it exactly right. Prior to the attack, he said Libya could have been Hillary’s swan song. It could have been her major achievement. But the whole deck of cards fell out from underneath her. Is that the widely shared view on the right?

JA:
I don’t know that it’s the widely shared view on the right. I think one of the reasons that we spent so much time talking to Congressman Chaffetz is he seemed to have a handle on the big overall question which is what was driving all of this, and what was motivating Secretary Clinton. And you know, I don’t know, people can make a judgment about what they think was motivating her based on all the evidence, but you know,
Congressman Chaffetz took a shot at that, and had a theory about. And I think it’s actually a more important question than whether or not there was extra security in Tripoli. You know, we talk about rejections of requests for security, but very seldom does anybody point out that those requests were for Tripoli, not for Benghazi, and that it may not have made a difference on the ground that night. But the bigger impact in question, of course, is why did we go in, in the first place? Were we ignoring dangers on the ground? Were we trying to do too much there? And I think Congressman Chaffetz is really focused on those larger questions, and they apply, I think very importantly, to Secretary Clinton’s perspective on the world and the United States’ role in the world.

HH: We have a lot of ground to cover about Hillary, and I’m starting with Benghazi only because I want to assure my conservative audience that you are thorough, fair and detailed, and that you do not spare the criticism or the insight into it so that they’ll not believe that it’s a Beltway book for Beltway insiders, but in fact, it does dig in to the good, the bad and the ugly of
HRC
’s four years at State. So I want to start with Benghazi, but we’ll move on from there fairly quickly. Chapter 15, Pages 283-309, is all about Benghazi. Earlier, you quote Hillary as saying we came, we saw, he died, referring to Qaddafi on Page 252. But the attack begins on Page 283, and I’ll summarize so that we can save your voice for your response. Stephen Mull goes into Hillary’s office to inform her of the attack at 4:05 p.m. DC. You go on to write when she heard Benghazi had come under attack, Hillary gathered several of her staff in her office on the 7th floor to get a full briefing on what was happening in Libya and give orders—Mills, Sullivan, Burns, Boswell and an aide from their Near Eastern Affairs Bureau, were among the group assembled. By the way, Jon, was Philippe Reines there?

JA:
You know, I’m not entirely sure. We listed the people we knew were there, and in fact, it’s interesting. We said one of the aides from the Near East Bureau, because were two women who worked in that bureau, and we talked to people who were aware of that meeting, and there were disagreements about which of the two women were in the room.

HH: Interesting, interesting. Very careful. Was Huma Abedin there?

JA:
I don’t know for sure.

HH: Do you suspect that she was?

JA:
You know what? I couldn’t say.

HH: All right.

JA:
We really put all the people that we knew who were there into the book.

HH: You go on to give the narrative. Around the same time, one of Pat Kennedy’s subordinates told Hillary Clinton that Smith had been killed. That’s one of the people at the embassy who was with Ambassador Stevens, and that Stevens was missing. Hillary called Tom Donilon, the NSC advisor. We have an issue here, we need you to be on it. She called David Petraeus, and then you say by 5:30 DC, an hour and a half into the attack, deputies meetings began, a rolling teleconference run from the Situation Room—Brennan, Biden staffer Blinken, Ben Rhodes, Tommy Vietor. “Mills represented Hillary from the 7th floor of the State Department, but at one point, Hillary walked into the Operations Center to participate in the meeting.” Now here’s where it gets interesting to me, Jon. You write on Page 295, “People got fairly frantic, particularly when they couldn’t find Chris.” And between 4 pm and 8 pm, we really don’t know what Hillary is doing, do we?