The net effect of these and other restrictions in the bill would be debilitating to my efforts to carry out a considered foreign policy and diplomacy, and to use foreign assistance strategically to that end.
Hillary Clinton in letter to House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.)
Clinton is referring to would limit US funding of corrupt governments and those which incorporate terrorist groups--and Clinton is threatening to veto that bill:
Clinton also said the bill would ban economic assistance to governments that don't meet anti-corruption criteria, which she said "has the potential to affect a staggering number of needy aid recipients."I guess one man's terrorist is another government's charity case--this despite the fact that the bill is recommending a $5 billion cut from 2010 levels. One would have thought that would be a good thing.
Also cited as a problem language that conditions funding to Egypt, Lebanon, Yemen and the Palestinian Authority on certifications that no terrorist groups are involved in those governments. Clinton said this would require the administration to meet "burdensome and infeasible certifications."
After all, the US is facing a fiscal crisis. Under the circumstances, even if one agrees with Clinton's basic objection--and I don't--wouldn't it make sense to get our own house in order?
Instead, Clinton wants to go spending US taxpayer money on countries such as Egypt (Muslim Brotherhood), Lebanon (Hezbollah), Yemen (Al Qaeda) and the Palestinian Authority (promoting incitement against Israel).
Considering the worldwide economic crisis, can't Clinton think of any real allies to help out?
Technorati Tag: Obama and Clinton and Terrorism and State Department.