Q&A: P.J. CROWLEY
Transcript: P.J. Crowley On Why Hillary Clinton Has Passed The Commander In Chief Test

© National Journal Group Inc.
Friday, March 14, 2008

National Journal On Air with Linda Douglass
P.J. Crowley

National Journal's Linda Douglass sat down with P.J. Crowley for the March 14 edition of "National Journal On Air." This is a transcript of their conversation.


Q: I want to welcome P.J. Crowley. He is a former special assistant to President Bill Clinton. He was the National Security Council spokesman back in those Clinton days and is now a senior foreign policy adviser to Senator [Hillary Rodham] Clinton's presidential campaign. Welcome, P.J.
Crowley: A pleasure, Linda.
Q: So let's talk about the memo that your former colleague Greg Craig -- I know you were both back in the White House together back in the Clinton days; now he is [a Barack] Obama adviser. And he wrote a memo about Senator Clinton's claims of foreign policy experience which he called "exaggerated." One of the things he points to is her claim of helping to bring peace to Northern Ireland -- which he says is much overstated. What about that?
Crowley: She is probably the most extensively traveled first lady in history. I would suspect that she almost revolutionized that position. It is hard to describe -- being first lady is like being an ambassador at large, but her track record as first lady is clear. She went to all corners of the world. She established a relationship with the world, and she, in fact, went into several of the critical areas, societies under stress. Was she a formal negotiator? Not always. Sometimes she was. But, clearly, through her efforts I think societies in stress responded to her.

She was in Northern Ireland on multiple occasions. She was in the Balkans during critical times. She was the first one to go to India. Her husband eventually followed her there. So I think the experience, the track record is there. But most importantly, it's about perspective. I mean, certainly, Hillary Clinton, both as first lady and subsequently as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has a far more grounded experience in international affairs than Governor Bush did. So I think she has the perspective that will be relevant to the challenges that the next president will face.

Q: Just one more question on Greg Craig's memo -- he, in talking about the various specific points of her role, was citing something that Terry McAuliffe, who is your top fundraiser, said to CNN the other day. Terry McAuliffe said that we would not have peace today had it not been for Hillary Clinton's hard work in Northern Ireland. Is that right?
Crowley: Well, I mean if we look back on -- maybe the first lady at the time represented a form of soft power, you know, to the other forms of power that the United States, together with Great Britain, were exerting in Northern Ireland. I mean, she talked to a lot of groups in 1998. For example, there was a tragedy at Omagh where the IRA made a big mistake. And it was community groups that Hillary Clinton had talked to -- women within Northern Ireland, who stood up and said to the protagonists -- enough is enough. So did she play the role of George Mitchell? She didn't. But was she part of the broad texture that brought peace to Northern Ireland? I don't think that can be disputed.
Q: Your campaign often says that she has passed the commander in chief test. What is it about her foreign policy experience that has enabled her to pass that test?
Crowley: Well, I think in talking to some former military colleagues who have worked with her since she has been on the Senate Armed Services Committee, they have remarked repeatedly about her interest, her knowledge of military activities. She has been to Afghanistan and Iraq on multiple occasions. She knows what she is talking about. She knows what she is doing. She has talked to high ranking leaders, low-ranking sergeants. She has talked to people in uniform, and to families who are supporting people in uniform. And that has a lot of credibility with members of the military. I served 26 years in the military so I think that, clearly, people in uniform look at her, see what she has done, and see the time she has invested in understanding these issues. And I think she's passed that test.
Q: Now, of course, your campaign has pointed out that Senator Obama does not have as much experience in these matters as she has or at least as much time dealing with these matters as she has had. Their answer to that is well, hey, he was opposed to the war in Iraq. It's judgment that matters, not experience in Washington. What about that comparison?
Crowley: I think it takes both experience and judgment. And that fact is, Hillary has been engaged in the world for 15, 20 years. Senator Obama has been on relevant committees and he has experience on the Foreign Relations Committee, and now on the homeland security committee, but, obviously, it is of a much shorter duration than Senator Clinton does. I think we can be confident that all three people who are presently running for president are internationals, but the real question is, which one has the current perspective, the well grounded understanding of the world to be able to be effective as president, as commander in chief. And I think Hillary Clinton has that experience and that perspective.
Q: Do you think he is qualified to be commander in chief?
Crowley: All three candidates for president have experience. All three candidates have international perspective. I think all three are more qualified than Governor Bush was when he became president. But I think when you compare who has done more, who has a deeper understanding of the world -- Hillary Clinton's experience -- she has traveled to all corners of the world. She understands both the need for American leadership and the need to engage directly to various parties.

You know, Condi Rice has said on multiple occasions when talking about a country like Syria or Iran, "They know what they are expected to do." I think Hillary Clinton's experience is different. She recognizes that it is one thing to preach something from Washington, it's another thing to be able to go there and talk to the relevant parties -- hear the competing narratives that are part of these conflicts, and then figure out how the United States can be most effective in diminishing conflict and moving the world in a more constructive direction. She has been there and done that. I think her record stands out among the others.

Q: You were certainly in the White House in those days -- would you say that as first lady, she had quite a bit of influence on foreign policy?
Crowley: I think that her value in being what I would call an ambassador at large is that, obviously, she had the president's ear. You know, she did go to India first. She has a relationship with Mother Theresa, and then the president followed her to India. Because she was who she was and had an established relationship with the world, and the world was responding to her. They would seek her out. They would tell her things that might not be available or information that might not be stated during more formal meetings. And she brought that perspective back to the White House and back to the Cabinet and enriched the policy of the United States and the efforts of the president and the National Security Council.
Q: Thank you very much for that information and insight from P.J. Crowley, a senior foreign policy adviser to the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton. Thank you, P.J.
Crowley: Linda, a pleasure.