Clinton’s Record on Foreign Policy

Re “Clinton’s Foreign Policy Proved Toothless,” International Outlook, Jan. 3: It’s obvious to everyone but Clinton apologists that Bill Clinton had no idea how to handle world affairs, and it’s rather nice to have someone from The Times tell it like it is. For some reason, however, Jim Mann failed to give the answer to why Clinton treated China differently than Cuba. It wasn’t just politics; it was donations of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars from the Chinese, but nothing from Cuba. (At least none I’m aware of.)

Arizona’s favorite influence peddler, Charles Keating, when asked if he expected anything from extravagant donations to the campaigns of John McCain, Alan Cranston and three other senators, said: “I certainly hope so.” Just reverse that, and you have the China and Clinton connection. If Mann had mentioned that, he would have captured the Clinton years in a nutshell. Even the most staunch Republicans finally realized Richard Nixon was a sleaze and turned against him. It’s sad that the same can’t be said for the Democrats regarding Clinton. His legacy will undoubtedly be: “He could have been great if he had only told the truth once in a while.”

DAN REDKEY

Corona

*

Mann’s column misses the mark. He correctly identifies how foreign policy during the Clinton years was often focused on trade but fails to address how successful the policy has been in promoting capitalism, democracy and human rights worldwide. There are some things that can’t be fixed easily, the president told us as a candidate in 1992. Focusing on trade was totally consistent with America’s emphasis during the ‘90s on letting the economic benefits of trade improve the quality of lives of people around the globe. Bravo, Bill Clinton!

BARRY NAIDITCH

San Diego