Hillary Clinton has been called everything from a hawk to a "war goddess" (by AntiWar.com's Justin Raimondo, and on a regular basis). But just how strong on defense is she?
We all know that she voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq and dragged her heels on turning against the war. Regarding Iran, she has insisted that "we cannot take any option off the table."
Also, she was the only Democratic senator to support the Kyl-Lieberman amendment which called for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps to be designated a terrorist organization. The better, she maintained to "apply greater diplomatic pressure on Iran."
"See?" a supporter might exclaim. "Once elected president, she'll choose diplomacy over war every time. She just talks like that to win."
Many a sober-sided soul misplaced their critical faculties in the wake of 9/11. Are we being too hard on Hillary? In the spirit of the holiday season, shouldn't we let bygones be bygones?
Sure -- if any of the above instances were aberrations. But, as Stephen Zunes demonstrates in a three-part blockbuster series on Foreign Policy in Focus, Hillary's not talking tough just to win votes. Far from the option of last resort for her, force comes in a much-too-close-for-comfort second to diplomacy.
In articles on her Iraq, military, and international law policies, Zunes demonstrates that they're consistent with those she supported, and even advocated, while her husband was president.
Reading all three will outfit you with all the talking points you need to disarm a Hillary supporter. We've cherry-picked the most eye-opening.
Of her White House days, Zunes writes that "when President Bill Clinton and others correctly expressed concerns that bombing Serbia would likely lead to. . . ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, Hillary Clinton successfully pushed her husband to bomb that country anyway."
She also defended the bombing raid on the Sudanese chemical-weapons-plant-that-wasn't. (If you'll recall, it was a pharmaceutical plant.)
Hillary supports military aid, including missiles which can be nuclear weaponized, to Israel, Pakistan and India, all of which have refused to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. She even voted to end restrictions on US nuclear cooperation with such states.
After defending Israel's right to occupy Palestinian territory, not to mention its erection of The Wall, she denounced the International Court of Justice for calling on Israel to abide by international humanitarian law.
Besides supporting her husband's bombing of Iraq, Hillary, Zunes writes, "has expressed pride that [his] administration changed underlying U.S. policy toward Iraq from 'containment' to 'regime change.'" Hindsight may be 20/20, but imagine seeking credit for that!
During the Senate debate over the resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq, Clinton was the only Democrat to accept all of the Bush administration's claims about Iraq.
When Barack Obama noted that the use of nuclear weapons against terrorists amounted to overkill, Hillary replied, "I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons."
As if the above weren't troubling enough, Hillary's stances and votes on international law are downright chilling.
In 2002, she voted in favor of an amendment by Senator Jesse Helms (yes, you read that right) prohibiting the United States from cooperating with the International Criminal Court. In other words, when it comes to prosecuting for genocide in Darfur, don't look at us.
After Israel's 2002 offensive in the West Bank, Hillary opposed UN efforts to investigate alleged Iraqi war crimes by Israeli occupation forces. Even more startling, she criticized President Bush for calling on Israel to pull back.
Finally, she refused to support the international treaty to ban land mines. Then she voted down a Democratic-sponsored resolution restricting U.S. exports of cluster bombs to countries using them against civilian-populated areas.
Just keeping defense donors happy or are these legitimate weapons to her?
At this point her supporters are backing away from you. They need to return to campaign headquarters pronto in order to nurse their wounds and restore their denial to health.
Why is she even a Democrat? As we all know, Democratic presidents are almost as likely to wage war as Republican. Then what's with her reputation as a liberal?
Zunes explains that since "most of the public criticism of the former first lady has been based on false and exaggerated charges from the far right. . . many liberals become defensive and reluctant to criticize her. Many also ironically start believing [the far right's] claim she is some kind of left-winger."
It's almost as if the cover of arch-liberal with which conservatives have conveniently provided Hillary allows her inner hawk to fly free.
The good news is that she's not dissembling to get elected. That's also the bad news. Thanks to the efforts of people like Stephen Zunes, more and more of us understand that, with Hillary and her militaristic proclivities, what you see is what you get.
Russ Wellen is the nuclear deproliferation editor for OpEdNews. He's also on the staffs of Freezerbox and Scholars & Rogues.
"It's hard to tell people not to smoke when you have a cigarette dangling from your mouth." -- Mohamed El Baradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency
She virtually as biological clone of G. W. Bush when it comes to militarism. The fact that the pugs support her more than any other dem candidate says it all. They're almost certainly coverting supporting her run with mega bucks just like they did Ralph Nadir (yes, that's an i, not an e)..
by
W. Christopher Epler (Bill) (201 articles, 44 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 436 comments)
on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 at 12:57:09 PM
I for one can't understand how anyone could vote for her given the fact that changes her opinion more often than I change my socks! I find it interesting that even the NY Times is no longer believing what she says when it comes to her "experience"
That is telling..
Ciao, CZ
by
steve scheetz (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 420 comments)
on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 at 4:55:28 PM
Nice Article - while there are some differences, neither party is a people's party, their both "corporate" parties and the democrats are looking like they are lining up to be big sell outs of the people. The Military Industrial complex is so entrenched it is astounding. Over half our annual budget - a sum representing the next 50 nations combined on military spending - that's the problem... Our leaders a very loyal to the $$$$$$$$ - the rest of us?
Kucinich has my vote. He gets it on the issues that matter.
by
August Adams (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 385 comments)
on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 at 8:28:06 PM
this is all so unreal. are you all talking about the woman who was married to bill when he was gov'nor of arkansas? when oliver north and barry seal were shipping their hundreds of tonn of cocaine into the country under the noses of pres bonzo' reagan.on the orders of bush senior.?? who was partner in the rose law firm in little rock?? Mena wasn't it? a firm dealing with tyson and stephens and god knows who else?? is this the person you are considering for president of the greatest nation in the goode ol boy world??o., really cool. I guess after bush you got to keep digging in the same mine.
by
remo (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 19 comments)
on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 at 11:23:01 PM
IF THIS ARTICLE DON'T MAKE UP YOUR MIND WHO TO VOTE FOR, HUSTON WE HAVE PROBLEM, MAKES IT VERY CLEAR RON PAUL THE ONLY CANDIDATE,WHO WOULD START THE CHANGE WE NEED TO GET BACK TO OUR ROOTS. HE CAN'T FIX ALL DAMAGE THE NEOCONS HAVE DONE TO OR COUNTRY, BUT HE COULD BRING US BACK TO A CONSTITUTION REPUBLIC, A STARTING POINT.
by
RICHARD SHADE (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 459 comments)
on Thursday, December 27, 2007 at 1:35:17 AM
Never forget this important issue.................
Hillary, above all else, will never allow Peace in the Middle East. She loathes the Palestinians and she has always been Pro AIPAC..............I follow her foot steps through the Palestine.........
by
Ernest (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 130 comments)
on Thursday, December 27, 2007 at 1:39:47 AM
that this is the Democratic frontrunner. All you Dems who refuse to vote for Ron Paul, had best be voting for Kucinich if you ever want this war to end.
by
Watching (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 313 comments)
on Thursday, December 27, 2007 at 2:42:37 AM
Mrs Clinton or wahtevwer heer namee is is a programmed loser. She is supposed to become a candidate and promptly lose in ' battle' with GOP. That's her goal. And for her it is a chance to stay in history. NOTHING ELSE MATTERS TO HER! We might as well ignore what she says or does because her goal is obvious. For 8 years the Clintonian plague paralysed the opposition to GOP in the US and this is a culmination. The GOP Pres and rubber- stamping DEM congress is an ideal setting for the puppet masters. Read my lips- after the defeat Hillary will become a majority leader in the Senate and Lieberman wwill get his War Council.
by
Mark Sashine (44 articles, 19 quicklinks, 228 diaries, 3254 comments)
on Thursday, December 27, 2007 at 6:51:42 AM
As I lay out in my above OpEd, Hillary represents the absolute worst choice Democrats can make. Remember she sat on the board for Wal-Mart (based in Arkansas) for six years, quitting when Bill ran for president. And what happened after all the Asian donor money? We opened up trade with China, making Wal-Mart the largest employer in the country, paying abysmally low wages without benefits here and setting near-slavery conditions in China where the goods are manufactured and workers are forced to live in "dormitories" to work.
Then, let's not forget the long-time alliance between Hillary and Entergy, the nuclear plant operator who runs Indian Point. These two go back to the Arkansas days when they contributed to Bill and have received great favors in return.
In short, Hillary is a big-business Democrat, beholden to the cash she receives and not the people of the US. She is an elitist power-broker who has ignored the problems with NY's health care system since her first days in office. I know because I wrote her a letter about it on her first day in office, expecting she'd continue her "crusade" for universal health care. From the above post, in part:
"As First Lady she crusaded for some kind of national health plan, but met with great opposition and acquiesced, eventually taking money from the healthcare industry. While the Republican governor of Massachussetts put in a plan for state wide coverage, Hillary sat on her duff as Senator of NY, accomplishing nothing memorable other then her votes for the Iraq war and a well-planned Presidential run. Hillary's connections mean little for the voter. Her "power" is wielded for her personal advancement. If Hillary is nominated, the anti-war movement loses again - she waited far too long to apologize for her ill-advised vote for the invasion of Iraq. Therefore there would be no national "mandate" for pulling out because the right knows she simply followed national opinion. Also anticipate Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, Monica Lewinsky and various other scandals being thoroughly revisited in a general election, as well as the litany of improprieties between Rose Law and the Pan-Asian donor scandals which are still making fresh news to this day. Fast forwarding to November, a Hillary nomination is probably the best shot for putting a Republican in the White House - any other Dem would bore the right-wing base and keep them home on election day"
by
Gustav Wynn (46 articles, 32 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 222 comments)
on Thursday, December 27, 2007 at 11:48:08 AM
I read Hillary blocked the release of her official White House records.Hmm...wonder what she is hiding.....and that her top campaign contributor was exposed as a felon and fugitive from justice in 2007..along with that her husband Bill is a Bilderberg member...has been since 1991. The Bilderberg Group is just one of the Power Elite Groups that span the Globe that trash life for everyone but themselves. They have manipulation, death and destruction down to a fine art.
With Hillary we get more of the same corruption and with corporate still running our country and interfering all over the globe. Haven't people had enough of that? What we don't need are more corporate puppets..we have enough of those among our so called elected in the White House, The House of Reps and Congress.
As for the election...from the looks of all the directives that have come out of the puppeting White House bunch, IF we have one, I'm sure there will be the usual out of control election fraud to ever have a true result of the PEOPLES will.
I don't care who gets the nomination because if we have an election I will vote for Kucinich even if I have to write him in. Of course if he were to get the nomination and run for President he would probably be marked for assassination as history shows good people seem to be. The Elite Groups function with tunnel vision using Power, Greed and lack of Conscience as their driving force...everyone else it seems is expendable in their pursuit of global control.
by
Rae (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 217 comments)
on Thursday, December 27, 2007 at 2:32:00 PM
Clinton, Bush whats the difference? Corporate interests, Corporate interests,
Americans remember party loyalty is a form of mental illness. There are no parties that give a rats ass about the people or common citizens of this country. Find candidates who have not whored themselves out to corporate interests if possible and vote for them. Political parties have become irrelevant because the are both owned by greed corporates
by
Gary Denson (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 195 comments)
on Thursday, December 27, 2007 at 7:21:15 PM
Guess who else is against international law. You guessed it Ron Paul.
That Ron Paul supporter needs to get a clue. American is and always has been a Constitutional Republic. The structure of the US government has never changed. We don't need to get back to something we already have. If anything we need to move towards Direct Democracy and away from an elitist aristocratic Republic. Power to the people not the politicians and corporations!
Forget about the evidence already presented that she has no experience as an executive, Regardless of what she says, she can't get around the fact that she had no security clearance, she received no security briefings, and when she said she was being influential to her husband on international events, there is clear evidence that she was not even speaking to her husband at all, much less advising him on foreign policy.
so, you are suggesting that she will make a great president, and just by you making the statement makes it so??
Sorry, but I think not..
Ciao, CZ
by
steve scheetz (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 420 comments)
on Thursday, January 3, 2008 at 6:48:50 PM
