has spent her entire career pushing policies that have destroyed the lives of countless women and children, from her role in rounding up votes for her husband’s disastrous welfare reform bill to her vote as a senator in favour of the US invasion that left Iraq, and its women, in ruins.”
Watch it, Iran: Nor should the world find much solace in Clinton’s counter-jihad plans, which she outlined in a 2014 interview with The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg. Likening the struggle against Islamic terrorists to the struggle against the Soviet Union, Clinton acknowledged that, during the cold war, “we supported really nasty guys, we did some things that we are not particularly proud of, from Latin America to Southeast Asia”.
In the end, however, communism collapsed: ‘We achieved it’. Nevermind all the foreign bloodshed – or that whole link between the anti-Soviet war and the present jihad.
Regarding certain objectively ‘nasty guys’ on the contemporary scene, meanwhile, Clinton had nothing but positive things to say. Questioned by Goldberg about the most recent Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip – in which well over 2,000 Palestinians were killed, the vast majority of them civilians - the presidential hopeful opined: “I think Israel did what it had to do.”
She then went as far as to propose possible anti-Semitic motives for opposing Israeli actions.
And this is not the only instance in which we’d be forgiven for thinking Clinton was actually running for office in Israel; during her previous campaign in 2008, she warnedthat "we would be able to totally obliterate" Iran in the event of an attack on the Jewish state.
Voting no: In a November essay for Harper’s, titled ‘Stop Hillary!’, Doug Henwood marvels at the “widespread liberal fantasy of [Clinton] as a progressive paragon” – an image not easily reconciled with her tendency to out-hawk the hawks. “She backed an escalation of the Afghanistan war," Henwood writes, "lobbied on behalf of a continuing military presence in Iraq, urged Obama to bomb Syria, and supported the intervention in Libya”.
He tacks on an observation by TIME Magazine’s Michael Crowley: “On at least three crucial issues – Afghanistan, Libya, and the bin Laden raid – Clinton took a more aggressive line than [Defense Secretary Robert] Gates, a Bush-appointed Republican.”
So much for that hallucination of an impassable chasm between the Democratic and Republican camps, by means of which partisan fanatics can blame everything on the other side rather than on the system itself.
The sub-headline of Henwood’s article contains the following appeal: ‘Vote no to a Clinton dynasty.’ He’s got my vote – but while we’re at it, let’s also vote ‘no’ to a putridduopoly that feigns irreparable division while remaining fully united in cultivating and exporting calamity.
Courtesy: Aljazeera.com