The Better Evil Sucks
Hillary Clinton is the candidate of choice for big corporations, powerful members of the Democratic Party, and generally those who wish to see the US continue (and indeed accelerate) its promotion of violence and aggression around the world.
It cannot be understated how deeply she is buried in pockets of special interests and the wealthy. The record shows donations to her campaign from massive American firms like JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, and Time Warner. In addition, the Clinton Foundation has received anywhere between $11 million and $41 million from Wall Street institutions, some of which are the same that donated through Super PACs to her campaign. On the list of top ten corporate tax avoiders, Clinton has accepted money from every single institution and many individuals named therein. While campaign spokespeople insist she will be tough on financial regulations and curb Wall Street excess, everyone knows why that money is being funneled her way.
Clinton’s financing practices are quite at odds with her position, raising questions about real motives. Indeed, Clinton has made campaign finance reform a significant issue in her campaign, saying in a speech last year that “We have to end the flood of secret, unaccountable money that is distorting our elections…” As former MSNBC television host Dylan Ratigan put it, Hillary’s campaign finance position is akin to “tobacco companies coming out and saying they wanted to fight against lung cancer.”
It is not just those bankrolling Clinton’s campaign whose influence is troubling. Madeleine Albright, the former Secretary of State who admitted on 60 Minutes the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children from US sanctions was worth it, currently campaigns for Hillary on the trail. Henry Kissinger, who many lawyers and civil activists believe should be tried for war crimes, is a close friend and counsel. She has attracted the support of numerous neocon warhawks, including by Senator Jim Inohfe (R-OK) and George Schultz. Many of these actors supported her bid in 2008 as well. Her record matches their rhetoric, as well as the preferences of her donors.
Hillary used her power as secretary to dramatically increase the sales of American weapons to countries that had donated to the Clinton foundation--nations which the department simultaneously was criticizing for their deplorable human rights abuses. She publically admitted to undermining democracy in the Honduran coup d’etat of 2009 to secure donations and support from the Latin-American lobby. This cannot be overlooked as the country has since devolved into a terror state with particularly harsh violence against children, while subsequently enjoying considerable US security aid. Henry Kissinger would be proud.
Clinton has always been an interventionist, with a particular fetish for conflicts that ostensibly threaten Israeli interests. Thus it should surprise no one that some of her top donors consider Israel a high priority issue, including billionaire Haim Saban with whom she has demonstrated a cozy relationship.
Clinton vehemently supported Operation Desert Fox, even though Saddam Hussein was totally compliant with UN inspectors and subsequent findings revealed no evidence of UN Security council violations. The timing of the operation was particularly significant. Bombings directly coincided with President Clinton’s impeachment proceedings in the House of Representatives--it’s not hard to see why Hillary wanted to keep everyone focused on destabilizing the Iraqi government.
Clinton voted for the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and supported it right up until the war was so unpopular she had to change positions to have any hope of securing the Democratic presidential nomination. During the Arab spring, Clinton strongly supported military intervention in Libya that ended up completely destabilizing the country and turning it into a Jihadist playground. She took great pleasure in learning that Libyan rebels had carried out an extrajudicial barbaric execution of their former leader Gaddafi, while also doing her best to extend our military operations there as long as possible.
In 2009, when General Stanley McChrystal requested 40,000 additional troops in Afghanistan, Clinton alone advocated for even more troops to be deployed. She also has been a vocal advocate of military intervention in Syria, including the advocation of a no fly zone at odds with most other cabinet members. She has consistently voiced her support for military action against Iran, both on the campaign trail in 2008 and more recently in 2015 when she seemed certain they would want to “bend the rules.”
A signature issue in this election for me is foreign policy. I believe Hillary Clinton will continue the militant approach she has applied throughout most of her career, and that this would be extremely damaging for the country. While she certainly would be preferable to any Republican candidate, all of whom advocate for the hastened destruction of our species, these concerns should give any voter pause.