An Excellent Reason to Vote For Hillary Clinton

October 6, 2007 at 8:24 am | Posted in Bill Clinton, conservatives, corruption | 8 Comments

Via American Blog, one excellent reason to vote for Hillary Clinton as president is Bill Clinton. He reveals that his wife has asked him to be the Ambassador to the world, to restore America’s image after eight years of the most horrible foreign policy decisions probably in the history of our nation.

If Hillary Clinton wins the US presidency, Bill Clinton will be given the job of repairing America’s damaged international reputation, the former president tells the Guardian in an interview today.
Mr Clinton, 61, reveals that his wife has said she would ask him to “go out and immediately restore America’s standing, go out and tell people America was open for business and cooperation again” after eight years marked by unilateralist policies that have “enrage[d] the world”.

For the first time in his political life, Mr Clinton says, “ordinary US voters in the heartlands are concerned about who would be most likely to restore America’s standing in the world” in the wake of the Iraq war, lack of action on climate change and other policies.
“The average American knows instinctively that we have almost no problems in the world that we can solve all by ourselves,” he says. “And that, I think, is helping her candidacy, because people believe – I think rightly – that if she were elected she would quickly move to restore our standing in the world, and tell people there may be a few occasions when we have to do something on our own, but our strong preference is going to be to be cooperative.”

The collective effect of American unilateralism has been “to enrage the world at the very moment when we had more support than we’ve had in recent memory, because of 9/11”, Mr Clinton says.

The conservative right doesn’t give a damn at what others around the world think of us, to our utter detriment. They really can’t see the bigger picture, because they are stuck on their armageddon riff. They don’t realize that their armageddon prophecies are self-fulfilling. We’ve gotta stop that madness.

Advertisements

8 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

  1. Clinton’s affinity for AIPAC and tougher-than-the-next-guy-on-Iran attitude have me totally turned off of her. She has a proven track record of caring little for democracy and seems like her main purpose is to make US imperialism more palatable. Can’t vote for that.

  2. radical mormon,

    I don’t see Hillary as doing anything military against Iran. I just don’t. Maybe I’m not reading her right, but my gut feeling tells me she is playing tough because this is still a man’s world and she has to show that she’s no pushover woman. Who knows though, Bill Clinton made serious mistakes in regards to Iraq (such as believing that Iraq needed to be invaded and all).

    I’m still leaning on Barack Obama personally. I just like this idea of using Bill Clinton to reach out to the world again after the utter debacle of Bush and Cheney.

  3. Hillary is a backstabber, plain and simple. Remember back in the late 90s when she created the big hub-bub by being one of the first in Washington to say every so timidly (but sure to be heard per Bill’s instructions) that maybe a Palestinian state was a good idea? It was a calculated move in Bill’s (lousy, AIPAC-driven, not really aimed at anything related to peace) “peace process”.

    Fast forward a couple years later, she’s running for the Senate in New York and suddenly she’s collecting donations and sending body armor to WEST BANK SETTLER COLONIALISTS. I had a professor in Cairo, a famous old-school Egyptian leftist who had been imprisoned by Sadat for pointing out that Camp David had stabbed the palestinians in the back. During the first incident who came into class one day ecstatic talking about how wonderful Hillary was. I told him point blank she would knife the Palestinians the second her political advantage called for it. And she did so with gusto.

    That to me exemplifies everything both Bill and Hillary are about. Very smart people yes, but they’ll turn on anyone in a second if their political advancement demands it. That also makes her a follower far more than a leader I might add. Iran is just another example: if there’s one thing you can count on in Washington it’s that everyone hates Iranians (even more than Arabs or than Muslims generally). Hillary’s political stance right now calls for not pissing off the very (rightly so after 7 years of Bush) pissed-off left wing of the party, but at the same time not alienating the centrist voter who watches the main news channels and as a result things Iranians are evil (aided of course by Ahmadinejad’s cartoonish self-stereotyping behavior, but ultimately he’s a sideshow freak having little to do with the real issues). So she follows along and says to be cautious about Iran and not pull an Iraq but also mouths off about how evil Iran is. If Bush bombs, she’ll take the political pulse before she decides whether to condemn or “support the troops” first.

    I don’t necessarily like everything they stand for and they’re no angles of consistency either, but I have more confidence Obama or Kucinich would stick to their guns and actually lead in a tough situation than Hillary.

  4. To quote Hillary and others:

    (from http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20071022&s=lazare)

    Lobbyists did not force members of Congress to give the Likud heavyweight Benjamin Netanyahu a five-minute standing ovation when he addressed a joint session in 1996. When Ariel Sharon told William Safire a couple of months after 9/11, “You in America are in a war against terror. We in Israel are in a war against terror. It’s the same war,” no one forced members of Congress to nod like so many bobble-heads in agreement, as Hillary Clinton did a few months later when, just as Israeli troops were invading Nablus and Jenin in the West Bank, she declared, “We are one with the Israelis. Those who have supported Israel in the past have even more of a reason to do so now.” And they did so because they wanted to, because they thought the voters wanted them to or because they worried that they would be deemed unreliable if they did not. The problem is not that America is too democratic but that democratic debate about the Middle East has all but collapsed, which is the sole reason the militarists have been able to flourish.

    Hillary again as follower, and follower of lousy immoral policies just because it gives a political advantage.

  5. Seymour Hersh seems to think that the democrats are becoming more dangerous than the Bush administration when it comes to future military action against Iran. I’m not so sure that Hillary would be as calm as you seem to think Dan. She is a proven AIPAC thug… and Netanyahu and gang really want to bomb Iran.

    With the bobble heads Arab describes above in Congress, I wouldn’t put it past her. See what Seymour Hersh thinks about Democrats and bombing Iran here:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-wiener/who-wants-to-bomb-iran-_b_67229.html

  6. Scott Ritter pointed out in March of this year why having Clinton’s husband working for her would be the opposite of and excellent reason to elect Hillary. (This is a rather long quote, but he says it so deliciously). He said:

    “My vote,” Hillary said with great sanctimony, “is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption, or for unilateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose — all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.” But by citing the policies of her husband, there can be no doubt that this was exactly what her vote was about.”

    “I should know. From January 1993 until my resignation from the United Nations in August 1998, I witnessed firsthand the duplicitous Iraq policies of Bill Clinton’s administration, the implementation of which saw a president lie to the American people about a threat he knew was hyped, lie to Congress about his support of a disarmament process his administration wanted nothing to do with, and lie to the world about American intent, which turned its back on the very multilateral embrace of diplomacy as reflected in the Security Council resolutions Hillary Clinton so piously refers to in her speech, and instead pursued a policy defined by the unilateral interests of the Clinton administration to remove Saddam Hussein from power.”

    “I personally witnessed the director of the CIA under Bill Clinton, James Woolsey, fabricate a case for the continued existence of Iraqi ballistic missiles in November 1993, after I had provided a detailed briefing which articulated the U.N. inspector’s findings that Iraq’s missile program had been fundamentally disarmed. I led the U.N. inspector’s investigation into the defection of Saddam Hussein’s son-in-law, Hussein Kamal, in August 1995, and saw how the Clinton administration twisted his words to make a case for the continued existence of a nuclear program the weapons inspectors knew to be nothing more than scrap and old paper. I was in Baghdad at the head of an inspection team in the summer of 1996 as the Clinton administration used the inspection process as a vehicle for a covert action program run by the CIA intending to assassinate Saddam Hussein.”

    “I twice traveled to the White House to brief the National Security Council in the confines of the White House Situation Room on the plans of the inspectors to pursue the possibility of concealed Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, only to have the Clinton national security team betray the inspectors by failing to deliver the promised support, and when the inspections failed to deliver any evidence of Iraqi wrongdoing, attempt to blame the inspectors while denying any wrongdoing on their part.”

    “This last fact hits very close to home. As a former Marine Corps officer and as a chief inspector responsible for the welfare of the personnel entrusted to my command, I take the act of official betrayal very seriously. “I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know,” Sen. Clinton said in her speech defending her vote for war, “that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them.” I am left to wonder if, in citing the record of her husband when he was president, Hillary would stand behind the troops with the same duplicitous “vigor” that her husband displayed when betraying the U.N. weapons inspectors.”

    “In February 1998 the Clinton administration backed a diplomatic effort undertaken by then-U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to help get the weapons inspection process back on track (inspections had been stalled since January 1998, when a team I led was prevented by the Iraqis from carrying out its mission because, as the Iraqis maintained, there were too many Americans and British on the team implementing the unilateral policy of regime change instead of the mandated task of disarmament). Hillary stated that she wanted a strong U.N. resolution designed to promote viable weapons inspections and specifically singled out the compromises brokered by Kofi Annan to get inspectors back into Iraq as a failed effort that weakened the inspection process. What she fails to mention is that her husband initially supported the Annan mission, not so much because it paved a path towards disarmament, but rather because it provided a cover for legitimizing regime change.”

    “I sat in the office of then-U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Bill Richardson, as the United States cut a deal with then-U.N. Special Commission Executive Chairman Richard Butler, where the timing and actions of an inspection team led by myself (a decision that was personally approved by Bill Clinton) would be closely linked to a massive U.S. aerial bombardment of Iraq triggered by my inspection. I was supposed to facilitate a war by prompting Iraqi noncompliance. Instead, I did my job and facilitated an inspection that pushed the world closer to a recognition that Iraq was complying with its disarmament obligation. As a reward, I was shunned from the inspection process by the Clinton administration.”

    “In April 1998 Bill Clinton promised Congress that his administration would provide all support necessary to the U.N. inspectors. In May 1998 his National Security Team implemented a new policy that turned its back on the inspectors, seeking to avoid supporting a disarmament process that undermined the policies of regime change so strongly embraced by Bill Clinton and his administration. When I resigned in August 1998 in protest over its duplicitous policies, I was personally attacked by the Clinton administration in an effort to divert attention away from the truth about what it were doing regarding Iraq. Four months later Bill Clinton ordered the bombing of Iraq, Operation Desert Fox, referred to in glowing terms by Hillary Clinton as she endorsed the policies of deception that led our nation down the path towards war.”

    “So it is with conviction,” Hillary said at the moment of her vote, “that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our president, and we say to him — use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein — this is your last chance — disarm or be disarmed.”

    “It turned out Saddam was in fact already disarmed. And it turned out that Hillary’s husband, President Bill Clinton, knew this when he ordered the bombing of Iraq in 1998. Hillary can try to twist and turn the facts as she defends the words she spoke when casting her fateful vote in favor of a war with Iraq. But no amount of rewriting history can shield her from the failed policies of her very own husband, policies she embraced willingly and wholeheartedly when endorsing war.”

    “Run, Hillary, run. But your race towards the White House will never outpace the hypocrisy and duplicity inherent in your decision to vote for war in Iraq.”

  7. Thanks for sharing all that guys.

  8. Pulleeze – while in office, Bill bombed Europe, the Middle East, the Far East, Africa … generally to deflect attention from Monica Lewinski testimony and impeachment.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.

%d bloggers like this: