Perhaps nothing strikes one as more absurd about the Democratic primary as the notion Hillary is attempting to sell the country: that is has passed the test for commander-in-chief. On what conceivable basis is this nonsense being predicated? Sleeping next to an ex-president? Visiting countries as a dignitary? A term as a US Senator?
The next US president must rather have the judgment to make the right decisions as they pertain to foreign policy and defense in the best interests of the American people. In this regard, Dick Cheney, the commander-in-chief in the Bush administration was probably on of the most experienced foreign policy/defense experts ever to gain entry into the White House. And look where we are today as a consequence.
Therefore, it is legitimate to ask whether Hillary is really better equipped to make the right foreign policy/defense decisions on behalf of the American people and the world.
The answer to this question cannot be harped on enough: NO. Hillary’s foreign policy/defense decisions while in the Senate make her unsuitable to be president.
Hillary Clinton voted for Bush’s Iraq war
Hillary Clinton voted for Bush’s Patriot Act to spy on Americans and to reauthorize the Act when it came up for renewal.
Hillary Clinton opposed the international treaty to ban land mines.
Hillary Clinton is one of the Senate’s most outspoken critics of the United Nations perhaps even exceeding John Bolton in his anti-UN rhetoric.
Hillary Clinton voted against the Feinstein-Leahy amendment restricting U.S. exports of cluster bombs to countries that use them against civilian-populated areas (like Israel during its invasion of Lebanon).
Hillary Clinton is one of the most prominent critics of the International Court of Justice for its landmark 2004 advisory ruling that the Fourth Geneva Conventions on the Laws of War is legally binding on all signatory nations.
Hillary Clinton supported Israel’s massive military assault on the civilian infrastructure of Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, which took the lives of over 1,000 civilians, half of whom were children.
Indeed, these positions are right out of the Israel Lobby playbook and mimics Cheney-Bush foreign policy initiatives and past and current leanings of Neocon’s in the United Nations, like John Bolton. It indicates that Hillary is willing to sell out democratic principles for political expediency and to slant her foreign policy in this direction were she ever to become president of the US.
LINK: http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4803
Stephen Zunes wrote about Hillary Clinton on International Law, comparing Hillary with the Bush administration:
Perhaps the most terrible legacy of the administration of President George W. Bush has been its utter disregard for such basic international legal norms as the ban against aggressive war, respect for the UN Charter, and acceptance of international judicial review. Furthermore, under Bush’s leadership, the United States has cultivated a disrespect for basic human rights, a disdain for reputable international human rights monitoring groups, and a lack of concern for international humanitarian law.
Ironically, the current front-runner (Hillary) for the Democratic nomination for president shares much of President Bush’s dangerous attitudes toward international law and human rights.
Jason Raimondo called her a “War Goddess” for her aggressive warring positions on the Iraq War and her saber rattling against Iran and other Middle East countries. Along with Bush, Hillary appeared to cheer on Israel’s invasions of Lebanon and Gaza, in which over 1200 and 600 innocent civilians, respectively, were killed by American F-16s dropping American air-to-ground missiles and then cluster bombs, which continue to kill and maim children, all on a pretext. Both incursions were eventually cited by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.
This is who Hillary is and her election to the presidency will bring the US into just another era of Cheney-Bush Neocon foreign policy.
The proper question to ask here is: just what is Hillary experienced to do?
