Clinton

[Moon]

<st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on"></st1:place></st1:city><o:p></o:p>Excerpted from Stephen Zunes<o:p></o:p>
Since most of the public criticism of the former first lady has been based
on false and exaggerated charges from the right wing, often with a fair dose
of sexism, many Democrats have become defensive and reluctant to criticize her.<o:p></o:p>
Wacco readers don’t have that problem with me; I’m a 35-year active feminist who has been in ten or a dozen fistfights with misogynous pricks.<o:p></o:p>
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has already assumed front-runner status for the Democratic Party nomination for president despite a foreign policy agenda
that closely parallels that of the Bush administration.<o:p></o:p>
For example, she opposes the international treaty to ban land mines.<o:p></o:p>
She was 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.<o:p></o:p>
Mrs. Clinton has shown little regard for the danger from proliferation of
nuclear weapons, not only opposing the enforcement of U.N. Security Council
resolutions challenging Pakistan, Israel and India’s nuclear weapons
programs but supporting the delivery of nuclear-capable missiles and jet
fighters to these countries.<o:p></o:p>
Last year, she accused the Bush administration of not taking the threat of a nuclear Iran seriously enough, criticized the administration for allowing
European nations to take the lead in pursuing a diplomatic solution and
insisted that the United States should make it clear that military options
were still being actively considered.
Meanwhile, she insists that the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">United States</st1:country-region></st1:place> should maintain the right to
use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries.<o:p></o:p>
Mrs. Clinton was an outspoken supporter of <st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region>’s massive military assault on the civilian infrastructure of <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Lebanon</st1:place></st1:country-region> and the Gaza Strip last summer, which took the lives of over 1,000 civilians.<o:p></o:p>
There are questions regarding her integrity. Long after credible,
well-documented published reports by American and Israeli newspapers and
research institutes had refuted it, Sen. Clinton continued to cite a
right-wing group’s 1999 report claiming the Palestinian Authority was
publishing anti-Semitic [sic] textbooks.<o:p></o:p>
Even after it was discovered that <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Iraq</st1:place></st1:country-region> no longer
had “weapons of mass destruction,” Mrs. Clinton acknowledged last year that
she would have voted to authorize the invasion anyway.<o:p></o:p>
Should Hillary Clinton become the Democratic presidential nominee, we can expect to find little difference between her and her Republican rival.<o:p></o:p>

[Dixon]

Moon

Thanks for your cogent and apparently well-researched info on Hillary Clinton. It's nice to see someone else, especially a woman, who shares my feelings about her.

I remember when her then-President husband appointed her to head the development of health care "reform". It was amazing that such blatant nepotism went unchallenged (Does anyone really think she was the person most qualified for such a job? How does assigning positions of power based on one's family ties benefit the citizenry?). At the time, I predicted that 1) She would not recommend the progressive option: single-payer universal coverage, and 2) Whatever plan she came up with would protect the wealth of health care corporations and lawyers. Of course my predictions came true.

At the risk of redundancy, here are some relevant quotes from my posting from last June:

"So many times I've had to laugh (through my tears) at seeing "progressive" voters support corrupt planet-raping crooks and then wonder why things don't get better...

"...I can still remember so many of my starry-eyed friends saying "When we get Clinton in office things will be so much better!" Haw haw! What a corrupt political hack! And his wife is just as bad. How sad to see so many people treat Hillary as some kind of progressive hope. I swear, some women will vote for anything with a clitty instead of a weewee--and they don't even think of themselves as sexist! I guess they were real impressed with Margaret Thatcher....

"...People like...both Clintons would never have achieved their positions if they weren't solidly on board with the ruling class agenda."

Dixon


<st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on"></st1:place></st1:city><o:p></o:p>Excerpted from Stephen Zunes<o:p></o:p>
Since most of the public criticism of the former first lady has been based
on false and exaggerated charges from the right wing, often with a fair dose
of sexism, many Democrats have become defensive and reluctant to criticize her.<o:p></o:p>
Wacco readers don’t have that problem with me; I’m a 35-year active feminist who has been in ten or a dozen fistfights with misogynous pricks.<o:p></o:p>
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has already assumed front-runner status for the Democratic Party nomination for president despite a foreign policy agenda
that closely parallels that of the Bush administration.<o:p></o:p>
For example, she opposes the international treaty to ban land mines.<o:p></o:p>
She was 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.<o:p></o:p>
Mrs. Clinton has shown little regard for the danger from proliferation of
nuclear weapons, not only opposing the enforcement of U.N. Security Council
resolutions challenging Pakistan, Israel and India’s nuclear weapons
programs but supporting the delivery of nuclear-capable missiles and jet
fighters to these countries.<o:p></o:p>
Last year, she accused the Bush administration of not taking the threat of a nuclear Iran seriously enough, criticized the administration for allowing
European nations to take the lead in pursuing a diplomatic solution and
insisted that the United States should make it clear that military options
were still being actively considered.
Meanwhile, she insists that the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">United States</st1:country-region></st1:place> should maintain the right to
use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries.<o:p></o:p>
Mrs. Clinton was an outspoken supporter of <st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region>’s massive military assault on the civilian infrastructure of <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Lebanon</st1:place></st1:country-region> and the Gaza Strip last summer, which took the lives of over 1,000 civilians.<o:p></o:p>
There are questions regarding her integrity. Long after credible,
well-documented published reports by American and Israeli newspapers and
research institutes had refuted it, Sen. Clinton continued to cite a
right-wing group’s 1999 report claiming the Palestinian Authority was
publishing anti-Semitic [sic] textbooks.<o:p></o:p>
Even after it was discovered that <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Iraq</st1:place></st1:country-region> no longer
had “weapons of mass destruction,” Mrs. Clinton acknowledged last year that
she would have voted to authorize the invasion anyway.<o:p></o:p>
Should Hillary Clinton become the Democratic presidential nominee, we can expect to find little difference between her and her Republican rival.<o:p></o:p>