Hillary's Foreign Policy Agenda "Would Center on Patriarchal Notions of Militarism and Conquest"

[Emit]

As POTUS, "her foreign policy agenda would closely parallel that of the Bush administration", Ronald Reagan and the hawkish former Washington Senator Scoop Jackson:

Hillary Clinton on Military Policy
Stephen Zunes | December 12, 2007
Editor: Emily Schwartz Greco

While much attention has been given to Senator Hillary Clinton’s support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq, her foreign policy record regarding other international conflicts and her apparent eagerness to accept the use of force appears to indicate that her fateful vote authorizing the invasion and her subsequent support for the occupation and counter-insurgency war was no aberration. Indeed, there’s every indication that, as president, her foreign policy agenda would closely parallel that of the Bush administration. Despite efforts by some conservative Republicans to portray her as being on the left wing of the Democratic Party, in reality her foreign policy positions bear a far closer resemblance to those of Ronald Reagan than they do of George McGovern.
...

Mama Warbucks

Her presidential campaign has received far more money from defense contractors than any other candidate – Democrat or Republican – and her close ties to the defense industry has led the Village Voice to refer to her as “Mama Warbucks.” She has even fought the Bush administration in restoring funding for some of the very few weapons systems the Bush administration has sought to cut in recent years. Pentagon officials and defense contractors have given Senator Clinton high marks for listening to their concerns, promoting their products and leveraging her ties to the Pentagon, comparing her favorably to the hawkish former Washington Senator “Scoop” Jackson and other pro-military Democrats of earlier eras.

Clinton has also demonstrated a marked preference for military confrontation over negotiation. In a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations, she called for a “tough-minded, muscular foreign and defense policy.” Similarly, when her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination Senator Barack Obama expressed his willingness to meet with Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro or other foreign leaders with whom the United States has differences, she denounced him for being “irresponsible and frankly naive.”
...

Military Intervention

...

Immediately following the 9/11 attacks, Clinton went well beyond the broad consensus that the United States should go after al-Qaeda cells and their leadership to declare that any country providing any “aid and comfort” to al-Qaeda “will now face the wrath of our country.” When Bush echoed these words the following week in his nationally-televised speech, she declared “I'll stand behind Bush for a long time to come.”

...

Nuclear Weapons

Particularly disturbing has been Senator Clinton’s attitudes regarding nuclear issues. For example, when Senator Obama noted in August that the use of nuclear weapons – traditionally seen as a deterrent against other nuclear states – was not appropriate for use against terrorists, Clinton rebuked his logic by claiming that “I don’t believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons.”

Senator Clinton has also shown little regard for the danger from the proliferation of nuclear weapons to other countries, opposing the enforcement of UN Security Council resolutions challenging the nuclear weapons programs of such U.S allies as Israel, Pakistan and India. Not only does she support unconditional military aid – including nuclear-capable missiles and jet fighters – to these countries, she even voted to end restrictions on U.S. nuclear cooperation with countries that violate the Non-Proliferation Treaty. ...

Latin America

In Latin America, Senator Clinton argues that the Bush administration should take a more aggressive stance against the rise of left-leaning governments in the hemisphere, arguing that Bush has neglected these recent developments “at our peril.” ...

...

Israel and Palestine

Regarding Israel, Senator Clinton has taken a consistently right-wing position, undermining the efforts of Israeli and Palestinian moderates seeking a just peace that would recognize both the Palestinians’ legitimate national rights and the Israelis’ legitimate security concerns. For example, she has defended Israeli colonization of occupied Palestinian territory, has strongly supported Israel’s construction of an illegal separation barrier deep inside the occupied territory, and has denounced the International Court of Justice for its near-unanimous 2004 decision calling on Israel to abide by international humanitarian law.

Senator Clinton has consistently put the onus of responsibility on the occupied Palestinians rather than their Israeli occupiers.

...

The only source she has cited to uphold these charges, however, has been the Center for the Monitoring the Impact of Peace (CMIP), a right-wing Israeli-based group whose board includes Daniel Pipes and other prominent American neo-conservatives, which was founded in 1998 as part of an effort to undermine the peace process by attempting to portray the Palestinians as hopelessly hostile to Israel’s existence. It has been directly challenged by other studies from more objective sources.

Senator Clinton’s insistence on repeating the propaganda of long-discredited reports by a right-wing think tank instead of paying attention to well-regarded investigations by credible scholars and journalists may be a dangerous indication of how little difference there is between her and Bush in terms of what sources she would rely upon in formulating her policies.

~snip~

Syria

Senator Clinton has also aimed her militaristic sights at Syria. In a typical example of her double-standards, she was a co-sponsor of the 2003 “Syrian Accountability Act,” which demanded – under threat of sanctions – that Syria unilaterally eliminate its chemical weapons and missile systems, despite the fact that nearby U.S. allies like Israel and Egypt had far larger and more advanced stockpiles of chemical weapons and missiles, not to mention Israel’s sizable arsenal of nuclear weapons. ...

Included in the bill’s “findings” were charges by top Bush Administration officials of Syrian support for international terrorism and development of dangerous WMD programs. Not only have most of these particular accusations not been independently confirmed, they were made by the same Bush Administration officials who had made similar claims against Iraq that have since been proven false. Yet Senator Clinton naively trusts their word over independent strategic analysts familiar with the region who have challenged many of these charges. Her bill also called for strict sanctions against Syria as well as Syria’s expulsion from its non-permanent seat Security Council for its failure at that time to withdraw its forces from Lebanon according to UN Security Council resolution 520.
...

Iran

In response to the Bush administration’s ongoing obsession with Iran, Senator Clinton’s view is that the Bush has not been obsessive enough. In a speech at Princeton University last year, she argued that the White House “lost critical time in dealing with Iran,” and accused the administration of choosing to “downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations” as well as “standing on the sidelines.”

...

In defending her vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq in 2003, she has claimed that Bush “deceived all of us” in exaggerating the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s regime. Yet, when it comes to the similarly exaggerated Iranian threat, she has again repeated the Bush administration’s talking points almost verbatim. Indeed, as recently as last month she was insisting that “Iran is seeking nuclear weapons,” even though the consensus of the United States’ 16 intelligence agencies was that Iran ended its nuclear weapons program back in 2003.

Senator Clinton was the only Democratic member of Congress seeking the presidential nomination to support the Kyl-Lieberman amendment which, among other things, called on the Bush administration to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps – the largest branch of the Iranian military – as a foreign terrorist organization. To designate a branch of the armed forces of a foreign state as a terrorist organization would be unprecedented and was widely interpreted to be a backhanded way of authorizing military action against Iran. Indeed, Virginia Senator Jim Webb referred to it as “Cheney’s fondest pipe dream.” ...

A Liberal?

Given Senator Clinton’s militaristic foreign policy, why are so many of her supporters apparently in denial of this unfortunate reality? Part of the problem is that most of the public criticism of the former first lady has been based on false and exaggerated charges from the far right, often infused with a fair dose of sexism. As a result, many liberals become defensive and reluctant to criticize her. ...
...

There is also the fact that after 43 male presidents, the prospect of finally having a woman as chief executive is understandably appealing. Yet, what’s the advantage of a female president if her foreign policies are still centered on patriarchal notions of militarism and conquest? What would it mean to the women of Iraq, Iran, Palestine, Lebanon and other countries who would suffer as a result of her policies? ...

These are the kinds of questions, along with a critical examination of her overall foreign policy record, that need to be considered by Democrats before making Hillary Clinton their nominee for president.

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4811

[anonymous171]

1. Who was it that said Hillary was a puppet for the patriarchy?

I can't remember...

[Tellurian]

2. Thats a notion coined by Obama.. I heard it in his speech.. The man is a total Liar!

[Emit]

4. do you have a link to where Obama coined that phrase?

And what makes him a liar, or is that just your standard, cut and paste response? Can you back it up, IOW?

[Tellurian]

10. Obama coined the notion... Hillary will follow Bush II's Iraq war plans..

I never said phrase... or you don't know the difference between a notion and a phrase? Jaysus!

[anonymous171]

12. No he didn't. Hillary did it herself.

[Tellurian]

13. Elaborate on what Hillary said...if you please!

[Emit]

69. lol, the poster didn't say Hillary 'said it'

The poster wrote: "Hillary did it (coined it) herself."

Seems we're both failing in reading comprehension with regard to who 'said' or 'did' what or what 'phrase' wasn't a phrase but a 'notion.' :crazy:

[Emit]

24. Hillary will follow Bush II's Iraq war plans.

[anonymous171]

6. WTF!? You are joking right?

Here it is:

Jane Fonda says that Hillary is a “ventriloquist for the patriarchy with a skirt and a vagina. It may be that a feminist, progressive man would do better in the White House.”

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/15/2545/

[Emit]

8. Thanks, anonymous171!

You just answered my questions above, and clarified things greatly. :thumbsup:

[Tellurian]

44. Jane Fonda = Hillary?

You've really lost it.. Or you think the world is asleep at the wheel.

Fonda is a Republican.. dittohead!

[anonymous171]

49. ^^^^^^^^^EVERYONE LOOK! THIS PERSON SAYS JANE FONDA IS A REPUKE!

:wow: :spray: :rofl:

That pretty much shows how incredibly corrupted by bias you are.

[Swamp Rat]

51. LOL!

:rofl:

Now I've seen everything! :D

[Tellurian]

53. Isn't Obama running as a Republican running as a Democrat?

[anonymous171]

54. gb2Hillaryis44 and stop embarrassing actual Hillary supporters.

[Tellurian]

61. Obami 's Foreign Policy plans are Poppy Bushes and Uncle Ronnies..

Geeze, for a True Blue Democrat, Obama can't seem to find a democratic president to emulate. How sad.

[anonymous171]

62. Aren't you forgetting JFK? Or was he, like Jane Fonda, a repug?

[Tellurian]

63. JFK was no Foreign policy wonk.. Bay of Pigs ring a bell?

No matter.. why kiss up to the Republicans?

[Swamp Rat]

55. LOL! .... STOP! ... you're killing me!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Mother Of Four]

66. Jane Fonda-

The one who went into Viet Nam
The one who was so outspoken about rights and such
The one who is a rabid defender of liberal issues....

Is a REPUBLICAN?!


Uhhhhhhhh


You really need to take your meds now...KK Thx Drive through.


Heres a little reading information-

http://www.allamericanspeakers.com/speakers/Jane-Fonda/1302

Detailed Biography of Jane Fonda
Jane Fonda was born in New York City, to actor Henry Fonda and socialite Frances Brokaw (née Seymour). She was named after Lady Jane Seymour, the third wife of King Henry VIII.

Jane's mother, Frances, was the second of Henry Fonda's five wives, and was formerly married to millionaire George Brokaw, the onetime husband of writer Clare Boothe Luce. After voluntarily seeking help at an asylum, Frances Fonda committed suicide in October 1950, when Jane was 12 years old. In Fonda's 2005 memoir, the actress wrote that while researching the book, she was granted access to her mother's psychiatric records and discovered that her mother had been sexually molested as a child, a trauma that doubtless contributed to her later emotional and mental instabilty.

Her nickname as a youth—Lady Jane—was one she reportedly disliked. She traveled to Russia in 1964 and was impressed by the people, who welcomed her warmly as Henry's daughter. In the mid-1960s she bought a farm outside of Paris, had it renovated and personally started a garden. She visited Andy Warhol's Factory in 1966. About her 1971 Oscar win, her father Henry said: "How in hell would you like to have been in this business as long as I and have one of your kids win an Oscar before you do?" Jane was on the cover of Life magazine, March 29, 1968.

While early she had grown both distant from and critical of her father for much of her young life, in 1980, she bought the play "On Golden Pond" for the purpose of acting alongside her father—hoping he might win the Oscar that had eluded him throughout his career. He won, and when she accepted the Oscar on his behalf, she said it was "the happiest night of my life." Director Roger Vadim once said about her: "Living with Jane was difficult in the beginning...she had so many, how do you say, 'bachelor habits.' Too much organization. Time is her enemy. She cannot relax. Always there is something to do." Vadim also said, "There is also in Jane a basic wish to carry things to the limit."

In 2005, Fonda published her memoirs, "My Life, So Far." In it, she candidly examines her life from early childhood, through her controversial anti-Vietnam War years, through her later life, and marriage to Ted Turner. She described herself as being affected by an internalized misogyny, which she said contributed to her lifelong habit of quickly conforming to the habits, desires, and ambitions of the men in her life at the expense of her own character.

Fonda, who lives in Atlanta, Georgia, describes herself as a liberal, "feminist Christian."

[splat]

3. Matriarchal notions of peace with strength are more likely

America's never seen that before.

[Emit]

7. Do you mean to say that an HRC presidency would center on

"Matriarchal notions of peace with strength"?

[splat]

9. Of course -- she came up in the Vietnam peace movement with McGovern

On edit, I should explain: 40 years later, we've all learned you have to get elected before you can change things.

[Emit]

11. Did you even read the piece?

Or, for that matter, anything about HRC's foreign policy agenda? Listened to her speeches? Or are you joking? You're joking, right? You musta' just forgot the <sarcasm> thingy right? Tell me you're joking.

[splat]

15. She has to overcome the perception that a woman can't be commander in chief

Matriarchal policy is way too sophisticated for soundbites.

All politicians stake out positions that they hope will get them elected. This is not what they do when they get into the WH.

Remember the "compassionate conservative"? That sold well, polled well...

[Emit]

16. And, so you trust this notion that she is just posturing or something?

You know this how? Do you just feel it deep down in your bones?

You think she will be matriarchal and peace loving simply because she is a woman?

I'm not sure I follow still.

[splat]

17. It's not posturing, it's strategy

Old hippies are generally still peace-loving, but they have to get into office to change the world.

As for matriarchal, we've never seen that here.

But if you're taking care of America's domestic priorities, there's not a lot of money left over for war.

[Emit]

18. HRC was a Goldwater Girl long before she was a hippie

(Was she ever in fact a hippie?)

[splat]

20. G-girl ended in '65, freshman year in college

This was from Yale Law:

[Emit]

22. Lol, and the pic makes her an "old hippie"?

You contradict yourself:

"Old hippies are generally still peace-loving, but they have to get into office to change the world."

She was a Goldwater Girl, and has stated, "I'm a heart liberal, but a mind conservative."

So, in your mind, if old hippies are generally still peace-loving, was would old Goldwater Girls be considered still, lol?

typo

[splat]

25. They didn't all happen simultaneously!

She was a Goldwater Girl when she was 17 (I was a Catholic at 17 but that changed...)

In '65, hippies hadn't happened yet.

My brother describes himself as "socially liberal and fiscally conservative." Conservative doesn't mean modern neocon. It means you try to balance the budget, as Bill did in the '90s.

I didn't just fall off the turnip truck, Emit. I was there.

[Emit]

27. lol

The point I'm making, aside from the fact that I doubt seriously Hillary EVER considered herself a "hippie" -- and would run away from that notion so fast -- is that you seem to think 'once a hippie always a hippie', but you're not willing to apply your same logic to 'once a Goldwater Girl always a Goldwater Girl.' Doesn't matter which came first or last.

Give it up. No one but HRC knows whether she would be matriarchal or patriarchal in her foreign policy agenda as POTUS, but, given how she has voted, given her speeches, actions, alignments, there is evidence that she will be patriarchal and absolutely no evidence to the contrary.

Just because she's a woman means squat about her foreign policy. She's more hawkish than many male politicians, and that likely is not just a strategy.

[splat]

29. Face it, any woman has to satisfy the c-i-c test

I can assure you that most teenagers followed the beliefs of their WW2 parents and favorite teachers. Cool little kids wore "I Like Ike" buttons. Goldwater Girl was her parents values. I'm surprised this is so hard for you. Didn't going to college change your childhood beliefs? It's supposed to!

Politics wasn't a big deal till the Vietnam war, and especially the draft. That set off the huge rift between the generations; in many families, the dads were Archie Bunker and the sons were Meathead.

Why don't you give it up, Emit? You're projecting what you want to believe, which is natural if you don't know the historical context. Or don't want to know it.

[Emit]

30. I've always been a Democrat

Despite my Nixon/Reagan/Bush-loving father's Repug leanings.

You are still missing my point, and appear to be projecting more what you want to believe about HRC. The facts don't support your position.

Read the article -- listen to Hillary's position in her speeches -- and then get back to me on where HRC stands with her hawkish, patriarchal, militarist, neocon/neolib foreign policy, and then come back and try to argue your point. It won't be easy.

[splat]

33. You always base your thinking on one article by somebody with an ax to grind?

So you do know about changing from the values you were brought up with.

In order to win the broad middle that all candidates must convince, a woman needs the generals, the "strong defense" meme. It doesn't mean that she will see military solutions before diplomatic ones. That's why the founders insisted on a citizen president, not a military one.

The point is that all candidates stake out a portion of the political spectrum -- Hillary is going for a broad middle, since she's likely to pick up quite a few GOP women if they think she'll keep them safe.

Turning her into a militarist cartoon is one person's vendetta. Like indicting a ham sandwich.

[Emit]

35. My opinion of her is not based on one article, lol

Did you even read it? Have you listened to any of her speeches on foreign policy? Iran? Syria? Iraq?

Here's a start:

October 10, 2002
Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html


And here's an interesting perspective:

Unedited version - Hillary Clinton talks about her vote to go to war, Saddam, and WMDs 2 weeks before war in a meeting w/ women, men, National Organization for Women and Code Pink.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYATbsu2cP8


Hillary is a hawk.

[splat]

36. So are Kerry and Dodd then, who also voted for the res -- is Obama rejecting them?

All were maintaining viability. They didn't know how this would turn out.

Obama wasn't in the Senate then, and wasn't worried about viability in his Illinois district

[Emit]

38. I didn't say HRC is a hawk only because of her Iraq War vote

there's much more to it than that -- which is the point I'm trying to make, but one that you keep running from.

[splat]

39. You don't seem to understand 'viability' -- it's the middle she has to win

The left only has people to the right of her as a choice; that will take care of itself.

[Emit]

40. I understand full well your point on viability, splat

I just don't agree with you that HRC is all into war and in alliance with the Military Industrial Complex because she's trying to be viable. I think it's in her heart and head. She panders to the right, you are correct. And she throws a few bones to the left. But, bottom line, she's a hawk on foreign policy.

[splat]

42. She's pragmatic where she has to be, Emit

And without balls, you have to rattle something.

[Emit]

14. So, then, you think she's just saying these things to get elected, but once she is POTUS

she'll be all matriarchal and peace loving?

You really weren't joking, were you?

[roguevalley]

32. she may have been alive in the peace movement but it didn't

rub off.

[splat]

37. Hillary and Bill both worked for McGovern in Texas -- or didn't you know that?

[roguevalley]

31. I suppose the Iraq vote was for a maternal sort of peace thing. How

did that work out? Is the Iran vote more maternity?

[splat]

43. Viability as a woman commander in chief; already dealt with in this thread

[Emit]

45. sez you, lol

You didn't prove your point with me

[splat]

52. 'Proving points' is a high-school debate tactic, Emit

We're after bigger fish here.

[Emit]

57. lol, splat

try as you may to condescend, I think it's clear who is being childish here. You have 'dealt with' nothing and offered no meaningful discussion concerning HRC's foreign policy or anything remotely factual concerning the article I originally posted.

[splat]

59. The article is cherrypicking junk, Emit

[Emit]

70. cherrypicking?

[City Lights]

5. Thanks, Emit! Bookmarking to read later.

:-)

[H2O Man]

19. Nominated.

Scoop Jackson.

[dailykoff]

21. Ditto.

Barry Goldwater.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. NeoLibs like the Clintons are just Neo-cons with nice smiles.

Willing to kill thousands of people but decorate the murder with prettier words about doing it for their own good.

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy.” - Gandhi

[cbayer]

26. Anyone who reads this might also want to read an interesting analysis of the piece.

http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2008/03/foreign-policy-in-focus-think-tank.html

Some excerpts:

Foreign Policy in Focus: Think tank without thought
Foreign Policy in Focus just can't keep from embarrassing
itself these days. The "think tank without walls" is
apparently now also the "think tank with thought."
Or facts.


Stephen Zunes left the world of reality a long, long time ago
and these days offers the sort of crazed mutterings that would
have a good many running to San Juan Batista for sanctuary.
Alas, FPiF indulges him in his sad, sad decline.


The reason for that is being a Hillary Hater not only means
never having to save your sorry, it also means never being
found by facts. The latest bit of nonsense Zunes manages to
both squeeze out and cough up, has been 'edited' by Emily
Schwartz Greco at FPiF and reposted at the cesspool that has
become Common Dreams.


They don't catch it because they're all after Hillary, they
will rip her apart for anything and everything including
THINGS THAT HAPPENED ONLY IN THEIR HATE FILLED MINDS.


For a "think tank" -- with or without walls --
thought is actually required and examination. But FPiF seems
bound and determined to prove that they are neither a
"think tank" nor bound by facts.


Zunes and FPiF exist these days to promote a candidate. And
since Barack Obama has no qualifications to be president, they
have to distort Hillary. So Zunes regularly shows up with
half-truths passed off as 'factual' and hides behind his
university cred to give it the appearance of academia and an
honest examination.


It's not.

[Emit]

28. Thank you for your concern

But, as I follow your link, I see no details about the blogger who wrote that, no details as to their credentials, associations, nothing. Do you know who the author of that piece even is?

[cbayer]

34. Nope, no idea.

Just found it and thought it was an interesting opinion piece on the article you were referencing. Appears to be a fairly prolific blogger who has a very strong anti-war stance but has chosen to not post a profile. His other pieces appear to have significant credibility and I offer this particular one to aid in the conversation about this very important issue.

[Emit]

41. If he's got such a strong anti-war stance

why's he so pro-Hillary?

[Evergreen Emerald]

46. Thanks for a bit of reality in this world of Clinton hate.

[Emit]

47. It's an anonymous poster

and the article I posted it's not Clinton hate. It's an analysis of HRC's foreign policy.

edit clarity

[Evergreen Emerald]

48. So are you

and a rose is a rose by any other name. Hate is hate even if couched in "analysis."

[Emit]

56. Did you even read the piece?

It's not Hillary hate and I am not about Hillary hate.

Can you speak to anything written in the article posted in the OP?

Can you defend HRC's hawkish foreign policy, or deny that her foreign policy is hawkish?

[splat]

58. Starting over with somebody new? You're really pushing this attack piece

[Emit]

64. Her/his argument is even more empty than yours

[Evergreen Emerald]

60. She is no more "hawkish" than Obama.

I can defend her foreign policy. But, your piece only represents a hillaryhater version of reality that is not true.

[Emit]

65. It's not hate just because some anonymous poster says it is

There is no personal hate applied toward HRC in the article I posted.

[Swamp Rat]

50. k&r

[New Dawn]

67. K&R

No more criminal wars of aggression!

[ima_sinnic]

68. for her cruel and backward stance on Latin America alone I absolutely despise her

The advances made in Latin America because BushCo was distracted by its Middle East folly and atrocities should be celebrated and supported, but under president billary they would be squashed, just as under bush I. there would be suffering, poverty, and misery--but the region would be "made safe" for global predatory corporate plunderers to rape and rob.

After reading this, I feel sick. Her defeat will be very very sweet indeed. what is the point of having a woman for president if she's going to act like rambo? go to hell, you stinking fake democrat.

[closeupready]

71. And she hasn't said squat about the status of women in countries where

women hold second-class status as citizens. Why the eff not?? Where women are unequal to men in status, that is a HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE. Yet she has NOTHING to say about that.

That is DEEPLY disturbing.