THE ELECTRONIC INTIFADA
Is Hillary Clinton more dangerous than Donald Trump?
Rania Khalek The Electronic Intifada 14 April 2016
Hillary Clinton, then US secretary of state, gestures with Libyan soldiers
while visiting Tripoli, during the US-led intervention that overthrew long-time
ruler Muammar Gaddafi, 18 October 2011.
Kevin Lamarque Reuters
Actor Susan Sarandon recently caused a panic when she revealed her potential
unwillingness to vote for Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton
in a general election matchup with likely Republican nominee Donald Trump.
Sarandon was echoing an attitude shared by many supporters of Clinton’s
Democratic opponent, Bernie Sanders, who say they will not vote for Clinton
even if it means Trump becoming president of the United States.
In response, the establishment lost its collective mind.
New York Times columnist Charles Blow blasted “Bernie or Bust” voters for
engaging in “scorched-earth electoral portentousness” mired in “petulance and
privilege” and “filled with lust for doom.”
The Forward’s JJ Goldberg, in an article headlined “ ‘Bernie or Bust’ is
Self-indulgent, Stubborn – and Dangerous,” warned that “[w]hining about
[Clinton’s] weaknesses can only depress November turnout and hand Washington to
the GOP, lock, stock and barrel.”
And Michael Tomasky of The Daily Beast lamented that these anti-Clinton
refuseniks are mostly privileged white people with no skin in the game.
Even Hillary Clinton chimed in, tweeting: “Some folks may have the luxury to
hold out for ‘the perfect.’ But a lot of Americans are hurting right now and
they can’t wait for that.”
It has become accepted orthodoxy in establishment circles to view Trump as an
authoritarian race-baiter who would present a major threat to the world if
elected in November.
While this characterization is certainly well founded, it ignores the fact that
Clinton is also dangerous to world stability. And unlike Trump, she has the
blood on her hands to prove it.
If lesser evilism is the goal, as establishment pundits insist, it remains
unclear who the lesser evil is – if the choice is limited to Trump or Clinton.
Warrior queen
On many issues, particularly trade and foreign policy, Clinton is to the right
of Trump, with an inclination toward militaristic belligerence that more
closely resembles a neoconservative war hawk than the progressive she claims to
be.
For evidence, look no further than the neoconservatives themselves, who are so
petrified of Trump’s noninterventionist approach to foreign policy, they are
ready to line up behind Clinton.
This isn’t the first time Clinton has won the adoration of the war hawks.
Back in 2008, neoconservatives breathed a sigh of relief when President Barack
Obama nominated Clinton as his secretary of state.
Richard Perle, former chair of the Defense Policy Board under President George
W. Bush and a leading architect of the Iraq war, said of Clinton’s appointment,
“I’m quite pleased … There’s not going to be as much change as we were led to
believe.”
The neoconservative Weekly Standard also celebrated Clinton’s nomination,
applauding her evolution from “First Feminist” to “Warrior Queen, more Margaret
Thatcher than Gloria Steinem.”
Clinton went on to exceed neoconservative expectations.
Former Vice President Dick Cheney said he was impressed with Clinton’s work at
the State Department, which amounts to a neoconservative seal of approval.
Appearing on MSNBC’s Morning Joe in 2014, Dan Senor, a leading neoconservative
operative and former foreign policy advisor to 2012 Republican nominee Mitt
Romney, declared, “Hillary is more hawkish than any of us!”
“Hillary is the neocon’s neocon,” added host Joe Scarborough. “It’s going to be
fascinating if she decides to run and gets the nomination. She will be more of
a saber-rattler, more of a neocon, than probably the Republican nominee. I
mean, there’s hardly been a military engagement that Hillary hasn’t been for in
the past twenty years.”
The love for Clinton isn’t at all surprising. After all, Clinton routinely
accuses Palestinians of teaching their children to hate while closely aligning
herself with Israel’s right-wing, Holocaust-revising Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu, a card-carrying neoconservative whose demagoguery rivals Trump’s.
She has expressed pride in making an enemy of “the Iranians” whose country she
once threatened to “obliterate” and continues to threaten with sanctions.
And she likened Russian president Vladimir Putin’s actions in the Ukraine to
Hitler’s population transfers before World War II.
Despite her 2014 mea culpa over backing the calamitous 2003 Iraq invasion, and
her current effort to rebrand herself as a progressive, the war hawk label is
one Clinton is still proud to wear – as when she jubilantly touted this week’s
New York Daily News endorsement of her as a “superprepared warrior realist.”
Trail of blood
Clinton’s hawkishness goes far beyond inflammatory rhetoric.
While serving as secretary of state, she greenlighted enormous weapons deals to
US-backed tyrants, dramatically strengthening the military prowess of despots
who happened to be some of the Clinton Foundation’s most generous donors.
In a stunning demonstration of her failure to absorb even the most basic
lessons of the Iraq war, Clinton spearheaded the Obama administration’s
overthrow of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi based on faulty intelligence.
After Gaddafi’s especially gruesome public lynching by US-backed Libyan rebels
in 2011, Clinton could barely contain her excitement, gleefully telling CBS
News, “We came, we saw, he died.”
Libya predictably descended into a lawless haven for extremist groups from
across the region, including the so-called Islamic State, or ISIS.
Obama this week called the failure to prepare for the aftermath of Gaddafi’s
overthrow the “worst mistake” of his presidency.
As secretary of state and the leading champion of the intervention, that
planning would surely have been Clinton’s primary responsibility.
Libya wasn’t the only country Clinton meddled in.
Following in the footsteps of her mentor, former Secretary of State Henry
Kissinger, Clinton supported and legitimized the right-wing Honduran military
coup that ousted democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya in 2009,
plunging Honduras into record-setting violence that sent thousands of children
fleeing for their lives.
Clinton later advocated for the deportation of tens of thousands of
unaccompanied Central American refugee children who sought asylum in the US in
2014 to “send a message” to their parents that “just because your child gets
across the border, that doesn’t mean the child gets to stay.”
Nearly a third of those children had fled post-coup violence in Honduras.
Clinton reiterated her support for deporting them as recently as August.
Indigenous rights and environmental activist Berta Cáceres criticized Clinton’s
role in the coup prior to her murder by a Honduran death squad on 3 March.
The Clinton campaign denied that its candidate bore any responsibility for the
violence, casting her role in Honduras as “active diplomacy.” This week,
Clinton again defended the overthrow of Zelaya.
Despite the trail of blood she left behind, Clinton remains confident in the
righteousness of US-backed regime change.
Asked last month what she thought about America’s history of overthrowing
democratically elected leaders around the world, Clinton invoked the specter of
Nazi Germany, arguing, “Somebody could have assassinated Hitler before he took
over Germany, would that have been a good thing or not?”
Even Trump recognizes Clinton’s hawkishness to some degree, telling a March
rally in Detroit that “the Middle East is burning to a large thought because of
Hillary Clinton’s failed policies and her concepts.”
The great neocon panic
In almost surreal contrast to Clinton, Trump has called for reducing America’s
military presence abroad and has repeatedly stated his opposition to foreign
intervention, calling the Iraq war that Clinton backed “a big fat mistake” that
“destabilized the Middle East.”
He even suggested a policy of neutrality in peace negotiations between Israel
and the Palestinians, a proposal he eventually walked back after incurring the
wrath of pro-Israel hardliners, including Clinton, who declared, “America can’t
ever be neutral … anyone who doesn’t understand that has no business being
America’s president.”
The neoconservative establishment reacted by launching an all-out assault on
Trump.
The Emergency Committee for Israel, a neoconservative think tank, released an
ad conflating Trump’s opposition to US regime change in Libya and Iraq with
support for anti-American dictators.
Soon after, a group calling themselves the “Republican national security
community” published a letter condemning Trump’s blasphemy against the core
tenets of their hegemonic principles.
Signed by a cadre of neoconservative intellectuals, former government officials
and operatives, the letter criticized Trump’s flirtation with isolationism and
opposition to corporate trade deals.
It went on to denounce Trump’s bigotry and torture advocacy, though these
complaints can hardly be taken seriously given that the people behind them have
for decades advocated torture, bigotry and worse.
Eliot Cohen, who organized the anti-Trump letter, went on to assert, “Hillary
is the lesser evil, by a large margin.”
Meanwhile, on the advice of South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham,
Netanyahu is now rushing to sign a bloated US military aid deal, which he
previously rejected as insufficient, before Obama leaves office out of fear
that a President Trump might not be as generous.
Building walls
If foreign policy separates Clinton and Trump, there are a number of domestic
issues that unite them.
Clinton’s newfound enthusiasm for “tearing down barriers,” a direct reference
to Trump’s anti-immigrant proposal to build a wall at the US-Mexico border,
completely contradicts her own support for the border wall that already exists,
much of it constructed on Obama’s watch.
Just five months ago, Clinton was bragging about her support for that wall.
“I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier
to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in,” Clinton boasted at a New
Hampshire town hall in November.
Asked at a debate last month to distinguish her wall from Trump’s, Clinton
pointed to size.
“As I understand him, [Trump’s] talking about a very tall wall,” she said.
Clinton is a huge fan of Israel’s separation wall that effectively annexes
Palestinian land in the occupied West Bank and has suggested using it as a
model for the US border with Mexico.
And she continues to cite her support for Israel’s wall, deemed illegal by the
International Court of Justice, as a selling point on her campaign website.
Her hypocrisy has not gone unnoticed by Trump, who tweeted back in January,
“Hillary Clinton said that it is OK to ban Muslims from Israel by building a
WALL, but not OK to do so in the US. We must be vigilant!”
Race to the bottom
In recent months, Clinton has reinvented herself as an anti-racist social
justice warrior, using the language of intersectionality and privilege
discourse to deride Sanders’ economic populism, distract from her
well-publicized ties to Wall Street and distinguish herself from Trump’s
hateful rhetoric.
But behind her social justice veneer are principles more in line with
Republicans than the Democratic base.
While Trump has called Mexicans “rapists” and mocked people with disabilities,
Clinton notoriously called Black children “super-predators” and referred to
welfare recipients as “deadbeats.”
Trump wants to ban Muslims. But Clinton has a solid record of advocating for
bombing Muslims, not to mention her ongoing pattern of trashing Arabs and
Muslims to win over pro-Israel voters and donors.
Trump is riling up fascist sentiments. But he’s doing so by tapping into
legitimate anger at the negative consequences of trickle-down neoliberal
economics driven by establishment politicians like Clinton.
She played an active role in dismantling the welfare safety net and selling out
American workers to disastrous corporate trade deals.
Another four or even eight years of Clintonian economics and military
adventurism could well lay fertile ground for the rise of a demagogue even more
bellicose than Trump.
A general election between Clinton and Trump would be a dreadful race to the
bottom. It’s no wonder so many people would refuse to cast a ballot for either
candidate.
Rania Khalek is an associate editor of The Electronic Intifada.
Jump to navigation
https://npo.networkforgood.org/Donate/Donate.aspx?npoSubscriptionId=3728 ;
https://npo.networkforgood.org/Donate/Donate.aspx?npoSubscriptionId=3728Get ;
Updates
/
The Electronic Intifada
You are here
/
Is Hillary Clinton more dangerous than Donald Trump?
Rania Khalek The Electronic Intifada 14 April 2016
&
Hillary Clinton, then US secretary of state, gestures with Libyan soldiers
while visiting Tripoli, during the US-led intervention that overthrew long-time
ruler Muammar Gaddafi, 18 October 2011.
Kevin Lamarque Reuters
Actor Susan Sarandon recently caused a panic when she revealed her potential
unwillingness to vote for Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton
in a general election matchup with likely Republican nominee Donald Trump.
Sarandon was echoing an attitude shared by many supporters of Clinton’s
Democratic opponent, Bernie Sanders, who say they will not vote for Clinton
even if it means Trump becoming president of the United States.
In response, the establishment lost its collective mind.
New York Times columnist Charles Blow blasted “Bernie or Bust” voters for
engaging in “scorched-earth electoral portentousness” mired in “petulance and
privilege” and “filled with lust for doom.”
The Forward’s JJ Goldberg, in an article headlined “ ‘Bernie or Bust’ is
Self-indulgent, Stubborn – and Dangerous,” warned that “[w]hining about
[Clinton’s] weaknesses can only depress November turnout and hand Washington to
the GOP, lock, stock and barrel.”
And Michael Tomasky of The Daily Beast lamented that these anti-Clinton
refuseniks are mostly privileged white people with no skin in the game.
Even Hillary Clinton chimed in, tweeting: “Some folks may have the luxury to
hold out for ‘the perfect.’ But a lot of Americans are hurting right now and
they can’t wait for that.”
It has become accepted orthodoxy in establishment circles to view Trump as an
authoritarian race-baiter who would present a major threat to the world if
elected in November.
While this characterization is certainly well founded, it ignores the fact that
Clinton is also dangerous to world stability. And unlike Trump, she has the
blood on her hands to prove it.
If lesser evilism is the goal, as establishment pundits insist, it remains
unclear who the lesser evil is – if the choice is limited to Trump or Clinton.
Warrior queen
On many issues, particularly trade and foreign policy, Clinton is to the right
of Trump, with an inclination toward militaristic belligerence that more
closely resembles a neoconservative war hawk than the progressive she claims to
be.
For evidence, look no further than the neoconservatives themselves, who are so
petrified of Trump’s noninterventionist approach to foreign policy, they are
ready to line up behind Clinton.
This isn’t the first time Clinton has won the adoration of the war hawks.
Back in 2008, neoconservatives breathed a sigh of relief when President Barack
Obama nominated Clinton as his secretary of state.
Richard Perle, former chair of the Defense Policy Board under President George
W. Bush and a leading architect of the Iraq war, said of Clinton’s appointment,
“I’m quite pleased … There’s not going to be as much change as we were led to
believe.”
The neoconservative Weekly Standard also celebrated Clinton’s nomination,
applauding her evolution from “First Feminist” to “Warrior Queen, more Margaret
Thatcher than Gloria Steinem.”
Clinton went on to exceed neoconservative expectations.
Former Vice President Dick Cheney said he was impressed with Clinton’s work at
the State Department, which amounts to a neoconservative seal of approval.
Appearing on MSNBC’s Morning Joe in 2014, Dan Senor, a leading neoconservative
operative and former foreign policy advisor to 2012 Republican nominee Mitt
Romney, declared, “Hillary is more hawkish than any of us!”
“Hillary is the neocon’s neocon,” added host Joe Scarborough. “It’s going to be
fascinating if she decides to run and gets the nomination. She will be more of
a saber-rattler, more of a neocon, than probably the Republican nominee. I
mean, there’s hardly been a military engagement that Hillary hasn’t been for in
the past twenty years.”
The love for Clinton isn’t at all surprising. After all, Clinton routinely
accuses Palestinians of teaching their children to hate while closely aligning
herself with Israel’s right-wing, Holocaust-revising Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu, a card-carrying neoconservative whose demagoguery rivals Trump’s.
She has expressed pride in making an enemy of “the Iranians” whose country she
once threatened to “obliterate” and continues to threaten with sanctions.
And she likened Russian president Vladimir Putin’s actions in the Ukraine to
Hitler’s population transfers before World War II.
Despite her 2014 mea culpa over backing the calamitous 2003 Iraq invasion, and
her current effort to rebrand herself as a progressive, the war hawk label is
one Clinton is still proud to wear – as when she jubilantly touted this week’s
New York Daily News endorsement of her as a “superprepared warrior realist.”
Trail of blood
Clinton’s hawkishness goes far beyond inflammatory rhetoric.
While serving as secretary of state, she greenlighted enormous weapons deals to
US-backed tyrants, dramatically strengthening the military prowess of despots
who happened to be some of the Clinton Foundation’s most generous donors.
In a stunning demonstration of her failure to absorb even the most basic
lessons of the Iraq war, Clinton spearheaded the Obama administration’s
overthrow of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi based on faulty intelligence.
After Gaddafi’s especially gruesome public lynching by US-backed Libyan rebels
in 2011, Clinton could barely contain her excitement, gleefully telling CBS
News, “We came, we saw, he died.”
Libya predictably descended into a lawless haven for extremist groups from
across the region, including the so-called Islamic State, or ISIS.
Obama this week called the failure to prepare for the aftermath of Gaddafi’s
overthrow the “worst mistake” of his presidency.
As secretary of state and the leading champion of the intervention, that
planning would surely have been Clinton’s primary responsibility.
Libya wasn’t the only country Clinton meddled in.
Following in the footsteps of her mentor, former Secretary of State Henry
Kissinger, Clinton supported and legitimized the right-wing Honduran military
coup that ousted democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya in 2009,
plunging Honduras into record-setting violence that sent thousands of children
fleeing for their lives.
Clinton later advocated for the deportation of tens of thousands of
unaccompanied Central American refugee children who sought asylum in the US in
2014 to “send a message” to their parents that “just because your child gets
across the border, that doesn’t mean the child gets to stay.”
Nearly a third of those children had fled post-coup violence in Honduras.
Clinton reiterated her support for deporting them as recently as August.
Indigenous rights and environmental activist Berta Cáceres criticized Clinton’s
role in the coup prior to her murder by a Honduran death squad on 3 March.
The Clinton campaign denied that its candidate bore any responsibility for the
violence, casting her role in Honduras as “active diplomacy.” This week,
Clinton again defended the overthrow of Zelaya.
Despite the trail of blood she left behind, Clinton remains confident in the
righteousness of US-backed regime change.
Asked last month what she thought about America’s history of overthrowing
democratically elected leaders around the world, Clinton invoked the specter of
Nazi Germany, arguing, “Somebody could have assassinated Hitler before he took
over Germany, would that have been a good thing or not?”
Even Trump recognizes Clinton’s hawkishness to some degree, telling a March
rally in Detroit that “the Middle East is burning to a large thought because of
Hillary Clinton’s failed policies and her concepts.”
The great neocon panic
In almost surreal contrast to Clinton, Trump has called for reducing America’s
military presence abroad and has repeatedly stated his opposition to foreign
intervention, calling the Iraq war that Clinton backed “a big fat mistake” that
“destabilized the Middle East.”
He even suggested a policy of neutrality in peace negotiations between Israel
and the Palestinians, a proposal he eventually walked back after incurring the
wrath of pro-Israel hardliners, including Clinton, who declared, “America can’t
ever be neutral … anyone who doesn’t understand that has no business being
America’s president.”
The neoconservative establishment reacted by launching an all-out assault on
Trump.
The Emergency Committee for Israel, a neoconservative think tank, released an
ad conflating Trump’s opposition to US regime change in Libya and Iraq with
support for anti-American dictators.
Soon after, a group calling themselves the “Republican national security
community” published a letter condemning Trump’s blasphemy against the core
tenets of their hegemonic principles.
Signed by a cadre of neoconservative intellectuals, former government officials
and operatives, the letter criticized Trump’s flirtation with isolationism and
opposition to corporate trade deals.
It went on to denounce Trump’s bigotry and torture advocacy, though these
complaints can hardly be taken seriously given that the people behind them have
for decades advocated torture, bigotry and worse.
Eliot Cohen, who organized the anti-Trump letter, went on to assert, “Hillary
is the lesser evil, by a large margin.”
Meanwhile, on the advice of South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham,
Netanyahu is now rushing to sign a bloated US military aid deal, which he
previously rejected as insufficient, before Obama leaves office out of fear
that a President Trump might not be as generous.
Building walls
If foreign policy separates Clinton and Trump, there are a number of domestic
issues that unite them.
Clinton’s newfound enthusiasm for “tearing down barriers,” a direct reference
to Trump’s anti-immigrant proposal to build a wall at the US-Mexico border,
completely contradicts her own support for the border wall that already exists,
much of it constructed on Obama’s watch.
Just five months ago, Clinton was bragging about her support for that wall.
“I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier
to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in,” Clinton boasted at a New
Hampshire town hall in November.
Asked at a debate last month to distinguish her wall from Trump’s, Clinton
pointed to size.
“As I understand him, [Trump’s] talking about a very tall wall,” she said.
Clinton is a huge fan of Israel’s separation wall that effectively annexes
Palestinian land in the occupied West Bank and has suggested using it as a
model for the US border with Mexico.
And she continues to cite her support for Israel’s wall, deemed illegal by the
International Court of Justice, as a selling point on her campaign website.
Her hypocrisy has not gone unnoticed by Trump, who tweeted back in January,
“Hillary Clinton said that it is OK to ban Muslims from Israel by building a
WALL, but not OK to do so in the US. We must be vigilant!”
Race to the bottom
In recent months, Clinton has reinvented herself as an anti-racist social
justice warrior, using the language of intersectionality and privilege
discourse to deride Sanders’ economic populism, distract from her
well-publicized ties to Wall Street and distinguish herself from Trump’s
hateful rhetoric.
But behind her social justice veneer are principles more in line with
Republicans than the Democratic base.
While Trump has called Mexicans “rapists” and mocked people with disabilities,
Clinton notoriously called Black children “super-predators” and referred to
welfare recipients as “deadbeats.”
Trump wants to ban Muslims. But Clinton has a solid record of advocating for
bombing Muslims, not to mention her ongoing pattern of trashing Arabs and
Muslims to win over pro-Israel voters and donors.
Trump is riling up fascist sentiments. But he’s doing so by tapping into
legitimate anger at the negative consequences of trickle-down neoliberal
economics driven by establishment politicians like Clinton.
She played an active role in dismantling the welfare safety net and selling out
American workers to disastrous corporate trade deals.
Another four or even eight years of Clintonian economics and military
adventurism could well lay fertile ground for the rise of a demagogue even more
bellicose than Trump.
A general election between Clinton and Trump would be a dreadful race to the
bottom. It’s no wonder so many people would refuse to cast a ballot for either
candidate.
Rania Khalek is an associate editor of The Electronic Intifada.
