“A Special Place in Hell”… For Hillary Clinton and Madeleine Albright?

By Gloria La Riva
Global Research, February 09, 2016
Liberation 7 February 2016
Region: USA
Theme: Crimes against Humanity, US NATO War Agenda
In-depth Report: IRAQ REPORT, U.S. Election

images

Hillary Clinton screaming…

130612.jpgFeatured image: Albright, a fanatical advocate for genocidal sanctions and bombing campaigns, is in no place to lecture young women on “feminism.”

I am writing as a working woman, feminist, socialist, and candidate for President of the United States, and I want to condemn in the strongest possible terms the outlandish attacks by Hillary Clinton and Madeleine Albright on any woman working in support of the political campaign of Bernie Sanders. This attack, particularly on young women who are supporting Sanders in such large numbers, is a shameful and opportunist attempt to use the historic struggle for women’s rights for the narrowest political gains.

In a desperate attempt to reverse the growing support among young women and men for her opponent in the Democratic Party primaries, Hillary Clinton has enlisted the support of notorious war monger and advocate of mass murder, Madeleine Albright.

As Clinton looked on laughing and clapping, Albright told the media on February 6: “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!”

If indeed there were such a “special place,” Madeleine Albright would most assuredly be going. And going along with her would be candidate Clinton.

As UN Ambassador and the Secretary of State in the Bill Clinton regime, Albright was a fanatical advocate of the genocidal sanctions blockade that killed more than a million women, children and men in Iraq, and of the 1999 U.S./NATO bombing war against Yugoslavia.

On May 12, 1996, nearly six years into the U.S./UN sanctions, Albright was interviewed on CBS “60 Minutes” by Lesley Stahl, who had just returned from Iraq, about the impact on the Iraqi population:

Lesley Stahl: “We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?”

U.S. Ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it.”

Albright’s astoundingly flippant answer was nothing less than a confession to one of the most horrific war crimes in history, indicting not just herself but all the leaders of the Bush I, Clinton and Bush II administrations who were fully aware of the lethal impact of sanctions on the people of Iraq.

In 1999, Albright played a key role in the war on Yugoslavia, engineering the failure of the negotiations that preceded the war. Albright presented the Yugoslav government with an “agreement” that would have allowed NATO to forces to occupy the entire country, with the unheard of provision that Yugoslavia would pay for the expenses of the occupation!

After the talks broke off, a “top official” (Albright) told reporters in an off-the-record session: “We intentionally set the bar too high for the Serbs to comply. They need some bombing, and that’s what they are going to get.” When the Yugoslav government predictably rejected the ultimatum disguised as a “proposal,” the bombing began and continued for three months.

Thousands of civilians were killed, wounded and made homeless. As was true in Iraq, the entire population was traumatized, with women and children most severely impacted.

Like the assault on Iraq, the attack on Yugoslavia was a war crime, a “crime against peace,” the most serious of all violations of international law, a war of aggression against another state that poses no threat to the country launching the war.

According to her own words, Hillary Clinton joined in the war chorus: “I urged him [President Clinton] to bomb.”

In 2003, Senator Clinton supported invasion and occupation of Iraq. In 2011, as Secretary of State, she was chief advocate in the Obama administration in calling for the bombing war that killed, wounded and displaced unknown numbers of Libyans and devastated the country.

After the torture and murder of Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi, Clinton laughingly told a CBS interviewer: “We came, we saw, he died.”

Albright and Clinton thus share much in common both with each other and their far more numerous murderous male counterparts in the top levels of the U.S. imperialist state machine. That they who have worked to destroy the lives of so many millions of women would now presume to lecture young women on “feminism” and attempt to shame them into supporting Clinton is a despicable travesty.
The original source of this article is Liberation

Copyright © Gloria La Riva, Liberation, 2016

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s).  Unruly Hearts will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article.

Sorry, Hillary: Women care more about their president than his (or her) gender

455722978

Hillary Clinton speaks in Washington. Photo: Getty Images

 

Hillary Clinton was counting on voters — particularly American women — to salivate at the prospect of shattering the highest glass ceiling by electing a woman president. She’ll need a backup plan. It turns out women aren’t nearly as gender-obsessed as Hillary thinks they are, or wants them to be.

Clinton’s strategy does make some sense. After all, President Obama was buoyed by the widespread sense that his election wasn’t just his personal triumph, but all of ours, in burying the vestiges of America’s racist past. Given that women were also once treated as second-class citizens, why shouldn’t Hillary expect a similar wave of excitement and sense of history?

Perhaps the string of female secretaries of state and Supreme Court justices, as well as presidential candidates like Carly Fiorina and Clinton herself, has made the idea of a female president seem less than revolutionary. The feminist movement — which appears unwilling to acknowledge women’s gains — may also have overplayed its victim status. Young men with few job prospects and a lifetime of being bested by female schoolmates may not be overjoyed to applaud yet another sign of women’s ascendance.

The person of Hillary Clinton herself undoubtedly helps dampen enthusiasm about the prospect of a female president, and not just among Republicans who disagree with her political philosophy. The media is currently pondering how the re-emergence of her husband’s brutal treatment of ex-lovers impacts voters’ opinion of Hillary.

But Mrs. Clinton’s role as the long-suffering first lady to a roguish leading man is just one of her problems; her reputation as a scandal-drenched, corporate-backed and largely failed public servant has always made her an awkward feminist heroine.

Regardless of the explanation, the simple fact is most voters aren’t particularly anxious to see a woman — let alone Hillary Clinton — in the Oval Office.

Pew Research Center’s new report explored attitudes about women in leadership, and found that most Americans see women as just as capable political leaders as men. Women scored about equally on some key leadership traits such as intelligence and capacity for innovation, and received higher marks on attributes such as honesty, ability to compromise, compassion and organization.

Pew found big differences between how Democrats and Republicans viewed the sexes as potential political leaders. But before liberals start lamenting sexist conservatives’ “war on women,” Republicans didn’t see women as less capable, rather Republicans “are more inclined to say there isn’t any difference between men and women,” while “Democrats are significantly more likely than Republicans to say that women do a better job than men.” In other words, Republicans were more likely to truly see women and men as equals, while Democrats see one sex — men — as inferior.

But just because Americans see women as just as qualified and capable political leaders doesn’t mean they’re eagerly awaiting a female president. Just four in 10 (38 percent) of all adults “say they hope the US will elect a female president in their lifetime,” while a majority (57 percent) “say it doesn’t matter to them.”

Women are more likely to want to see a female president, but even that doesn’t translate into big support for Hillary. Take New Hampshire, where the latest poll shows just 38 percent of Democratic women voters plan to vote for Hillary compared to 52 who favor Sen. Bernie Sanders. Clinton is losing women’s support not just in Iowa and New Hampshire: A nationwide poll just released by Monmouth University found that Clinton’s edge among women has fallen from plus-45 percentage points in December to just 19 now.

Feminists may take the lack of excitement as more evidence that the deck is stacked against women. But this phenomenon can also be seen as progress: Women have come so far that it’s no longer big news for women to advance to a higher level of power. People really are judging others based on the content of their character and the skills they bring to the position rather than as a representative of any particular demographic group.

This makes it more likely that when we get a woman president (and three out of four surveyed by Pew expect to see it during their lifetime) she’ll have reached that position based on her qualifications, not out of a sense of obligation among voters. Now that’s something to be excited about.

Carrie Lukas is the managing director of the Independent Women’s Forum and vice president for policy of the Independent Women’s Voice.

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s).  Unruly Hearts will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article.

The Clinton Chronicles

hillary-clinton-winking-AP-640x480

Madame Clinton winking…

Clinton’s presidential chances threatened by her own blundering

A popular theme on Planet Clinton is that poor Hillary is always in danger of being undone by her charming cad of a hubby. Michael Goodwin argues there might be more to the story.

On a long list of possibilities, that scenario must be included. But my reading of the Clinton Chronicles points to a much bigger threat to the restoration of the family monarchy.

That would be the stumbling performance of the lady herself.

Human Abedin, Clinton’s long time top aide, said her boss is “often confused” and needs plenty of guidance to understand her schedule according to fresh  e-mails revealed . Who would vote for a president that is “often confused” ? Most likely the terrorists would be willing to vote for her, even meeting with her at the White House.

Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, released new e-mails from Abedin that show concern among State Department staff that then-Secretary of State Clinton didn’t know who to call.  In one-email exchanged from June 26, 2013, Abedin asks fellow staffer Monica Hanley whether Clinton knows to call then-Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

On top of the tactical blunders, there was an overarching reason why sure victory eluded Hillary Clinton in 2008. She simply was not a very appealing candidate, offering neither charisma nor a compelling message. She ran with a sense of entitlement that the Oval Office was owed to her. Abedin stresses the importance of reviewing the schedule with Clinton: “Very imp to do that. She’s often confused.”

It’s not the first time the word “confused” has been used to describe the Democratic presidential front-runner. Clinton herself has admitted in e-mails that she gets “confused” and even apologized to her staff for mix-ups while she was secretary of state.

If anything has changed, it’s a well-kept secret. Already, her run this time is marked by mistakes, gaffes and reports of ethical corner-cutting, which adds up to watching the same bad movie twice.

It’s a strange way to make a fresh start given the dreary end of her time as secretary of state. To describe her four-year tenure as empty of accomplishment doesn’t do justice to the damage. She was complicit in the foreign-policy disasters now erupting around the world.

Remember her clever Russian reset? Benghazi, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Israel, China — the list of things that got worse on her watch is long, while it is a challenge to name one significant advance in America’s favor.

That record is who she is. Once viewed as a smart, passionate woman whose brilliance would shine when she was liberated, she is, at 67, getting long in the tooth to be talked of in terms of potential.

To justify faith in a big upside from here, there should be abundant evidence of recent “excellence”. But what has she accomplished other than winning two elections as senator and losing one for president?

There’s no breakthrough doctrine or novel idea or even a successful policy or law identified with her. After 25 years in the circus, she’s still a celebrity guest, not a star performer.

Her new campaign is more of the same. Instead of offering coherent principles and establishing a message, she’s running the Rose Garden strategy of a favored incumbent.

Let the other candidates scrape for attention by responding to the world’s woes. She’s still giving paid speeches, believing she can float above it all like a giant balloon in the Thanksgiving Day parade.

In another sign that she sees herself as president-in-waiting, she’s got a reported 200 advisers, suggesting she’s already staffing an administration.

I wouldn’t bet the house she’ll get the chance. Sure, she’s a lock for the nomination — unless another Barack Obama comes along. Far-lefty firebrand Sen. Elizabeth Warren says she’s not running, but any more head-shaking revelations about the Clinton Foundation’s sleazy fund-raising could change her mind.

The foundation accepted millions of dollars from foreign governments while Hillary was America’s top diplomat, The Washington Post found. It said that at least one gift, $500,000 from Algeria, violated loose ethics rules drawn up by the Obama administration to separate her duties from the foundation.

The Wall Street Journal also found a suspicious pattern of corporate giving. General Electric, Exxon Mobil, Microsoft and Boeing were among 60 companies that lobbied the State Department during her tenure and donated a combined $26 million to the family foundation, the paper reports.

It found several cases where her lobbying of foreign governments on behalf of specific American firms came just before or after those firms made hefty donations to the Clinton Foundation or another nonprofit she created, Vital Voices. Walmart gave to both groups, and to a separate fund Clinton established at the State Department.

Any claim that there was no quid pro quo should be made under oath. Most of the corporations have their own foundations, so why would they give their money to the Clintons to spend? Who suggested they do so?

Because a black hole doesn’t yield much information, Clinton beat reporters often turn spin into news. A New York Times story went big with the “news” that Clinton would “spotlight gender” this time.

Wow, stop the presses. The Times must have missed that 2008 movement to “shatter the glass ceiling” and the talk of the “pantsuit posse.”

In fact, gender pitch redux shows Clinton once again waving group identity as her chief qualification. In that case, she should go all the way and just say this: I want to be president because I deserve it.

That at least has the virtue of honesty.

451287667

Madame Clinton

 

 

Hillary Clinton’s Stonewalling of Peace Agreement with Libya: Bombshell Tapes Confirm Citizen Commission’s Findings on Benghazi

 

hillary-clinton-old-hag-5

Hillary Clinton, 68 yrs old

 

As Hillary Clinton further delays the announcement of her 2016 run for the White House, more news has broken regarding her role in the 2011 disastrous intervention in Libya, which set the stage for the 2012 Benghazi attacks where we lost four brave American lives.

Two new stories from The Washington Times expose some of the infighting among government agencies and branches of government on this controversial decision, and highlight the key role that Clinton played in initiating the war. You can listen to tapes of discussions between Pentagon staffers, former Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), and the Qaddafi regime for yourself.

This news also validates the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi (CCB) 2014 interim report, which exposed that Muammar Qaddafi had offered truce talks and a possible peaceful abdication to the United States, which Washington turned down.

“[The article] also makes it clear that the Benghazi investigation needs to be broadened to answer the question: ‘Why did America bomb Libya in the first place?’” commented Rear Admiral Chuck Kubic (Ret.), a key source for the CCB’s interim report who was also quoted by the Times.

“Despite the willingness of both AFRICOM Commander Gen. Carter Ham and Muammar Qaddafi to pursue the possibility of truce talks, permission was not given to Gen. Ham from his chain of command in the Pentagon and the window of opportunity closed,” reads Kubic’s statement for our report from last year. You can watch here, from a CCB press conference last April, as Admiral Kubic described his personal involvement in the effort to open negotiations between Qaddafi and the U.S. government.

Now we learn that the likely source of the stonewalling came from the State Department—and Secretary Clinton—herself. “On the day the U.N. resolution was passed, Mrs. Clinton ordered a general within the Pentagon to refuse to take a call with Gadhafi’s son Seif and other high-level members within the regime, to help negotiate a resolution, the secret recordings reveal,” reported the Times on January 29.

Former Defense Secretary Bob Gates indicated in his book, Duty, that he was opposed to the war for national security reasons. He highlighted a division among White House advisors—with Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, and Samantha Power “urging aggressive U.S. action to prevent an anticipated massacre of the rebels as Qaddafi fought to remain in power.” Add to that list the former Secretary of State.

“But that night, with Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces turning back the rebellion that threatened his rule, Mrs. Clinton changed course, forming an unlikely alliance with a handful of top administration aides who had been arguing for intervention,” reported The New York Times on March 18, 2011, the day after UN Resolution 1973 authorizing a “no fly” zone in Libya was voted on and passed.

“Within hours, Mrs. Clinton and the aides had convinced Mr. Obama that the United States had to act, and the president ordered up military plans, which Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, hand-delivered to the White House the next day.”

The Washington Times now reports that “In the recovered recordings, a U.S. intelligence liaison working for the Pentagon told a Gadhafi aide that Mr. Obama privately informed members of Congress that Libya ‘is all Secretary Clinton’s matter’ and that the nation’s highest-ranking generals were concerned that the president was being misinformed” about a humanitarian crisis that didn’t exist. However, one must wonder just how much President Obama implicitly supported Clinton in her blind push to intervene in what was once a comparatively stable country, and an ally in the war against al Qaeda. While this new report is certainly damning of Mrs. Clinton’s actions, and appears to place the blame for the unnecessary chaos in Libya—which ultimately led to Benghazi—on her shoulders, President Obama shares the blame as the ultimate Decider-in-Chief.

“Furthermore, defense officials had direct information from their intelligence asset in contact with the regime that Gadhafi gave specific orders not to attack civilians and to narrowly focus the war on the armed rebels, according to the asset, who survived the war,” reports The Washington Times in its second of three articles. Saving those in Benghazi from a looming massacre by Qaddafi seems to have been a convenient excuse made by the administration for political expediency. Could it be, instead, that President Obama, as well as Mrs. Clinton, put greater value on the rise to power of an “Arab Spring” government with Muslim Brotherhood connections? And, as the CCB interim report shows, the U.S. government was willing to go so far as to facilitate the provision of arms to al-Qaeda-linked rebels in Libya in order to ensure that Qaddafi fell.

Will the mainstream media pick up on these new revelations, or will they cast them aside as another “phony scandal” to throw into their dustbins filled with other stories that might possibly embarrass the Obama administration, or prove to be an impediment to Mrs. Clinton’s path to the White House?

“It’s critical to note that Qaddafi was actively engaged with Department of Defense officials to arrange discussions about his possible abdication and exile when that promising development was squashed by the Obama White House,” noted CCB Member Clare Lopez, a former CIA officer, regarding the failed truce talks. “The Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi has been asking, ‘Why?’ for well over a year now.”

“It is time the American people and the families of those who fought and gave their lives at Benghazi in September 2012 were told why those brave Americans had to die at all, much less die alone with no effort made to save them,” she said.

Clinton, through House Democrats, has indicated that she is willing to testify before the House Select Committee on Benghazi. But Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) recently indicated that the Committee must first examine her emails from the State Department before questioning his witness. This complicates the issue of her testifying, since Mrs. Clinton is in the process of calculating when she will announce her presidential run.

Do the emails that Gowdy has requested from the State Department even extend back to 2011?

Chairman Gowdy identified three “tranches” that his potential questioning would fall under in an interview with Fox’s Greta Van Susteren:

  • Why was the U.S. Special Mission Compound open in the first place?
  • What actions did Clinton take during the attacks?
  • What was Clinton’s role during the talking points and Susan Rice’s Sunday morning talk show visits?

A fourth tranche should be: Clinton’s push to intervene in Libya and how it set the stage for an insecure country and strong jihadist movement willing—and able—to attack the Americans posted there. And while he’s at it, Rep. Gowdy should ask Mrs. Clinton to explain why all of the very legitimate requests for increased security in Benghazi were turned down, and why were Ambassador Chris Stevens’ personal security staff, from the State Department’s Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) directed to store their weapons in a separate location—not on them—on the night of September 11, 2012?

Roger Aronoff is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and can be contacted at roger.aronoff@aim.org.

The Democratic debate’s Wall Street fight left Clinton and Sanders looking bad

Updated by Ezra Klein on November 14, 2015, 11:58 p.m. ET

Two things are true about Hillary Clinton on financial regulation:

1. She has the most detailed, and arguably the strongest, financial regulation plan of the three Democratic candidates.
Wall Street skeptics don’t really trust her to implement said plan.

2. Wall Street skeptics don’t really trust her to implement said plan.

Understanding those two points helps make sense of a fairly confusing, but important, exchange at the second Democratic debate — an exchange in which both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders played into their critics’ hands.

Hillary Clinton: Once again she played the 9/11″ card.

It began when moderator John Dickerson asked Hillary Clinton, “You have received money from Wall Street. How will you convince voters you will level the playing field when you’re indebted to some of its biggest players?”

Clinton initially tried to talk about her financial regulation plan, but Sanders wouldn’t let her escape the issue of donations.

“Let’s not be naive about it,” Sanders said. “Why, over her political career, has Wall Street been the major campaign contributor to Hillary Clinton? Now, maybe they’re dumb and they don’t know what they’re going to get, but I don’t think so.”

In response, Clinton, unwisely, played the 9/11 card.

“I represented New York on 9/11 when we were attacked,” she replied. “Where were we attacked? We were attacked in downtown Manhattan, where Wall Street is. I did spend a whole lot of time and effort helping them rebuild. That was good for New York. It was good for the economy, and it was a way to rebuke the terrorists who had attacked our country.”

But Mrs Clinton didn’t mention Wall Street’s donations to her. And to mention it was good too for Wall Street

Clinton’s answer was bizarre — she doesn’t believe Wall Street has backed her many campaigns primarily because of 9/11, and it’s borderline insulting that she thinks anyone else would believe it, either.

Clinton didn’t trust the audience with the truth. Wall Street supported her candidacy because both she and her husband often backed legislation Wall Street supported, because Wall Street routinely tries to buy favor with prominent politicians of both parties, and because many on Wall Street are Democrats who supported Clinton for other reasons.

That doesn’t mean Clinton always backed Wall Street’s priorities, or even that Wall Street was unusually positive toward Clinton — the financial industry also funneled a massive amount of money to Barack Obama in 2008.

Voice: “Helping” Hillary Clinton with little-watched Saturday debates was a terrible plan

Democrats are holding a primary debate tomorrow, much to the annoyance of political journalists everywhere whose Saturday nights are being ruined. Most galling off all, this appears to be a deliberate tactic to minimize viewership taken by the Democratic National Committee as a favor to Hillary Clinton, who wanted to minimize the number of debates. If that’s right, though, the party has done its frontrunner no favors. It makes sense for Clinton to want to have fewer debates rather than more, but as long as Democrats are going to debate, she should want said debates to be seen by as many people as possible.

The problem, most likely, is the calendar was set months ago, before the first Democratic debate reminded everyone of how friendly the debate format is to Clinton’s political skills.

She eclipsed Obama on the debate stage in her previous run, but as one Hill Democrat put it to me, “that was seven years ago,” so her allies worried that she might be rusty and wanted to keep her rivals out of the spotlight. “The thinking that Hillary is awesome at debates really only became prevalent again after her strong performance in the first debate.”

Consequently, by underestimating their own champion, the Democratic establishment has ended up doing Clinton a disservice.
Debates have a downside for Clinton

The Clinton campaign’s basic impulse to minimize the number of debates, though not great for the media, makes perfect sense. She is the overwhelming favorite to win the Democratic nomination, and anything she says or does can basically only hurt her — not so much by jeopardizing her shot at the nomination as by getting her to make commitments that could hurt her in the general. Debates are, among other things, a mechanism through which party stakeholders force candidates to make public commitments to pursue controversial policy goals.

To the extent that Clinton can reduce the quantity of opportunities stakeholders have to put her through this, it makes sense for her to do so.
Minimizing viewership makes no sense

But the idea — whether inferred by Clinton’s campaign or by her allies at the DNC independently — that fewer viewers is better for Clinton is a mistake. The main problem is that all the downside risks of the debate are present no matter how few people are watching. One Democrat speculated to me that the goal was not just to minimize viewership but to make the event look “insignificant” in the eyes of the media. But the reality is that if Clinton commits a gaffe, all bets are off, and it will be replayed online and on cable endlessly no matter how little-watched and insignificant the original event was.

In policy terms, too, the risk for Clinton has nothing to do with how many people watch Saturday night’s debate. Any unpopular commitments she makes will be recorded by the media and by her future opponents. The Republican nominee and his allies will bring it up during the general election, and the media will be on hand to verify that she really said it. Footage will be available. The size of the live audience will be irrelevant.

Debates are, structurally speaking, bad for primary election overdogs like Clinton. But Clinton also happens to be a candidate who tends to shine in debates. She is not a first-rate orator, and her consensus-oriented leadership style tends to make it impossible for her speechwriters to craft truly excellent rhetoric for her. But she is much wonkier than the typical elected official, and she’s certainly a better public speaker than your average policy wonk. Very few politicians — and certainly nobody who is running in 2016 — can match the sheer range of issues she can talk about in a well-informed, reasonably persuasive way.
Clinton is good at debating

Clinton’s depth of knowledge and breadth of experience is a huge advantage in the rambling, unpredictable context of a debate.

But this really only comes across if you actually sit down and watch the debate. Everyone who watched the first Democratic primary debate agreed that her performance was impressive. But it lacked a signature moment like the showdown where Marco Rubio humiliated Jeb Bush. Clinton didn’t deliver a knockout punch to Bernie Sanders. She simply looked a little more comfortable and a little more conversant across a range of topics over an extended period of time. It’s something you genuinely had to see for yourself to appreciate.

A Saturday night debate sticks Clinton with the worst of both worlds. If she gaffes or decides to come out in favor of slavery reparations, the damage will be done even if nobody’s watching. But if she delivers another display of consistent competence and command, few people will be around to appreciate it.
Was this article helpful?

The Democratic debate’s Wall Street fight left Clinton looking bad

Updated by Ezra Klein on November 14, 2015, 11:58 p.m. ET

Two things are true about Hillary Clinton on financial regulation:

1. She has the most detailed, and arguably the strongest, financial regulation plan of the three Democratic candidates.
Wall Street skeptics don’t really trust her to implement said plan.

2. Understanding those two points helps make sense of a fairly confusing, but important, exchange at the second Democratic debate — an exchange in which both Hillary Clinton and Two things are true about Hillary Clinton on financial regulation:

Understanding those two points helps make sense of a fairly confusing, but important, exchange at the second Democratic debate — an exchange in which both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders played into their critics’ hands.

Hillary Clinton: Once again she played the 9/11″ card.

It began when moderator John Dickerson asked Hillary Clinton, “You have received money from Wall Street. How will you convince voters you will level the playing field when you’re indebted to some of its biggest players?”

Clinton initially tried to talk about her financial regulation plan, but Sanders wouldn’t let her escape the issue of donations.

“Let’s not be naive about it,” Sanders said. “Why, over her political career, has Wall Street been the major campaign contributor to Hillary Clinton? Now, maybe they’re dumb and they don’t know what they’re going to get, but I don’t think so.”

In response, Clinton, unwisely, played the 9/11 card.

“I represented New York on 9/11 when we were attacked,” she replied. “Where were we attacked? We were attacked in downtown Manhattan, where Wall Street is. I did spend a whole lot of time and effort helping them rebuild. That was good for New York. It was good for the economy, and it was a way to rebuke the terrorists who had attacked our country.”

But Mrs Clinton didn’t mention Wall Street’s donations to her. And to mention it was good too for Wall Street

Clinton’s answer was bizarre — she doesn’t believe Wall Street has backed her many campaigns primarily because of 9/11, and it’s borderline insulting that she thinks anyone else would believe it, either.

Clinton didn’t trust the audience with the truth. Wall Street supported her candidacy because both she and her husband often backed legislation Wall Street supported, because Wall Street routinely tries to buy favor with prominent politicians of both parties, and because many on Wall Street are Democrats who supported Clinton for other reasons.

That doesn’t mean Clinton always backed Wall Street’s priorities, or even that Wall Street was unusually positive toward Clinton — the financial industry also funneled a massive amount of money to Barack Obama in 2008.

New Book Rips Hillary Clinton – Stephen Lendman

hillary-clinton-my-turn-book-e1446511093415

 

Make no mistake. A Clinton presidency would be disastrous – the worst of all possible deplorable choices, none worthy of any public office, all aspirants beholden to wealth, power and privilege exclusively.

 

Politically, Doug Henwood would easily be defined as a true progressive, which makes his observations about Hillary all the more compelling.  Most progressives that support Hillary have no concept that she’s a warmonger and spear carrier for global empire and special interests.  But then, one need only watch Marc Dice’s man-on-the-street interviews (e.g., click here) to get a sense for how little thinking goes on in the minds of some Hillary supporters. — Eric Dubin, Managing Editor, The News Doctors

TND Guest Contributor:  Stephen Lendman

Make no mistake. A Clinton presidency would be disastrous – the worst of all possible deplorable choices, none worthy of any public office, all aspirants beholden to wealth, power and privilege exclusively.

Don’t let their duplicitous rhetoric fool you. They’re all cut out of the same cloth. Otherwise, they wouldn’t get public attention. Populist Green Party aspirant Jill Stein gets none.

A Clinton presidency would be nightmarish for the vast majority of Americans and world peace. It’ll combine the worst of George Bush and Obama, an agenda of endless wars of aggression, maybe targeting Russia, China, and/or Iran, corporate favoritism, destroying social justice, and full-blown tyranny against resisters.

Doug Henwood is editor and publisher of the Left Business Observer. It covers “economics and politics in the broadest sense,” discussing what everyone needs to know, suppressed in mainstream reporting.

In November 2014, his Harpers article headlined “Stop Hillary! Vote no to a Clinton dynasty.” It bears repeating. A second Clinton presidency is the worst of all deplorable choices.

Her qualifications “boil down to this,” says Henwood. “She has experience, she’s a woman, and it’s her turn. It’s hard to find any substantive political argument in her favor.”

As first lady, she pushed husband Bill to bomb Belgrade in 1999. The rape of Yugoslavia raged throughout the 1990s, culminating with 78 days of lawless US-led NATO aggression from March 24 – June 10, 1999.

She encouraged her husband to end welfare for needy households. Vital Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) ended. The so-called Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation (PRWORA) followed, changing eligibility rules.

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) set a five-year time limit – leaving millions of needy households (many with single mothers) on their own when aid was most needed.

As New York senator and Secretary of State, she “bec(ame) increasingly hawkish on foreign policy,” Henwood explained.

“What Hillary will deliver (as president) is more of the same. And that shouldn’t surprise us…American politics has an amazing stability and continuity about it.”

No matter who’s elected president, business as usual always continues, hardening, not softening deplorably during Bill Clinton’s presidency, worse than ever post-9/11 under Bush II and Obama – certain to be worse than ever no matter who gets the top job next November, especially if it’s Hillary, a neocon, anti-populist war goddess.

Her self-proclaimed progressivism is pure fantasy. Her record as first lady and in public office exposes her real agenda, warranting condemnation, not praise.

She “has a long history of being economical with the truth,” said Henwood. As New York senator, “she voted for the Iraq war, and continued to defend it long after others had thrown in the towel.”

She echoed the Big Lies about Saddam’s nonexistent WMDs and ties to Al Qaeda. She cozied up to right-wing Republicans to ward off criticism. As Secretary of State, she was “less of a diplomat and more of a hawk,” Henwood explained.

She backed escalated war on Afghanistan, pushed for continued US military presence in Iraq, helped orchestrate lawless aggression on Libya, and urged Obama to bomb Syria without required Security Council authorization.

She was involved in developing “pivot to Asia” strategy. “Since leaving the State Department, (she) devoted herself to…Clinton, Inc…(a) fund-raising, favor-dispensing machine” together with husband Bill, said Henwood.

Their style is self-promotion, including “huge book advances and fat speaking fees… And with an eye to the presidency, (she) kept up her line of neocon patter, while carefully separating herself from Obama.”

She deplorably supports Netanyahu’s high crimes – from naked aggression on Gaza to current war throughout the Territories. Palestinian bloodshed and horrific suffering are of no consequence. Israeli imperial interests alone matter.

Henwood concluded his lengthy article, saying “Eight years of Hill? Four, even? To borrow her anti-McCain jab from the 2008 Democratic convention: No way, no how!”

His new book titled “My Turn: Hillary Clinton Targets the Presidency” covers in greater detail what his article discussed. The cover shows her hawkish image, pointing a gun with her arm outstretched.

Her agenda is pure evil, an anti-populist neocon war goddess corporate shill, pretending otherwise.

With Biden out as a potential candidate, she looks like a shoe-in Democrat nominee, despite all the exposed baggage about her. WW III looks increasingly likely with her in the White House.

###

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Click here for information on his new book (editor and contributor) titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”  Mr. Lendman’s articles can be read at is blog:  sjlendman.blogspot.com.  He also hosts the “Progressive Radio News Hour” on the Progressive Radio Network.  His show featuring cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests and airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.

Stephen Lendman was born in 1934 in Boston, MA. In 1956, he received a BA from Harvard University. Two years of US Army service followed, then an MBA from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania in 1960. After working seven years as a marketing research analyst, he joined the Lendman Group family business in 1967. He remained there until retiring at year end 1999. Writing on major world and national issues began in summer 2005. In early 2007, radio hosting followed. Lendman now hosts the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network three times weekly. Distinguished guests are featured. Listen live or achived. Major world and national issues are discussed. Lendman is a 2008 Project Censored winner and 2011 Mexican Journalists Club international journalism award recipient.  His other books include, “Banker Occupation:  Waging Financial War On Humanity,” “How Wall Street Fleeces America:  Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War,” and “The Iraq Quagmire: The Price of Imperial Arrogance.