Hillary Clinton: An Update

This is Part II of a II-part essay I wrote, based on Hillary Clinton's recent article in Foreign Affairs magazine (Part I was posted on Nov. 2). Points (below) are quotes taken from her article; Counterpoints are my responses.

POINT:

... - [al Qaeda] terrorist cells are preparing for future attacks. We must understand not only their methods but their motives: a rejection of modernity, women's rights, and democracy, as well as a dangerous nostalgia for a mythical past.

COUNTERPOINT:

These "motives" cited by Hillary are exactly identical to those of the Extreme Christian Right in the United States. I hope she's equally determined to oppose any such domestic terror cells which either exist now or might soon arise.

POINT:

The Taliban cannot be allowed to regain power in Afghanistan...

COUNTERPOINT:

Not even if "democratically" elected?

I think American voters should hold Hillary's feet [and the feet of the other Dem/Pub contenders] to the fire on this one crucial question: "Tell me, in how many countries (and for how many decades) are you going to insist that our troops play war games if local populations don't agree with you concerning who their leaders ought to be?"

The answer to that question will significantly determine just how quickly we will go broke.

POINT:

Whether or not the United States makes progress in helping to broker a final agreement [between the Israelis and the Palestinians], consistent U.S. involvement can lower the level of violence and restore our credibility in the region.

COUNTERPOINT:

"consistent U.S. involvement can lower the level of violence?"

Nonsense! I would argue quite the opposite to be true. Our "consistent" involvement has fueled the level of violence. Indeed, even in the case of the highly-praised 1978 Camp David Accords, we find a shabby attempt to buy peace: By means of the U.S. providing Israel and Egypt with tens of billions of dollars worth of arms over a period of decades.

Lesson: Buying off countries doesn't work.

POINT:

On the other hand, if Iran is in fact willing to end its nuclear weapons program [obviously Hillary "knows" Iran has one!], renounce sponsorship of terrorism, support Middle East peace, and play a constructive role in stabilizing Iraq, the United States should be prepared to offer Iran a carefully calibrated package of incentives.

COUNTERPOINT:

"offer Iran a carefully calibrated package of incentives?" Sounds to me like President Hillary Clinton sees great value in continuing our policy of trying to buy off countries.

[Also, her use of the term "carefully calibrated" suggests a mechanistic, rigid legal mind. But hey, we already knew that.]

POINT:

Iran...must not be permitted to build or acquire nuclear weapons.

COUNTERPOINT:

I see that Hillary Clinton shares exactly this same sentiment with another great thinker in the Democratic Party - candidate John Edwards. However, I would remind both of them:

If Iran announced (that is, came right out and said) it was pulling out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in order to acquire a nuclear weapons arsenal, Iran would not be breaking any laws:

This is worth repeating: Iran would not be breaking any laws.

However, Iran would have to worry about Chapter VII, Article 42 of the UN charter:

"...the Security Council [my emphasis]...may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security." This quote, however, prevents the US from acting on its own against Iran, since it's the Security Council which is entrusted with the necessary authority. In wonder if Hillary and her fellow contenders would respect this basic tenet of international law.

Also, would Hillary and John will "get specific" and (right now!) boldly deny any "right" of the US to act unilaterally against Iran. Or is this one of those options which must remain on the table?

POINT:

If Iran does not comply with its own commitments and the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table.

COUNTERPOINT:

"all options must remain on the table?" This seems to be every hawk's favorite phrase of the day. Oh, make no mistake about this: Hillary is a hawk and will go out of her way to prove it (and herself in the process).

POINT:

...have called on the United States to "rekindle the vision," shared by every president from Dwight Eisenhower to Bill Clinton, of reducing reliance on nuclear weapons.

COUNTERPOINT:

She obviously includes Ronald Reagan, of whom Lawrence S. Wittner had this to say:

"Horrified by the Reagan administration's nuclear buildup and loose talk of nuclear war, the Soviet government ratcheted up its own military might." ...and: "Soviet leaders, terrified that the Reagan administration was preparing a nuclear first strike against their country, nearly launched a nuclear war." - http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=4909

Maybe Hillary didn't happen to catch that article, or maybe she really believes what she wrote.

POINT:

This dramatic initiative [to reduce US and Russian nuclear arsenals] would send a strong message of nuclear restraint to the world, while we retain enough strength to deter others from trying to match our arsenal.

COUNTERPOINT:

This invites several questions, which I'm sure our lapdog media or entertainer funny boys won't bother to ask [are you listening Tim Russert, Bill Maher, Ted Koppel, Inc?]:

What if the Russians don't go along?

Just exactly how does Hillary plan to "deter others from trying?" Would she trot out Bush's version of the so-called pre-emptive strike option? And who gets to determine if others are "trying?" [The Pakistani nuclear arsenal is starting to look more and more like a likely target.]

My recurring theme, regarding Hillary Clinton, has nothing to do with her lack of "experience" in foreign relations. We all know that experience doesn't matter; for if it did, Reagan would never have been elected. Rather, my theme focuses on Hillary's own perception of having to constantly prove herself. In so doing, sooner or later (as president) she will over-react, to our detriment.

POINT:

[Obtaining US Senate approval of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treat] would enhance the United States' credibility when demanding that other nations refrain from testing.

COUNTERPOINT:

"demanding that other nations" do what? "refrain from testing?" Perhaps that will be only the beginning. What other behaviors will the United States unilaterally "demand" from other nations (without having to be bothered by working through the United Nations)? After being reassured by Bill Clinton on this and other matters, I'm sure Hillary thinks the United States can go it alone. [Hmm...maybe Bill Clinton is Hillary's foreign policy experience.]

POINT:

When America and Europe work together, global objectives are within our means.

COUNTERPOINT:

Whoa, just a moment. What about including the rest of the world in this partnership, or does Hillary believe that US and EU power alone are sufficient to rule the world? I've often wondered how someone like Hillary Clinton would react if some small African country suddenly discovered huge deposits of uranium but told the outside world that it did not want these deposits to be "developed" or at least not, massively exploited (same thing?).

Do you think Hillary would take "no" for an answer or would it be time to call out the marines?

POINT:

...and all of Africa can provide carbon credits to the West.

COUNTERPOINT:

So President Hillary Clinton has decided that Africa "can" provide carbon credits to the West. Suppose "all of Africa" doesn't want to sell any carbon credits to the West, perhaps deciding instead to sell them to China or (perish the thought) use those credits themselves (that is, within the African continent in order to develop their own industrial base). Then what?

I hope Clinton wouldn't decide to declare Africa to be at odds with US vital interests by refusing to sell such credits to the West.

POINT:

...the United States must stand ready to challenge China when its conduct is at odds with US vital interests...

COUNTERPOINT:

My personal opinion? I think Hillary (and her major Dem/Pub adversaries) are deathly afraid of China. In terms of to what degree President HC might choose to overreact (for the sake of looking tough), I can only hope she won't be too quick to pull the trigger. Since China doesn't have as many nukes as we do, they might have other forms of retaliation at their disposal. I hope she at least takes that under consideration.

POINT:

To build the world we want, we must begin by speaking honestly about the problems we face. We will have to talk about the consequences of our invasion of Iraq for the Iraqi people and others in the region.

COUNTERPOINT:

"to build the world we want?" The world we want [for the record, I'm not part of Hillary's conception of "we"] might not be the same kind of world wanted by ______ (fill in the blank). If universal peace and harmony are the goals, we might want to take into consideration the views of others on how to "build the world we all want" - building the greatest possible consensus.

As your next President, I will do something Hillary Clinton would never dream of doing: apologizing to the Iraqi people for invading their country. All I'm hearing, in her article, is how much Hillary thinks we ought to "talk about" it. Not good enough.

Bottom line? Hillary Clinton: Not good enough.

Steven Searle: Good enough (but definitely a long shot).

Steven Searle for US President in 2008

"I am the only candidate offering an enforceable contract for your vote - a written contract which lists my campaign promises and removes me from office for non-compliance."

The Best Party Available
bpa_cinc@yahoo.com