Home | About | Donate

Want Endless War? Love the U.S. Empire? Well, Hillary Clinton’s Your Choice


Want Endless War? Love the U.S. Empire? Well, Hillary Clinton’s Your Choice

Marjorie Cohn

Hillary Clinton likes to extol her foreign policy credentials, particularly her experience as secretary of state. She attaches herself to Barack Obama’s coattails, pledging to continue his policies. But she is even more hawkish than the president.

Like Obama, Clinton touts American exceptionalism, the notion that the United States is better than any other country. In his State of the Union addresses, Obama has proclaimed America “exceptional” and said the U.S. must “lead the world.” Clinton wrote in her book “Hard Choices” that “America remains the ‘indispensable nation.’”


Would the Warrior Queen be worse than the Pompadour Sun King or the Cruz Controller with fingers on the button?

We almost give her the benefit of the doubt since because she is a woman that she wouldn't be as psychopathically dehumanizing about casualties and body counts... but in fact Hillary may actually be the worst one of the bunch.

Somehow Hillary really does see herself as some sort of Warrior Queen and eager to show what she can do as commander in chief of our military. No mention is made of her psychological qualifications or even training or experience in war and killing. Cheney the draft dodger was bad enough and look at what his need to prove something mentality produced.

Should Hillary be given free rein to 'prove' that she can be as blood thirsty as she thinks all men are? She certainly seems eager to shed blood and expand wars doesn't she. It is there whenever she speaks >>> Hillary wants to make war.

Sometimes the camera catches her face with her eyes agog and wide eyed making her expression seem a bit less sane than feels comfortable. Who needs anyone with something to prove holding a gun... or with their finger on the button?


Whether or not this is a fair characterization of Hillary Clinton's foreign policy Bernie Sanders has essentially the same foreign policy. And so does Martin O'Malley. The differences among these three candidates on foreign policy are rather minor and probably few people if any could actually articulate the differences. I don't even think the candidates know themselves exactly how they differ on foreign policy. So are we supposed hope Rand Paul is the next president? Count me out on that. Where this leads is to basically making a choice based on domestic policy.


This comprehensive indictment of the Red Queen tells a tale of intolerable warmongering and kowtowing to the Israeli racist killers and extremist agenda of theft of territory by force. NO ONE who bends-over for a foreign nation of such despicable moral character and actions should ever be elected to lead the US! Israeli subversion of our nation's Congress, politics, and foreign policy should not be tolerated and support for this terrorist state by our elected representatives should be seen as tantamount to treason! No other nation on Earth would tolerate such blatant subversion or lap-dog status to a foreign nations interests over their own!



I'm past tired of hearing about "her record" from
Hillarybots! Anyone one wanting to claim that HRC has
the best "record", hasn't looked at her record, only her
ads! Her “record” was miserable, in any regard, at the
State Department. Her record in the Senate was
mediocre AT BEST and at worse was an echo of GW
Bush & Dick Cheney, the worst Administration in our
history. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s RECORD is atrocious
and for some to claim otherwise is to claim ignorance!
They are taking advantage of the gullibility of some
American voters! I think that this is dishonest AND

This is what Hillary Rodham Clinton said in 2002 to back up GW Bush & Dick Cheney's call to invade Iraq:

“Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. …In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change…In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members…Now this much is undisputed.” ~HRC

Clinton calls this a mistake today in a ELECTION but in 2002 she was right behind the Bush Administration and is equally responsible for hundreds of thousands of lives and generations of wasted wealth.
The above was just about ONE ISSUE, Iraq.
She's made mistakes about the Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Swindle, NAFTA, Keystone XL, Libya, and scores of other important issues.
Evolving on issues is a natural process but to call HRC's NEW positions evolvement is deceitful in the extreme!
The thing that she is most wrong about, besides endless WAR, is our economy and our growing inequality. She says that she wants to raise wages but she says that AS she raises dumpsters full of of donations from people wanting to keep working people silent and on their knees. She says this, I suppose, thinking that we are too stupid and gullible to see the next step of MORE imperialism and more inequality!

American's are a forgiving people but are we prepared to put someone in the White House with such an extensive list of "mistakes"? Would we vote to put Bush/Cheney back in the driver’s seat? Then why in the world would we want to put their water carrier there?


"38 Americans killed by terrorists since 2001" while more than 300 million Americans' economic security has been negatively impacted by Wall Street and its corporate cronies who are the Clintons' primary paymasters.

Doesn't that make Wall Street millions of times more of a threat to Murkins than terrorists ?


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


You lie all the time. The fact of the matter is that Mrs. Clinton was on the front lines of designing policies she was in the unique position to help deploy. If Sanders voted for some add-on bill that peripherally granted financing to a particular weapon system, that's not the same thing.

Bottom line is: Mr. Sanders is yet to be tested on this issue. However, based on his character and the fact that he is NOT purchased by Wall St or the MIC, it's 90% unlikely that his policies would match the bloodlust of Mrs. Clinton's proven positions.

Marjorie Cohn does an excellent job of laying them out and they are INEXCUSABLE.

BTW: I would not want your job... here.


"Straighten up and fly right" is an old tune. I can't recall its author/originator.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


Not a very safe method of birth control, and a medical doctor at that!


Fine. But the Obama administration is about as close to being objective on issues facing Palestinians as any we're likely to get in the foreseable future. He was a loud and uncompromising advocate for the Palestinians until just before it was clear he was about to emerge on the national stage, at which point he was faced with choosing to move onto the national stage and forsake Palestinians (at least in public) or maintaining his advocacy for Palestinians and remaining sidelined. Whether the choice that he made resulted in more for the Palestinians in the long term than if he'd chosen to be sidelined off the national stage is impossible to know. He certainly has helped to break the taboo/shibbolith that U.S. policies that might be at variance with those advocated by AIPAC are untenable. In doing so, the may have done much more for the long term than anything visible for the short-term.


I am new to this forum, so I can't yet provide a link, but I encourage you to read an article entitled " The Clintons Really Are Out Of Our League", written by Dartagnan, and posted January 30, 2016. This may provide you with some insights into Ms. Clinton's role in the proliferation of arms around the world, and especially the Middle East.


Just hit "copy" when the article is open, open the CD comment box, and hit "paste."


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


I agree with Ian Masters. I do not live in fear of a few mad max (ISIS) types driving around in rusty pickup trucks in desserts tens of thousands of miles away. Give me a break!

Just think what this country would look like if all of that wasted money had been used to make our lives better? There would be jobs, housing, food, healthcare, education for all, and bridges, gas lines, and safe drinking water. The infrastructure is failing for a lack of care. One by one, we will all go down.

Instead of taking care of this country, we allow bombs to fall and drones to fly killing thousands of innocent people….and we wonder why they hate us. What are we, a bunch of impotent jackasses that we let them tell us there is nothing we can do but make other people’s lives hell on earth.

Still they keep telling us the only choice we have is to elect the likes of a Ted Cruz, a Donald Trump and even a Hillary Clinton to lead us into the next war? Hello!

I do not hate. All we have is this one planet and our destinies are all entwined. Who will we elect to lead us into peace? We do not just leave it to one person to lead, and we must all be pushing from behind and support the person who will chart our way into peace and the making of a sustainable world. Or, do we allow a someone to be elected whose mindset is to kill, bomb, poison, and exterminate our way into a twisted future just so they and their masters can make a profit. We and only we have a choice and the time is now.


Thanks Zenpractice. It's not that I didn't know how to copy and paste, it is that the forum rules state that posting links as a novice participant is disallowed until I earn some credibility with the community.