[WCUSP] Hillary Clinton's Hawkish Record

[yvonne simmons]

> 

---------------------------------
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0309-23.htm

                  Published on Friday, March 9, 2007
by the National CatholicRecorder  
                           Hillary Clinton's
HawkishRecord 
                          by Stephen Zunes 
                                   Sen. Hillary Rodham
Clinton has already assumed front-runner status
fortheDemocratic Party nomination for president
despite a foreign policyagenda thatclosely parallels
that of the Bush administration.
      
Since most of the public criticism of the former first
lady has beenbased onfalse and exaggerated charges
from the right wing, often with a fairdose ofsexism,
many Democrats have become defensive and reluctant to
criticizeher.Some liberals end up believing
conservative charges that she is on theleftwing of the
Democratic Party when in reality her foreign
policypositions arefar closer to Ronald Reagan than
George McGovern.
      
For example, she opposes the international treaty to
ban land mines.She votedagainst the Feinstein-Leahy
amendment last September restricting U.S.exportsof
cluster bombs to countries that use them against
civilian-populatedareas.She opposes restrictions on
U.S. arms transfers and police training
togovernmentsthat engage in gross and systematic human
rights abuses, such as Egypt,Morocco, Saudi Arabia,
Oman, Israel, Pakistan, Cameroon and Chad, toname
onlya few. She insists upon continuing unconditional
funding for the Iraqwar andhas called for dramatic
increases in Bush’s already bloated militarybudget.She
has challenged the credibility of Amnesty
International and otherhumanrights groups that
criticize policies of the United States and itsallies.
      
Mrs. Clinton has been one of the Senate’s most
outspoken critics of theUnitedNations, even serving as
the featured speaker at rallies outside
U.N.headquarters in July 2004 and last summer to
denounce the world body.She votedto authorize the U.S.
invasion of Iraq despite its being a clearviolation of
theU.N. Charter and in July 2004 falsely accused the
United Nations of nottakinga stand against terrorism
when it has opposed U.S. policy. She was oneof themost
prominent critics of the International Court of
Justice for itslandmark2004 advisory ruling that the
Fourth Geneva Conventions on the Laws ofWar islegally
binding on all signatory nations. She condemned the
UnitedNations’judicial arm for challenging the
legality of Israel’s separationbarrier in theoccupied
West Bank and sponsored a Senate resolution “urging no
furtheractionby the United Nations to delay or prevent
the construction of thesecurityfence.”
      
Mrs. Clinton has shown little regard for the danger
from proliferationofnuclear weapons, not only opposing
the enforcement of U.N. SecurityCouncilresolutions
challenging Pakistan, Israel and India’s nuclear
weaponsprogramsbut supporting the delivery of
nuclear-capable missiles and jetfighters tothese
countries. This past fall she voted to suspend
importantrestrictions onU.S. nuclear cooperation with
countries that violate theNon-ProliferationTreaty.
      
At the same time, she insists that the prospect of
Iran’s developingnuclearweapons “must be unacceptable
to the entire world,” since challengingthenuclear
monopoly of the United States and its allies in the
regionwouldsomehow “shake the foundation of global
security to its very core.”Last year,she accused the
Bush administration of not taking the threat of
anuclear Iranseriously enough, criticized the
administration for allowing Europeannationsto take the
lead in pursuing a diplomatic solution and insisted
thatthe UnitedStates should make it clear that
military options were still beingactivelyconsidered.
      
Meanwhile, she insists that the United States should
maintain the rightto usenuclear weapons against
non-nuclear countries.
      
Mrs. Clinton was an outspoken supporter of Israel’s
massive militaryassault onthe civilian infrastructure
of Lebanon and the Gaza Strip last summer,whichtook
the lives of over 1,000 civilians. She justified it by
claiming itwould“send a message to Hamas, Hezbollah,
to the Syrians [and] to theIranians”because they
opposed the United States and Israel’s commitment to
“lifeandfreedom.”
      
There are questions regarding her integrity. Long
after credible,well-documented published reports by
American and Israeli newspapersandresearch institutes
had refuted it, Sen. Clinton continued to cite
aright-winggroup’s 1999 report claiming the
Palestinian Authority was publishinganti-Semitic
textbooks. Like President Bush, she is more prone
tobelieveideologically driven propaganda than
independent investigativereporting orscholarly
research.
      
Similarly, ignoring substantial evidence that Iraq had
already riditself ofits chemical and biological
weapons and no longer had a nuclearprogram,
Mrs.Clinton justified her calls for a U.S. invasion of
Iraq on the groundsthat “ifleft unchecked, Saddam
Hussein will continue to increase his capacityto
wagebiological and chemical warfare and will keep
trying to develop nuclearweapons.” Even after it was
discovered that Iraq no longer had “weaponsof
massdestruction,” Mrs. Clinton acknowledged last year
that she would havevoted toauthorize the invasion
anyway.
      
Should Hillary Clinton become the Democratic
presidential nominee, wecanexpect to find little
differences between her and her Republican
rival.Exceptfor long shots Rep. Dennis Kucinich and
former Sen. Mike Gravel, noneof theDemocratic
candidates have taken consistent positions supporting
peace,humanrights and international law. But with the
possible exception of Sen.JoeBiden, Mrs. Clinton is
the most hawkish Democrat in the presidentialrace.
      
      Stephen Zunes is a professor ofpolitics at the
University of San Francisco.
      
© 2007National Catholic Reporter
            




 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Bored stiff? Loosen up... 
Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.
http://games.yahoo.com/games/front