The Commander Threshold

Hillary's Bait & Switch Tactics

One of the great wrongs of the current presidential campaign is that Hillary Clinton is being allowed to define the terrain.

With the economy sinking like a torpedoed cruise liner, we leave NAFTA and Free Trade behind because Hillary has decided it is time to discuss thresholds for Commander-in-Chief. Little wonder: Any discussion of the economy that does not begin with trade policy is like debating which brand of aspirin we should purchase for a dying patient.

Hillary’s duplicity on Free Trade is a well-chronicled record. Husband Bill was, of course, the Free Trade champion who pushed NAFTA into law. Said the former president at the NAFTA signing ceremony (12/8/93): “We are on the verge of a global economic expansion that is sparked by the fact that the United States, at this critical moment, decided that we would compete, not retreat.”

If Hillary was opposed to NAFTA it was a well-kept secret. In Living History (2003), the Senator stated: “Creating a free trade zone in North America . . . would expand U.S. exports, create jobs and ensure that our economy was reaping the benefits, not the burdens, of globalization.”

As late as October 4, 2007, Peter Nicholas of the Los Angeles Times wrote: “Appearing before free trade supporters, she has praised the landmark North American Free Trade Agreement . . . but speaking to a union audience as a presidential candidate, Clinton said NAFTA hurt workers.”

Even now, Clinton’s trade policy amounts to little more than a “time out” on Free Trade — presumably, a temporary pause that will end when she is elected president.

In fairness, there is room for doubt on Barack Obama’s Fair Trade credentials as well, but it is richly ironic that he should take the hit in Ohio for the kind of “wink and nod” approach that Clinton has practiced all along.

The Senator from New York has the New York media in her back pocket yet Hillary is allowed to cry foul on alleged media bias favoring Obama.

So now Hillary says it is time to move on and the media fall in line. She declares that the candidacy of the ancient Republican John McCain means that the general election will be all about national security. Despite the grave misgivings of Republican military leaders, she further declares that McCain has passed the commander-in-chief threshold but her opponent has not.

Hillary’s analysis is wrong on so many counts it is difficult to know where to begin. First and foremost, Senator John McCain is a leading supporter of the Neoconservative foreign policy that has delivered the catastrophe in Iraq. He is a fervent defender of the Bush Doctrine of aggressive warfare and military domination. His first response to every foreign policy crisis since Beirut in 1983 has been aggressive provocation. His criticisms are invariably that we need more troops, more bombing and greater destruction. He famously blames the American people for bailing out on Vietnam with only 58,000 American and three million Vietnamese dead.

If John McCain were president today, we would likely be at war with Iran, Syria and Lebanon. We would be dangerously close to war on any number of fronts in Latin America and the Cold War would be infinitely closer to its second coming.

What is it about the foreign policy credentials of John McCain that Hillary Clinton so admires? Could it be that she is in fact a lot closer to McCain’s war mongering than she is to her own stated positions on diplomacy and withdrawal from Iraq?

Hillary was wrong on her vote to authorize the Bush war in Iraq (the fact that she neglected to read the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq prior to her vote is even more revealing). She was wrong on her vote to authorize military intervention in Iran (by declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization). She was wrong in her unqualified defense of Israel in its aggressive and ill-fated invasion of Lebanon. She was wrong in her blanket defense of Israel in its bombing of a suspected military site in Syria. She was wrong again in her aggressive provocation of Venezuela and Ecuador when Columbia violated Ecuadorian sovereignty with a military strike inside its borders — a provocation that may have endangered three American hostages.

Time and again, Hillary Clinton (not unlike John McCain) has demonstrated that her first response to any crisis is a knee-jerk threat rather than a reasoned response.

Who do we want to answer that mythical red phone in a middle of the night crisis?

I can think of no one I would want to answer that call less than John McCain unless it is Hillary Clinton trying to prove she’s as tough as McCain.

The real threshold we are fast approaching is the one beyond which supporters of Barack Obama will not support Hillary Clinton under any circumstance.

One last thought: When someone as thoughtful, authoritative and fundamentally non-political as Pulitzer prize winner Samantha Power decries Hillary as a monster — even in a political context — it deserves a second thought.

Now, let’s get back to trade policy. I propose a debate moderated by Fair Trade Journalist David Sirota and Free Trade Economist Paul Krugman.

Jack Random is the author of Ghost Dance Insurrection (Dry Bones Press) the Jazzman Chronicles, Volumes I and II (City Lights Books). The Chronicles have been published by Dissident Voice and others. Read other articles by Jack, or visit Jack's website.

4 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Shabnam said on March 11th, 2008 at 7:52pm #

    Mr. Random:

    Thank you for your efforts to analyze the behavior of those who are players in the circus known as “election.” But I have to warn you on some of your analysis because they do not reflect the facts on the ground. You are right when you write:
    “Hillary Clinton is being allowed to define the terrain.”
    Obama must go after her and expose her fully but since he, like the rest of the candidates, must satisfy higher power, the lobby, therefore he as an African American feels has to go extra miles to gain trust. He, therefore, says nothing different from her and remains a good servant. As long as American people do not pay attention to these servants of the Zionist interest who feel they have an obligation to preserve an apartheid state against the interest of American people and the world then they must face the consequences. You are also correct when you write:
    “If John McCain were president today, we would likely be at war with Iran, Syria and Lebanon.”
    As you have pointed out McCain’s policy is very close to Neocons’ policy on Iran. The Jewish Lobby is seeking a war against Iran for years now. They wanted Bush, who does not distinguish the American people’s interest from the Zionist’s interest because he needs their support, to attack Iran before Iraq but it was not feasible at the time and Iraq was ripe enough to be invaded due to Clinton’s policy of Sanction and bombing and partition according to the policy of “no fly zone” during Clinton administration, the most pro Zionist administration in the history of American presidency. But when you don’t believe her and write:
    “The Senator from New York has the New York media in her back pocket yet Hillary is allowed to cry foul on alleged media bias favoring Obama. “
    I think you are wrong and Hillary is right when she complains about the media. The reason is that Obama, this time, has been chosen as a Democratic nominee and McCain for the Republican nominee by those who select a president, the Jewish Lobby. They want to select McCain, the war monger, as US president in November against Obama, therefore, they must refrain from criticizing Obama before making sure he is the nominee and after that they will tear him apart using race card and “security” issues. The neocons do not want Hillary, AIPAC girl; because they think it is more difficult to beat her against McCain.
    You are also wrong on Samantha Power when you write:
    “When someone as thoughtful, authoritative and fundamentally non-political as Pulitzer Prize winner Samantha Power decries Hillary as a monster — even in a political context — it deserves a second thought.”
    You should do a little bit of research about her role as an empire builder and about her cooperation with the Zionist forces including Charles Jacobs, founder of CAMERA pro Israel group, who was very much behind the lies and deception campaign through “anti child slavery group” on South of Sudan with a phony slogan, “child slavery”, to implement the US and Israel policy in Sudan, another Islamic country, through divide and rule trickery arming the terrorists with the leadership of John Garang who received military training by US and Israel in addition to weapon and financial support in name of “humanitarian aid” to fight against the government of Sudan to force Sudanese government into submission to give autonomy to the South, like North of Iraq, and set the path for further partition of the Sudan through campaign of lies and deception, Save Darfur, with a spurious charge namely “Genocide in Darfur”. Samantha Power, a monster, has abandoned Congo with 5 millions deaths, a Christian country, and gone after Sudan, an Islamic country, forcing sanction and partition on Sudan and manipulating public opinion. She, therefore, has no difficulty to distinguish another monster, Hillary. She moves her long blonde hair skillfully around her face when she speaks and distracts attention to create confusion to escape her critics but definitely not from me.

  2. Max Shields said on March 11th, 2008 at 9:24pm #

    Shabnam said “Obama must go after her and expose her fully but since he, like the rest of the candidates, must satisfy higher power, the lobby, therefore he as an African American feels has to go extra miles to gain trust. He, therefore, says nothing different from her and remains a good servant. ”

    While there is a shade of truth in this, it seems rather hypocritical to see this need to “satisfy higher power, the lobby” when addressing Obama, but not when turning the light to Hillary Clinton. Both are under the same scrutiny. When John Edwards made the consistent and forceful case during his run against corporatism and all that means to the world, to American society and to the workers and the poor, he was marginalized by both Obama and Hillary, and the media who loves Obama, called him (Edwards) angry and lacking in “hope”. In fact, Edwards, the white male from the South was speaking truth to power (the lobbyists) while neither Hillary nor Obama would. In fact, both, during the debates, capitulated the corportists time and again.

    With Kucinich, the white fellow from Ohio, the force of speaking truth to power was a 100 fold to that of Edwards.

    Ah the story is not so simply as you would like to paint. It’s important to be very clear about these things if one is not to fall prey to the very propaganda that keeps the machine going….the one that supports the Zionist movement. You see, you are what you say because what you say becomes what you begin to think and do. Obama (as has Hillary who must show she is “man” enough for the CIC job) has become the mask.

  3. Shabnam said on March 12th, 2008 at 9:33am #

    Max said: “While there is a shade of truth in this, it seems rather hypocritical to see this need to “satisfy higher power, the lobby” when addressing Obama, but not when turning the light to Hillary Clinton. Both are under the same scrutiny.”
    I am not hypocritical when turning the light to Hillary. I wrote: “The Neocons do not want Hillary, AIPAC girl; because they think it is more difficult to beat her against McCain.”
    Hillary has proven herself as a reliable person to protect the interest of Israel. Clinton administration of 8 years policy on Middle East, the most pro Zionist administration in the US presidency, is a testimony to this fact. That was behind the reason to support her candidacy to become senator for state of New York. The Neocons do not have doubts about her loyalty to Israel but they want McCain to be elected president this time who wants to keep America as a shinning star over the hill by strong show of force for his perpetual wars. His strong supporters are the Neocons represented by William Kristol who has gone to New York Times to gain the support of the “liberal mind.” in November for him. He has also Joe Lieberman on his side that called for the bombing of Iran which was echoed by McCain when he said bomb, bomb, and bomb Iran.
    John Edwards was also a strong supporter of Israel and his speeches can prove this fact. All of them are supporters of the system, including Ron Paul, and, therefore, but to capitalize on people’s frustration of the war Edwards, at least, acknowledged that his vote for the war was wrong, but Hillary has not caved in yet because she know how unpopular this might be with the lobby.
    Obama as an African Americans is coming from a little bit different background because he attended an Arab community event in Chicago in May 1998 and sitting next to late Edward Said and his wife.
    http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6619.shtml

    He also said:” no one has suffered more than the Palestinians,” where no candidates have echoed this message, and that’s why he felt he must present himself as a loyal supporter in his speech at the Aipac gathering:
    Israel is “our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy,” and “we must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs.”, and “from Iran to Iraq to the resurgence of al-Qaeda to the reinvigoration of Hamas and Hezbollah, that loyalty and that friendship will guide me as we begin to lay the stones that will build the road that takes us from the current instability to lasting peace and security.”
    http://www.counterpunch.org/obama03052007.html
    But apparently all this devotion and loyalty have not earned him the trust he needs. In a memo which was leaked out the pro Israel group have raised their concerns. Forward writes:
    “A confidential memo questioning Senator Barack Obama’s potential approach to Middle East policy was distributed earlier this month among staffers at a major American Jewish organization.” It warns the Israel group that:
    “Obama’s approach to dealing with Iran “raises questions,” said the document, which circulated within the American Jewish Committee. It also suggested that Obama placed the burden of solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict primarily on the Jewish state.”
    http://www.forward.com/articles/12543/
    They are also concerned about Obama’s emphasis on diplomacy, particularly in dealing with Iran.
    The memo noted Obama’s presence at a fundraiser headlined in 1998 by the now late Edward Said, and of public suggestions by Ali Abunimah, a Chicago-based Palestinian activist, that the senator was more openly critical of America’s approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict before his first run for Senate.
    The evolution of Obama regarding his position on Israel is both interesting and alarming. While there is doubt surrounding Obama’s loyalty, McCain remains the trusted son for the Neocons and they view Obama as an easy prey against McCain which has nothing to do with loyalty of Hillary to Israel because that is not shaken. That’s why, I think, the media has been “soft” on him so far.

  4. Max Shields said on March 12th, 2008 at 9:34am #

    Shabnam,

    Upon more careful reading of your post,while I stand by what I said, I apologize for mis-reading what you said (which I pretty much agree with, btw).

    Max