War Children [View all]
“The best way to help Israel deal with Iran’s growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad.”
-- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
The above-quoted e-mail, advocating for the expansion of US military involvement in the Middle East, should be central to the decision that citizens make in selecting the candidate they support in the presidential primaries. For members of the Democratic Party, it brings into sharp focus the on-going debate between those who support Hillary Clinton’s “experience,” versus those who support Bernie Sanders’s “judgment.” And, without question, this includes highlighting each candidate’s vote to grant George W. Bush and Dick Cheney unlimited war powers.
A vote for Hillary is a vote for an aggressive “Project for the New American Century” foreign policy. PNAC, formed in the 1990s, was/is a neoconservative “think tank” that advocated for the US to “remake” the Middle East in a fashion that brought about the blooming successes the Bush/Cheney administration is famous for.
The e-mail puts to rest any claim that Clinton is not a “neoconservative.” The utter lack of understanding that has led some people to believe that neo-conservatism is a disease that afflicts only republicans has been exposed as nonsense -- for one of the two PNAC founders, Robert Kagan, served as one of SoS Clinton’s top advisers on Middle Eastern policy.
A vote for Bernie is a vote against neoconservative military aggression, and for an attempt to use military force as a last result. Those favoring Bernie recognize that judgment is equally important to experience. And it values human life.
I’m curious how my friends who are supporting Hillary process the information in that e-mail? I remember that they were opposed to the Bush-Cheney brand of necroconservatism. Yet, the Clinton neo-conservatism will result in human beings being just as dead. How do you justify the trade-off in values?
Peace,
H2O Man
= new reply since forum marked as read
