Military Empire and Climate Cycle Views

To Hillary Clinton Critics

Alleged Imperialism

Hillary Clinton’s alleged “imperialism” in an article does injustice to the woman.  Critics do not distinguish between the woman’s beliefs and her carrying out her job.  Is it imperialism to get the UN Security Council to impose sanctions on Iran and ultimately get Iran to dismantle the vast majority of its nuclear program?  I think this is Nobel Peace Prize territory to get a reluctant Russia and China to join in this peaceful effort to disarm an aggressive nation.  And it beats the heck out of the alternative strategy of bombing the facilities, so popular on the right.  As Secretary of State it would be very surprising and perhaps unprofessional if aggressive alternatives were not suggested to the Commander in Chief.  Historically Secretaries of State are hawks and Secretaries of Defense are doves, just by the nature of their jobs.  The military is a tool of diplomacy for State, and the military do not like to be used uselessly for Defense.  The Israeli positions are standard American politics like it or not.  The use of the Air Force to defend a defenseless Benghazi civilian population when the Arab League and Europe are calling for it is not THAT hawkish of a position.  The lack of a no fly zone over Syria has lead to hundreds of thousands of civilians dying in barrel bomb attacks and millions fleeing for their lives.  It even led to the creation of a safe haven for ISIS.  Is that hawkish or prudent?  That’s hard to say.

Saying Hillary “enthusiastically supported” the Iraq War is an exaggeration.  As Senator representing the American State hit hardest on 9-11, some hawkishness should be expected.  But she hoped Bush would use the authority responsibly when he had no intention of doing so.  The Downing Street Memos show bombing doubled its pace in May 2002 after the April 2002 agreement with Tony Blair to go after Saddam Hussein, half a year before the War Resolution passed.  Wisconsin Senator Democrat Herb Kohl gave that explanation for his vote when we occupied his office just days before that October 2002 vote, just one year after 9-11.  90% of the American troops going into Iraq the next year thought Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9-11.  Bush and Cheney phrased things to deliberately mislead, and many believed them.  Just like in countless wars before that one:  truth is always the first casualty in war.  I had an op-ed published explaining how Bush could be impeached for violating the terms of the war resolution, especially the lack of direct connection to 9-11 required by the resolution.  I think many Democrats hoped Bush would let the inspectors proceed.  Much later Obama/Clinton had peaceful outcomes getting the chemical warfare weapons out of Syria and the nuclear program reduced in Iran.  The duplicity was mainly Bush’s, not the Senator from New York.  Just look at the hawkishness of the other Democratic Senator from New York.  New York took the direct hit on 9-11.

I personally consider Madelyn Albright more of a hawk than Hillary.  As I have tried to explain, that’s typical for the Secretary of State. Bernie speaks in anti war generalities, but is silent about any specific cutting of the military budget on his website, using taxes instead to fund his nine itemized proposals, not a single defense cut mentioned in that section.  Other sites mention his need to keep the F-35 base in Vermont as a reason for his silence.  Similar silence about the military budget bothered me a lot on his campaign stop in Madison Wisconsin last summer.  I’ve seen so many politicians of all stripes avoid the military cut issue over the decades since the McGovern loss.

Women’s Issues                                                                                                                                

Hillary led on health care in 1994 when it was called Hillary-care.  She later led in getting the children’s health care bill passed in the Republican Congress of the late nineties, covering eight million kids.  She criticized China in China at the world woman’s gathering there.  She is supported by Planned Parenthood and the NARAL abortion rights group.  She has the support of the congressional black caucus, with John L Lewis remembering meeting both Hillary and Bill back then, but he never saw Bernie.  She has the support of every woman Democratic Senator except Elizabeth Warren who is neutral.  She has championed women’s rights all over the world as Secretary of State.  She aggressively raises women’s issues while they are mostly an afterthought by Bernie the single issue candidate against Wall Street.  She aggressively visited and defended the people of Flint Michigan just before the New Hamshire vote, while Bernie gave them lip service only.

Women have the advantages under 30, while men have the advantages over 40.  This has been true for a long time.  Older women know the deck is still stacked against them, younger women are still idealistic.  Just look at the local nightly news, young women have privileges older women do not have.  Just possibly, older women know the score and desperately want things to change, with all the benefits having a woman national leader has given to other nations.  Michael Moore notes in his new film that women leaders have changed over thirty other nations since 1979 for the better, and could do so here as well.  Replacing the male “me” ethic with the female “we” ethic has made huge differences around the world, the women leaders of Iceland told Michael Moore.  They explained that it’s in their DNA.

Hillary has helped revive the American economy by securing deals for US companies overseas.  She saw this vacuum and filled it.  That’s why businesspeople have a soft spot in their heart for Hillary.  Conservatives who say they’d never vote for Trump have not ruled out voting for Hillary, and with as many as four Supreme Court vacancies in the near future, gambling on a candidate without foreign policy gravitas could doom the Democratic ticket.  Like it or not, the American President is part Emperor also.

The two society types in this link should include male friendly and woman friendly:

Hint: to read this paper for free, you must click on the tiny word “read”

Professor Robert Reuschlein, Dr. Peace, Real Economy Institute, Madison, Wisconsin

CONTACT: 608-230-6640,



Single Post Navigation

2 thoughts on “To Hillary Clinton Critics

  1. Pingback: Richard Hugus on Zionist propaganda and deception; Bob Reuschlein defends Hillary _ on Kevin Barrett’s Truth Jihad Radio | NO LIES RADIO

  2. Pingback: Richard Hugus on Zionist propaganda and deception; Bob Reuschlein defends Hillary – Kevin Barrett

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: