A Non-Partisan Look at Why a Hillary Clinton Presidency is an Absolutely Horrible Idea

April 15, 2015   |   admintam

Ben Morris
April 15, 2015

(TFC) Washington, D.C — It was the worst kept secret in Washington; an expected inevitability where only time and place was in question. Hillary Clinton, former first lady, senator, and secretary of state will once again run for the presidency.  Those who love her grant her sainthood, but the truth of the matter is, she would make a terribly inept president whose alliances will squarely rest with warmongers, dictators, and profiteers of war.

Progressives and women all over America are jumping for joy that Hillary Clinton is running for president. What they are cheering on is a pro war, pro spying corporatist, who takes dirty money and does the dirty work for corporations who strive to profit off of misery.

In 2003, Clinton voted in favor of the Iraqi invasion that killed and maimed thousands of American troops, as well as contributing to the killing of a million innocent Middle Eastern civilians. She regretted the vote by writing in her memoir, “I thought I had acted in good faith and made the best decision I could with the information I had. And I wasn’t alone in getting it wrong. But I still got it wrong. Plain and simple.” She also claimed the vote became “painful,” as she kept corresponding with her supporters in New York who lost a family member in the war.

The vote contributed to one of the worst foreign policy disasters in American history, and is indicative of the mess Clinton loves to make. She did all of that while cashing checks for defence contractors. In her run for the presidency, Clinton got more money from defence contractors in one quarter than Mitt Romney, Barack Obama and Rudy Guiliani. To appease her donors, Clinton is on record for supporting possible war with Iran, and increasing the defence budget. Her record of supporting war, and making a huge mess out of countries is shown in how Libya was destroyed with Clinton’s help.

During the Libya civilian war, both the Department of Defense and the C.I.A balked against intervention, but that didn’t stop Clinton from pushing for intervention, citing her husband’s failure to stop the genocide in Rwanda. After the country was blown up, Clinton’s state department lacked the resources and preparedness to assist in the formation of a post-Gadhafi government.

Even more sickening; with Gadhafi gone America lost intelligence in the fight against Al-Qaeda. Even though he was an evil man, Gadhafi sent frequent intelligence reports to the C.I.A. Clinton’s actions in voting for Iraq, and making a mess out of Libya, is not the only reason her presidency would be a disaster. Her hypocrisy when talking about women’s issues is something that no woman who supports Clinton, should ignore.

Clinton’s campaign is expected to push for the female vote by decrying issues like the gender wage gap, but if she is a supporter of women’s issues then she should be more careful of who she accepts money from. While she led the State Department, The Clinton Foundation accepted donations from foreign governments that include Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. In Qatar marital rape is legal, and women are expected to be nothing more than housewives; in the UAE, a Norwegian woman who was raped was sentenced to sixteen months in jail for the crime of extramarital sex. The courts in the UAE believed a raped woman lied to them, and threw her in jail for having, in their view, an affair. It gets even worse for women in the tiny Arabic country, as men are legally allowed to beat their wives.

Feminists who will vote for Clinton because she is a woman, who is a supposed champion of women’s rights, will be voting for a woman who betrays women. NOW President Terry O’Neill either ignored those issues, or believes hypocrisy is a commendable character trait when she endorsed Clinton’s candidacy by writing, “Secretary Clinton’s candidacy is a powerful message to girls that they can aspire to the highest office,” which is great of course, but those aspirations are squashed in countries like Oman and the UAE where women are not thought of as humans. Taking money from countries that abuse women shows the world, when it comes to cash, your integrity, and the rights of others are negotiable.

Clinton is the worst person to depend on when it comes to changing the power structure in Washington. She is a friend of the big banks who destroyed America’s economy, driving families from their homes and out of the workforce. All voters have to do is search her name on Open Secrets to see her major donors are banks like Citi Group, Goldman Sachs, and JP Morgan & Chase. The Clinton Foundation has also taken money from Goldman Sachs, with Hillary scratching their back by giving two separate speeches at Goldman Sachs conferences.  Her pro corporate leanings are shown in her acceptance of campaign dollars from law firms. One donor, Kirkland and Ellis represents massive corporations like Pfizer, Dow Chemical, Raytheon, and Fannie Mae.

Clinton is not the candidate to change the old guard. She claims she is a populist who cares about the middle class, and women, yet she cashes checks from big banks and countries with terrible human rights records. She won’t reign in banks, and will gleefully destroy governments with bombs and foreign policy failures. She has already told the American public who she will govern for with the appointment of Jerry Crawford to run her campaign in Iowa. Crawford, who has served on other campaigns, did legal work for Monsanto, a company that destroys the environment and contaminates the food supply.

If you are ready for Hillary, you can expect corporations to continue their control of Washington; after all, Hillary is in love with corporate money and will do anything to feed their pockets at the risk of the American public.


This article originally appeared on The Fifth Column and was used with permission.

Author: admintam

Follow us on Instagram @TheAntiMedia

Share This Post On

46 Comments

  1. Lot of repetition in that article. Could have used a good editor.
    I have three major reasons not to vote for her: "We are the president;" "At this point, who cares?" and the fact that she feels entitled to the office.

    Post a Reply
  2. What a bunch of irresponsible and sloppy BS!

    For instance:
    "In 2003, Clinton voted in favor of the Iraqi invasion"

    First, it was 2002, not 3 and it was called the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. Duhhh, it's pretty hard to miss that date. So what color was Washington's white horse?

    The authorization was conditional on the necessity to use force ONLY if Iraq did not comply with UN weapons inspections. Iraq complied, no weapons were found, and George Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction, then went well beyond the authorized force to overthrow and occupy Iraq.

    Post a Reply
  3. And you didn't figure out the last time that Stein can't possibly win? It's not just our system that allows her to have to compete with corporate money, it's that Jill Stein is quite politically unaccomplished. Can you cite any actual achievement, other than to have helped Mitt Romney to become Gov of Massachusetts by spoiling off part of his vote?

    Why disenfranchise yourself? She's a nice lady with great talk, but talk is cheap and one can say anything when there's no chance of becoming elected, then being faced with honoring one's own promises.

    Post a Reply
  4. Are you trying to excuse this for Hillary? This doesn't do a very good job, she gave a pre-authorization. I don't think you're helping her if you're trying to. The intelligence was there. They shut down their WMD project years before. She knew that. They went into Iraq for the oil, not weapons.

    Post a Reply
  5. Dustin Fridley – Actually, the neocon ideology behind the invasion of Iraq was for it's strategic location which would allow the US to have a ballistic nuclear arms advantage allowing it to abandon those expensive submarines that prowl the world from the bottom of the ocean. Note, we built MASSIVE military bases but didn't take oil from Iraq. Of course the military-industrial complex benefited greatly as the war was privatized, contracted to subsidiaries of Haliburton, and defense contractors had windfall profits. What were you, like about 10 years old then?

    No, she certainly did not give "pre-authorization." She gave conditional authorization, and yes, she did know that Iraq had no WMDs and would probably cooperate with UN weapons inspectors, as did happen, because Iraq's WMD program was destroyed during Bill Clinton's Operation Desert Fox. You can spare me a lot of typing by looking these things up for yourself.

    And no, I'm not making excuses for Hillary, but merely clarifying the bullcrap that her opponents like to spread. She was a Senator as well as a Secretary of State, both positions opening the door to a LOT of realistic criticism without having to resort to BS.

    I see you are a Republican reactionary Paul fan- both Ron and Rand. Good luck with that.

    Post a Reply
  6. Phil Markham I'm not a Republican. I don't feel a need to associate exclusively with one party. I didn't really ask you to spout out all of that information. I'm understanding perfectly…I don't doubt that the Iraq invasion was also for a strategic position. I did notice that Iraq and Afghanistan surround Iran. We did funnel oil money out of Iraq however. It was through the process of rebuilding. All of the rebuilding efforts were paid for with Iraq oil money. We only hired US contractors to do this work. Therefor Iraq oil money went to US corporations. I've already done my research. I only asked if you were trying to downplay her war vote.

    Post a Reply
  7. Dustin Fridley If you believe that the Iraq Resolution was a "war vote" I'd suggest you do your homework by going back to listen to the speeches Hillary Clinton and John Kerry made at the time, as well as the testimony Hans Blix provided to congress.

    Post a Reply
  8. You act like none of this was planned. Their speeches just sounded like war propaganda to me. 911 was at best misreported(look up 2,352 architects and engineers). People in Washington weren't so naive that they didn't see what was going on, Hitlary included…Why would they give the former head of the CIA's son free power of war based on intelligence? George Sr. had something to do with the bad intelligence. The Bushes and Clintons are so well connected it's scary. Saying that wasn't a war vote seems pretty stupid to me.

    Post a Reply
  9. Countries have to comply with the UN or else. The UN is the US essentially because the US uses economic hitmen to persuade the 3rd world countries to take out massive loans on projects that will never turn a profit. The goal is to trap these countries in massive debt. Then we say vote our way or we'll cut off your foreign aid.

    Post a Reply
  10. Nonpartisan??!!? LMAO!! This was obviously written by a delusional left-wing nutjob!!!

    Post a Reply
  11. OK here's a little reality. If you look at polls, even this early in the game, the only GOP candidates, barring sudden death or totally unacceptable scandal, the only candidates with a chance at the nomination are Bush, Walker, Huckabee, Cruz and Rand. By the time you through the first 4 states or so, you're basically walker and Bush. Clinton is almost assured of the Dem nomination. I'm looking toward a Bush v Gore sort of result, and you KNOW Bush is in bed with all these people even more than Clinton, who has already announced she wants to clean up the money in politics, said that Elizabeth Warren will hold her feet to the fire on it. And I expect someone in some red state to rig the elections to end up with Bush taking it to the USSC and the GOP whores there who decided Citizens United will give us JEB. Minor parties, Rand, etc. are NOT electable. Sorry, Clinton IS a better choice then JEB, although, ironically, I fully expect the GOP to start yelling "no dynasties" as soon as it is down to JEB (3rd Bush) and Clinton (2nd Clinton) Am I cynical or what?

    Post a Reply
  12. Hillary will give the same support to women as President Obama has given to black people. NOTHING!!!

    Post a Reply
  13. What choice is there? Devil, or Deep blue sea?

    Post a Reply
  14. Phil Markham The reason Jill Stein can't win is because people like you won't vote for her. Don't blame Jeffrey Lundin for your failures.

    Post a Reply
  15. The GOP is much more horrible than Hilary. If we could have Elizabeth Warren, we would have a much better President than any running todays.

    Post a Reply
  16. Why do you say this? Both Obama and Michelle have given great support to black people and Hillary is giving great support to women. Do you know that the money givien to the charitable Clinton foundation goes to Charity rather than to Hillary or her campaign and a great part of these charities is toward bettering the plightof women around the world- even when those donations come from Arab dictators who do not treat their women right?

    Post a Reply
  17. This is obviously no bi-partisan add! The facts are very false, and accusing Clinton of doing what the opposition is actually doing. The bill relating to the Iraq war that Clinton voted for was resolution 2002, which clearly stated that force was to be used against Iraq only if U.N. forces were allowed to inspect and found weapons of mass destruction. Iraq complied allowing U.N. inspectors in many times and no wmd were ever found. Bush then lied and said there were wmd in Iraq so that he could attack Iraq to protect his and the billionaire corporations oil rights. Did you ever hear Hillary's and Kerry's impassioned speech about war with Iraq and the many times she states that she and many others were wrong to ever believe Iraq had wmd? This is just double talk to try and put the Iraq war on Hillary's shoulders while it is clearly and admittedly the doing of Bush and Cheney, who still insist that it was the right thing to do in spite of its' cost in American lives, Iraqi lives, so many wounded, and a 10 year war costing 1 trillion that left us with Iran no longer kept in check by Iraq, and the balance of warring religious factions in Iraq unchecked so that Isis is now unleashed on the world. It's the same with the statement that Hillary wants constant war for the sake of the military industrial complex and negotiates with dictators. This is ridiculous! it's the far right that is opposing Hillary that does this. Who jus sent a letter to Khomeini in Iran? Have we forgotten the diplomacy – not wars- constantly used by Hillary when she as Secretary of State? I guess this article is just a sample of the many lies we can expect to get from the billion dollars the Koch brothers are investing for them and the corporations to buy the 2016 presidency.

    Post a Reply
  18. Phil Markham And those convoys leaving Iraq for Syria were hauling toys for the kids right Phil. You dumb fuckin' liberal.

    Post a Reply
  19. No real progressive is jumping for joy that she's running, and any woman that is must think that merely possessing a set of X chromosomes is a sufficient qualification for the presidency.

    Post a Reply
  20. I can truely say I watched her on tv saying she supported the war back then.Now to say you made a mistake after the fact? Naw she too got paid from that war . Dont be fooled.

    Post a Reply
  21. I would expect Rand Paul to beat Hillary Clinton in a general election knowing what has happened between when this post was written and now. But this also means that Rand needs most if not all moderates to retire to compete with Trump and Carson. Sucks. Rand is my favorite Republican candidate. Third parties will become a bigger and bigger deal as time goes on, Jill Stein will get some media coverage and if the Libertarian party elects Rand as their nominee, he could take a state. I honestly think, crazy as this sounds, Texas is going to be the first state which is taken by the Libertarians. As more cities in Texas grow liberal, and more conservatives in Texas grow scared of big government, and people like Alex Jones, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, etc., keep getting more and more popular, mentalities are going to shift.

    In any case, now that Hillary is 49% and Bernie is 35%, and it's much closer in Iowa and New Hampshire, do you still think Hillary Clinton is a neccessary pill to swallow? Frankly, with her avoiding democratic forums and that 9/11 comment, the crazy part of me that thinks Texas will be taken by the Libertarians is also wondering if Hillary is preparing to drop out. My logic? Well, between her being unable to not humiliate herself in a debate, and most importantly so many conservatives and moderates backing a far-left Bernie Sanders (who has already got the far-left in the bag), including life-long Republicans, Bernie Sanders has a far better shot of winning a general election than Clinton. Clinton still beats most candidates, Trump, Carson, Huckabee, Cruz, Fiorina…the only ones that could beat her would be Rubio, Bush, Kasich or Paul. The only one of those four that has a realistic chance of getting the nomination is Rubio. NONE of the GOP stands a chance against Bernie Sanders.

    Post a Reply
  22. Jackie Kalaitzidakis drive within five square miles from Obamas' house in So Side of chicago and tell me if they have done aynthing. i drive everyday and it is like mars now – and it was mars before obama took office.

    Post a Reply
  23. Jim Allyn The reason she can't win is because in our fucked-up two-party system we cannot support someone who aims to split the liberal vote. Remember Nader in 2000? How many lives would have been saved if he had not splintered the Democrats and cost us Gore? We need to unite behind ONE candidate. That's how we win.

    Post a Reply
  24. Jackie Kalaitzidakis The money gets to the Foundation as payoff for political favors. It is tainted by, among other outrages, the arms sales that it has bought.

    Post a Reply
  25. John Schoonover and then there is the OTHER Choice which is BERNIE SANDERS With all the people who vote for him Getting Involved and Staying Involved and getting a Congress he can work with and repealing the rediculous treasonous CU. It's not only about the candidates…Bernie is the first one to say , he can't do it by himself… I hope people will hear, remember and ACT ..when he is presidient… Go Bernie!

    Post a Reply
  26. Jim Allyn LOL, that doesn't change the facxt that Ms Stein can not possibly win. As pointed out above, we have a 2 party entrenched system, one that won't change without a re-write of the US constitution and the laws and constitutions of 50 states.

    If Stein is so great, why doesn't she step forth by seeking the nomination of the Democratic party like Bernie has? Perhaps it's because she likes the popularity resulting from delivering a good message- but that she has absolutely no record of political accomplishment in support of that message. Anyone can make themself look good that way, it takes no leadership skills.

    Post a Reply
  27. @Mike Tomecek…having grown up on the west side of Chicago during the 50/60's I can attest to the fact that it was like Mars then and remains so now. If anything the blame should be placed at the feet of the Daley family for not having instituted broad based support for the minority communities that were basically left out to dry on their own. It is indicative of the repressive tactics that are a holdover from the Slade trading days. The socio-economic damages have been done and the carnage that we see on the streets of Chicago are a result of the ineptitudes of the city and country's leadership or lack thereof.

    Post a Reply
  28. I call "bullshit" on any post who thinks progressive support Clitnon. If you are a progressive, you DON'T support Clitnon. PTS

    Post a Reply
  29. no just no she corporate slave proven by her donors bernie is the change the for people by people

    Post a Reply
  30. Viet Buu Trieu Yes, just yes…she is my preference unless Bernied get's the nomination, in which case he'll get my vote…cheers.

    Post a Reply
  31. I'm also going to guess that you have never been sent to fight a bs crony war, like some of us. It's personal, very personal.

    Just don't claim to be a progressive. Hell, don't even claim to be a dem. It would by a lie.

    Post a Reply
  32. Yes, David. Those trucks had WMDs, the Ark, alien bodies which crashed outside of Iraq, etc. You are a real fucking genius. Just stop. You sound silly. Phil has every excuse in the book to defend Hillary. You have every excuse to defend W. That makes you two peas in a pod. But at the end of the day, you both defend crony corp whores.

    And Phil, of course we took no oil. That was NEVER the plan. It was about opening up Iraq for BUSINESS. You know, oil leases. That did happen. It's also why we are so pissy about ISIS. They are cutting into our BUSINESS, the BUSINESS of OIL. Oh and I wasn't 10 at the time. I was a 27 year old Marine.

    Post a Reply
  33. Just as long as you drag your kids on down to the military recruiter on day one. We will need the bodies.

    * I did my time in these bs wars. My boys will remain home. Plus, I'd rather die than vote for any corp crony whore. They are ALL THE SAME.

    Post a Reply
  34. You American are bizarre you hate every body and only 10% knose what is the Capitole of Canada even more who knose the name of the president of Russia lol !!!!!!!!!!!!!!?

    Post a Reply

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *