Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
April 28, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.

Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.

Rebel Mother

Truthdig Bazaar
Saddam Hussein: An American Obsession

Saddam Hussein: An American Obsession

Andrew Cockburn, Patrick Cockburn

Value Judgments: Essays

Value Judgments: Essays

Ellen Goodman

more items

Ear to the Ground
Email this item Print this item

Hillary Clinton:  ‘Bush Lite’?

Posted on Dec 11, 2007
Hillary Clinton
AP photo / Jose Luis Magana

Et tu, Hillary?  According to politics professor Stephen Zunes, Clinton has some ‘splainin’ to do about her international-policy ideas on several fronts.

Judging by the senator’s voting record and her position on matters of international law and human rights, political scholar Stephen Zunes believes Hillary Clinton is poised to carry on the legacy of a certain prior occupant of the White House if she’s elected next November—and it’s not the presidential predecessor that most readily comes to mind.

Foreign Policy In Focus:

Indeed, Senator Clinton’s response to the human rights abuses and violations of international law by this key strategic ally of the United States is emblematic of her disregard for international law and human rights overall.

Though an overwhelming majority of Americans, according to public opinion polls, believe that human rights should be a cornerstone of American foreign policy, Senator Clinton has repeatedly prioritized the profits of American arms manufacturers and the extension of Washington’s hegemonic reach in parts of the world. Similarly, a Hillary Clinton presidency would simply be a continuation of the efforts by the Bush administration to undermine the UN Charter and the basic international legal framework in place for much of the past century. Historically, it has been the right wing of the Republican Party that has opposed international legal restrictions on the activities of the United States and its allies to advance America’s hegemonic agenda. Now, however, the front runner for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination also shares this view, indicating a clear break with the internationalist and law-based principles espoused by such previous Democratic leaders as Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Harry Truman. Indeed, Senator Clinton’s notions of what constitutes the legitimate use of force by the United States are so extreme, she would - if elected - likely become the most aggressive-minded Democratic president since James K. Polk.

Read more



Lockerdome Below Article
Get a book from one of our contributors in the Truthdig Bazaar.

Related Entries

Get truth delivered to
your inbox every day.

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments

By Conservative Yankee, December 14, 2007 at 6:43 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

That’s a disappointing comment, CY, and especially given the mailcious drivel that has been posted on Truthdig’s Hillary articles in the past. If you aren’t a covert Republican, then some surely were - and then there were the psychotics out to smear anyone for their own pleasure, uhh.

At least ‘cyrena’ has the ability to make intelligent comments if she criticizes my postings. You could do well to learn from her…...

Again, you resort to whining (like your candidate)

As you know very well, I have addressed “the issues” in many places on this site.

I will do so again, and I expect either your usual whining, or some out-of-context cut-&-paste job.

As a board member of Walmart Hill-the business shill never once stood up for uninsured and underpaid line workers.

Hill shilled for Tyson Chicken it return they paid her in campaign contributions. Her shilling included writing exceptions to Arkansas law which allowed Tyson to continue dumping waste into the Whitewater river.

Hill is currently shilling for Bill Gates. She says that Microsoft needs to import workers because we (The USA with a 300 million population) dosent have enough talent to keep Microsoft afloat. She has called for a removal of the cap on H-1b visas. She never mentions that these new “more talented” workers will work for 12k less than US workers.

Hill-the business shill was instrumental in the Marc Rich pardon (marc being the Robert Vesco type financier that the Democrats used to hate when that type worked for R.M. Nixon.

While attempting to prove she abhores terror, she supports Bush on his foreign adventires, BUT she seems not to opposed to on-shore terrorists as she advocated the pardon for the FALN folks which set 86 bombs in and around New York, including one in my father’s office building.

As to her being a woman, if Hulk Hogan was running for president with her record, I’d be opposed to him also….as I opposed the business-shill’s fat hamburger-munching pig of a husband!

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, December 13, 2007 at 4:50 pm Link to this comment

#119939 by Conservative Yankee on 12/13: “...tell us you are working for Clinton PROFESSIONALLY then…”

That’s a disappointing comment, CY, and especially given the mailcious drivel that has been posted on Truthdig’s Hillary articles in the past. If you aren’t a covert Republican, then some surely were - and then there were the psychotics out to smear anyone for their own pleasure, uhh.

At least ‘cyrena’ has the ability to make intelligent comments if she criticizes my postings. You could do well to learn from her…...

#119951 by cyrena on 12/13 at 6:46 am: “Violating and ignoring, and refusing to respect the international community is in large part, what got us in this horrible mess to begin with. And, Hillary seems more than anxious to continue it….”

Well, here we have it, cyrena. Candidates cultivate the majority of their voters - and that equates with the lowest common denominator, intelligent or not. In reality, the majority view is the winning view in politics.

So, whatever she and her team perceive as the “what’s good for America” opinion is what she will make out that she agrees with. Likewise, Obama and others are touting a line that is perceived to be popular with their admirers.

What actually happens when one of these individuals eventually gets into the presidency is another matter entirely. Just as Bush is now constrained (?!) by the congress and the senate, they will have their limitations as well.

One will be the Fed and the Treasury as they will dictate how the forthcoming recession will be handled. The other is that you can’t just throw people out of jobs overnight, even if they are part of the military-industrial complex - and NAFTA may still be the reality.

Every industrialized nation is choking on the need to implement far-reaching reforms for climate-change imperatives that are decades overdue. Forcing these costs upon households and industries and businesses in a tight economic environment is not easy and again takes time.

Its about time everyone was a little more realistic in what can be done and how it can be done than merely screaming about their hopes and dreams. Everyone has to put some effort into change in the long run if it is to succeed and wars are to be ended.

Report this

By cyrena, December 13, 2007 at 7:46 am Link to this comment

OK Douglas,

I read the entire thing…making sure to look for ‘the goods’ in substance, and not smear. And, Scheer didn’t write the thing, so we’re not gonna blame him.(this time) Or maybe he came up with the title, (and maybe not) but ‘the goods’ came from Stephen Zunes, and he pretty much knows his stuff.

Bottom line, Hillary is looking worse and worse. I had no idea she was so ANTI the UN and International Law, ignoring all Human Rights legislation that is far more important that I suspect most of us comprehend, if only because it’s just a fact that International Law has typically remained under the average American radar. And, it has been the US practice, (SPECIFICALLY under Dick Bush) to totally violate the most important parts of it. I would argue that’s why we’re so thoroughly despised now, (along with a host of other reasons of course) but it all comes down to the current administrations’ total disregard for Int’l Law, and specifically the Human Rights portion of it. I naively believed that the dick bush regime, (and no doubt their insistence on John Bolton) to be the absolute historical worse in this. But, for all appearances, Hillary IS indeed Bush lite in this respect.

Violating and ignoring, and refusing to respect the international community is in large part, what got us in this horrible mess to begin with. And, Hillary seems more than anxious to continue it. She’s supposed to be an attorney, and yet she claims the action against Iraq was legal. That’s a bald-faced lie, that even a novice attorney could figure out. So, she’s bad news. I didn’t realize HOW bad, (at least in respect to foreign policy) she really was. Now that I do, she’s no better than one of those dumb ass religious freak repugs. (not that I’m saying she’s religious, but she’s just as bad). In foreign policy and her attitude toward international law, she might be as bad or even worse than Ron Paul, who would ALSO break from the int’l community, and withdraw all of our participation in the UN, but his position promises more to isolate us. (very bad)

Hers is to continue to defy it, and practice the same imperialism that we’ve got going now.  I’m starting to think the torture is OK with her as well. Surely she’s never condemned it in public, as Obama has.

So, I’m afraid she’s definitely earned this title. I always like to give the benefit of the doubt, and even though I’d written her off as a choice among the others a while back, I’m like REALLY not wanting to see her get anywhere now, and I don’t care if she IS a woman. Doesn’t mean she’s not the same as Dick or Lynne Chainey. Matter of fact, I think Hillary is the only democratic candidate that they would accept. I’ve even heard Chainey say as much.

And, seeing as arms and weapons systems are the #1 major export now, (maybe the only export) and she’s like GUNG HO to keep THAT going, selling to whomever will buy them, no matter what they might DO with them, that’s just another nail in her political coffin, at least for me.

That’s not to say that I don’t think she’s had a bad rap in earlier years, because she did get that. But NOW, she’s damn sure living up to it. I think we need to be working on a Obama/Kucinich ticket. (though I’d take John Edwards as well). Hill is definitely off my democratic list.

Report this

By troublesum, December 13, 2007 at 7:01 am Link to this comment

It’s hard to feel good about Bush leaving office with Lady Mcbeth waiting in the wings.  Democrats will love the Imperial Presidency with one of their own in office.  We won’t hear anything about torture or first amendment rights then.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, December 13, 2007 at 6:44 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Mr Chalmers

You’re trolling for the business shill is getting really tiresome. 

No matter what criticism is leveled against this genderless person (same as the others before you get your panties all in a bunch) you return with the timeless whining boilerplate of Clinton’s forever… “They’re picking on me cause I’m a woman”

Be honest Doug, tell us you are working for Clinton PROFESSIONALLY then, at least we would understand why you NEVER address issues, only barricades.

Obama’s black
Kucinich is short
Huckabee is a preacher
Gulliani is a cross-dressing New Yorker

NONE of these features is a 50% + draw, as is being a woman.  discrimination against the majority…. that’s really a stretch!

Report this

By Novista, December 13, 2007 at 6:29 am Link to this comment

One of the worst facets of the Hill campaign is Madeline “It’s worth it.”

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, December 12, 2007 at 11:50 pm Link to this comment

#119822 by Gandersen on 12/12: “...we are stuck voting for the lesser of two evils.  Neither party has leader who considers the American people or America during their decision making process.  The primary concern is for keeping things the way they are….. not one candidate currently running that is worth getting excited about…... It is all down hill from here….”

Whoever is eventually elected (will there be an election?) will be lumbered with what is about to happen, financially/economically and climate-wise. The choices will thus be limited but the policy differences will be significant.

As a warlike nation, the USA is being rebuffed as it shirks its responsibilies. The global climate-change conference in Bali saw the leader of the world’s largest Moslem nation spell it out for America. That’s another 300 million people who have decided they don’t like the USA, uhh.

There is nothing that Hillary Clinton can offer that is any worse than the others. “Bush-lite” is an offensive term that is only appropriate for male (supposedly non-Neocon) Republicans and is used by male sexists as a cover for their prejudices. It is not helpful in the real context of the existing alternative choices between a fool and some sleazy “conservatives”.

Report this

By Gandersen, December 12, 2007 at 6:00 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Once again we are stuck voting for the lesser of two evils.  Neither party has leader who considers the American people or America during their decision making process.  The primary concern is for keeping things the way they are, keeping the corporations and lobbyists rich and getting re-elected.

There is not one candidate currently running that is worth getting excited about.  We have seen the apex of our once great nation.  It is all down hill from here.

There will be another great depression soon and only the American people will suffer, not the powers that be who caused it by their mismanaging leadership.

A Sad day for USA is turning into a sad month, sad year, sad decade….

Report this

By Freedom Jenkins, December 12, 2007 at 2:28 pm Link to this comment

Do not let the Media dictate for whom you’re going to vote!  Kucinich or Gravel are the only two even capable of repairing America and bringing the Bush administration to justice for war crimes.

NOTE:  It is up to OUR generations, X,Y, Z, iPOD(under 40) to get involved and repair this country that OUR parents’ generation has single-handedly ruined.  Get involved on the local level so you will be prepared to run for local office the next time it opens up.  Do not believe the media!  Our generations are not apathetic or lazy, the media just focues on the OC and Hollywood to keep us distracted & demoralized.  We will continue to have shitty representatives until we decide to fill that void with incorruptible Americans from OUR generation!  The 2008 President is NOT the answer to our problems… we are! 

Get involved and make a difference!

Report this

By vet240, December 12, 2007 at 1:48 pm Link to this comment

Indeed Hillary, like Kerry is bu$h Lite. I am thowing my support in the following order, Dennis Kucinich, Barak Obama, John Edwards or Ron Paul. Hillary can go back to pimping for the Corporations in Arkansas.

Report this

By punji stick, December 12, 2007 at 11:24 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Here is a satirical sketch on Clinton. Caution: do not read while drinking your morning coffee.

Report this

By loveinatub, December 12, 2007 at 11:11 am Link to this comment

Really, Scheer, you fail to understand the value of having a WOMAN president in the 21st century.

Um, excuse me, I’m just as critical of Scheer when I disagree with him but what exactly is the value of having a WOMAN president in the 21st century???

Great Britain already had a WOMAN prime minister and what value did it bring to the world exactly???  She was a neo-con BITCH!

A WOMAN president of the United States will only have VALUE if that WOMAN is a WOMAN and not a MAN-BITCH which is exactly what Hillary is!

If you want a candidate with VALUE who make a HUGE DIFFERENCE in how the United States is seen by the rest of the world then put your money where you mouth is and vote for KUCINICH!  He has more VALUE than Hillary any day of the week!

Report this

By Ed, December 12, 2007 at 10:59 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The Democrats get my vote across the board in ‘08. If Hillary is the nominee, so be it. I can no longer throw my vote away on independent or socialist candidates. This two party system sucks but after eight years of Bush I’m resigned to choose the lesser of two evils.

Report this

By P. T., December 12, 2007 at 9:40 am Link to this comment

Hillary is what is known as a cluster bomb liberal.

Report this

By ElkoJohn, December 12, 2007 at 9:09 am Link to this comment

Hill is a Hawk, and proud of it.

Report this

By P. T., December 12, 2007 at 8:28 am Link to this comment

“Don’t be so naive, P.T. The Zionist/AIPAC/neo-CONS ‘are’ the ruling class imperialists.”

Nonsense, PMS.  They are one faction.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, December 12, 2007 at 7:15 am Link to this comment

Since the start of the race, Hillary has shown her hand, it sure looks Bush Lite to me, how she has voted shows business as usual,  nothing different, than acceptance to Bush and his plan.  Substance lacking, Hillary is not a person for change, she seems to have her finger in the wind, checking for direction where the money may come from. 

Special interests own her lock stock and barrel.

Report this

By RdV, December 12, 2007 at 6:16 am Link to this comment

Yes. Face it—she is a has-been and I can’t think of anything more disheartening than a return to another DLC presidency. That is one bleak horizon. Spare us.

Report this

By dsmith, December 12, 2007 at 5:36 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

No news here. If Israel set Palestinian women and children on fire…Hillary would call it a de-lousing program.

Report this

By Fred Roellig, December 12, 2007 at 5:10 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

There is no reason to think foreign policy under a Hillary administration will be substantially different than what it was under Bill. This war began in 1990 with the siege, and lets not forget that Bill bombed the heck out of Iraq ( ). The war in Iraq has been going rather well for us, as is evidenced by our projected presence there due to the security situation, which will not be difficult to maintain. Having a permanent force numbered in the tens of thousands over the world’s second largest easily accessible oil reserve is no bad thing. Whatever your “moral” objections to a war over this resource, the reality is that oil is the lifeblood of the world economy and regardless of short term fluctuations, the price of the stuff is going to go up. Now we control a lot more of it. The Clintons have never evidenced any kind of behavior that suggests they are against the Carter Doctrine. I fully expect the next president, from whichever party wins, to continue to try to stabilize Iraq to an optimum, not a maximum, degree, so that a successful play can be made for Iran, which has the 3rd largest oil reserve and the 2nd largest natural gas reserve in the world.

Report this

By PaulMagillSmith, December 12, 2007 at 3:47 am Link to this comment

RE: #119598 by P. T. on 12/11 at 9:26 pm
(381 comments total)

“I think if Hillary became president, and was no longer a New York senator, she possibly would kowtow less to the Zionist lobby.  But there is every reason to believe that she would shill for ruling class imperialist interests.”

Don’t be so naive, P.T. The Zionist/AIPAC/neo-CONS ‘are’ the ruling class imperialists. Hillary is what some refer to as a crypto-Jew. Look it up.

Report this

By nils cognizant, December 12, 2007 at 3:36 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

#119614 by Douglas Chalmers on 12/11 at 11:59 pm
“Scheer, you fail to understand the value of having a WOMAN president in the 21st century.”
Douglas, I have to keep on admiring your loyalty to your strong and lovely candidate, Senator Clinton. I just don’t see it, though, based on policy. What important policy initiatives..major categories like re-alignment (complete revamp top to bottom) of nuclear and conventional forces, debt-based economy and currency, consumption-based Fed Tax (dump IRS), my prev mentioned rescue of the Palestinian people from their 60-year nightmare, know the issues>>>where does your candidate fill the bill? She appears to me to be so prepared to play the gauntlet, that she’d be a female McCain.

blogisteria’s cigar-puffing grunt about making them (her) “squeal like a pig” was disgusting and unjust. Though I wish I had thought of it.

Report this

By blogisteria, December 12, 2007 at 2:55 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)


Does Limbuagh do oxy? The Clinton’s have taken their marching orders from Bilderberg for decades. Get hip to the program folks. The New World Oligarchy runs it all. Only one solution. Take ‘em down. Put their faces in the dirt and give it to ‘em. Bloody and Deep! Make ‘em squeal like the pigs they are. Where’s Robspierre when you need him?

Report this

By Thomas Billis, December 12, 2007 at 2:01 am Link to this comment

Finally someone with a grip on reality.She voted for a ridiculous war in lock step with Geworge Bush.Then she votes the Lieberman Kyle ammendment to start the process to go to war with Iran.She is a trusted advisor of the President who only advised him to do the things that worked everything else was Bill’s idea.She is the largest recipient of HMO dollars on the democratic side.What groundbreaking liberal program has Hillary put her name on in 7 years in Congress.She has been fighting for 35 years for ways to cast votes with the republicans the last 7 years.Hillary Clinton has never been the liberal that the right has painted her.Compare her record to a true liberal like Ted Kennedy and see where she comes up.I know that Hillary’s supporters are going to fill these pages with stinging rebuke of this article.I will take my leave with Sen Moynihan’s apro pos quote"You are entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts.”

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, December 12, 2007 at 12:59 am Link to this comment

Is this Robert Scheer on his duboius anti-Hillary bandwagon again? Pick a foreign policy issue or three because you’re unable to find anything to criticize in her domestic policies. How disgustingly cheap - and sexist!

What are the Democrats these days but a pack of panderers to AIPAC and the military-industrial establishment, anyway? That is what you have all been voting for when you wanted full employment because it is the munitions and armament factories and the military providing jobs.

How do they provide jobs in everybody’s electorates? By going to war, of course, uhh. And how do they get to have wars to fight? By starting them, of course! That IS US “foreign policy” in a nutshell. But, if you want to find a “Bush-lite”, go look in the Republican party, huh…....

You are back to your same old male sexist whine about “she is Bill’s wife”, etc etc. Really, Scheer, you fail to understand the value of having a WOMAN president in the 21st century. But, worst of all, you keep wanting to divide up the Democrats so that there inevitably will be another Republican president.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, December 12, 2007 at 12:40 am Link to this comment

Well…Clinton is out…. she’s one of the pack, of wolves that is.  The ONLY way for the corps to win is to cheat.  Let’s make that extremely difficult.

On an infotainment note, check this out:

Report this

By Frank - An American Patriot, December 11, 2007 at 11:44 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

As much as I prefer Democrats to Republicans it’s sad to see them get so much of their money and, ipso facto, marching orders from AIPAC and the Zionist lobby, whose connections with the neo-cons and the plan to invade Iraq and dominate the Middle East are very well documented. I think this is why Hillary won’t repudiate her vote for the war. She knows that one of the main reasons for the war was to separate the Iranians from the Israelis with a friendly buffer state regime in Iraq. Too bad it was so badly mismanaged. Notice how she is primarily focused in the mismanagement of the war and not the basic premise thereof. I don’t believe she thinks the war was such a bad idea. If she did repudiate that vote then Mssr. Haim Saban and her buddies in AIPAC would turn off the spigot. You watch – she will far outstrip the other Dems in fundraising from the Zionist lobby.

Except for some cosmetic changes things will be business as usual in Washington come 2009. In this presidential campaign we will avoid discussing the real reasons behind Islamic fury, the causes and solutions to the “war on terror” and the attacks of 9/11; namely our unbalanced support for the Israeli government and their imposition of apartheid on and oppression of the Palestinians.

If we held the Israelis to the same standard we accused Saddam of flouting there would be peace in Palestine and Israel. 90% of the Islamic fury would evaporate and Osama bin Laden would be just another fundamentalist in the wilderness.

But since America cannot see past the propaganda and any discussion of this issue is immediately met with cries of anti-Semitism (i.e. the furor over Jimmy Carter’s latest book) don’t look for much of a change when it comes to our foreign policy.

Think about it – you know its true. The UN didn’t equate Zionism with Racism without reason.

“Same as it ever was…”

Report this

By P. T., December 11, 2007 at 10:30 pm Link to this comment

Remember that Hillary spent most of her working life as a corporate lawyer.  She is used to shilling for elite interests.  She identifies with them.

Report this

By P. T., December 11, 2007 at 10:26 pm Link to this comment

I think if Hillary became president, and was no longer a New York senator, she possibly would kowtow less to the Zionist lobby.  But there is every reason to believe that she would shill for ruling class imperialist interests.

Report this

By Enemy of State, December 11, 2007 at 10:24 pm Link to this comment

Unfortunately I think you are largely right. I think you likely overstate the case a bit. Obama would not differ much either. Edwards or Richardson would likely be a lot better, but neither one is going to get the nomination. The basic problem is that we are a militaristic people. We fall for this stuff, and especially we fall for the crap about non-belligerant office seekers being weak.

  At least Hillary or Obama are very unlikely to seek new military misadventures, but neither seems likely to extricate us from our Iraqi nightmare. Our choice in 08 is really between bad, and much-much worse. I choose bad, and try to educate our population away from our arrogant belligerance one person at a time. Only when enough of the people wakeup, do we have hope of real change.

Report this
Right Top, Site wide - Care2
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide

Like Truthdig on Facebook