<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23580">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff><FONT size=2 face=Arial>
<DIV id=outer>
<P class=title><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 20pt" size=5><B>Hillary Clinton, the
Democratic Party’s Pro-War, Anti-Civil Liberties Front-Runner</B></FONT></P>
<DIV class=details3>John Glaser, April 29, 2014 </DIV>
<DIV id=navcontainer><A title="Print This" href=""
rel=nofollow>http://antiwar.com/blog/2014/04/29/hillary-clinton-the-democratic-partys-pro-war-anti-civil-liberties-front-runner/</A><A
title="Comment on Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party’s Pro-War, Anti-Civil Liberties Front-Runner"
href=""></A> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party’s admired
front-runner for the 2016 presidential elections, made headlines last week
when <A href="">she spoke out against</A> NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.
A<SPAN style="COLOR: #000000">t an event at the University of Connecticut
s</SPAN>he hit him with the boilerplate accusations of anti-Americanism,
questioning his motives for civil liberties and transparency by citing his
flight to human rights offenders like China and Russia, and finally
accusing him of aiding the terrorists.<BR>Some saw it as a strange tact for
Clinton, who will be trying to lock up left-of-center voters for her latent
presidential campaign. The tide would seem to be against her, given the fact
that <A href="">every branch of government</A> has acknowledged the NSA’s
overreach and the need for reform, the poll numbers in favor of NSA reform are
very high, and Snowden and the journalists he leaked to keep getting awards and
high honors all around the world.<BR>But she seemed unashamed in her
condemnation of the whistleblower and in her bold defense of the Orwellian
national security state. To be frank, Hillary Clinton has always been unashamed
of her extremely hawkish and right-wing positions on national security and
foreign policy issues.<BR>Writing at <EM>Reason</EM> magazine, Steve Chapman <A
href="">explains</A> how Clinton “<SPAN style="COLOR: #000000">is a
long-standing and unblushing advocate of frequent military intervention abroad.”
She voted for the war crime of invading Iraq, urged an even bigger surge in
Afghanistan as secretary of state, and was the leading advocate within the Obama
administration for strong military action in both Libya and Syria, Chapman
reminds us. </SPAN><BR><SPAN style="COLOR: #000000">She is even on the hawkish
end of the spectrum on Iran: “Going back to 2007, she has stressed the option of
launching airstrikes to keep Tehran from getting the bomb.”</SPAN><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<P style="COLOR: #000000">The Democratic Party, which nominated Obama because
he represented a more prudent approach to foreign policy, apparently is happy
to do a 180 with Clinton. She may relish the chance to distinguish herself
from her former boss, reports The New York Times, by “presenting herself in
her book and in any possible campaign as the toughest voice in the room during
the great debates over war and peace.” Not the wisest; the toughest.</P>
<P style="COLOR: #000000">Proving one’s toughness by endorsing war is a habit
of American politicians, particularly Democrats wary of being portrayed, as
Obama has, as naive and vacillating. This option may be even more tempting for
someone who aspires to overcome any suspicion that female politicians are
weak.</P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P style="COLOR: #000000">Is this seriously the Democratic Party’s best choice
for president in 2016? At least Obama maintained the pretense of an antiwar,
pro-transparency candidate. How embarrassing the next election will be for the
left!</P></FONT></BODY></HTML>