HILLARY... THE WAR GODDESS SHE MUST BE STOPPED AT ANY PRICE
Dr Fuji Kamikase
By: Justin Raimondo
If the Kosovo war, the bombing of the USS Cole, and the growing
hatred of the US around the world is not enough to give American
conservatives second thoughts about our policy of global
intervention, then surely Hillary Rodham Clinton's recent attack
on "isolationism" ought to clinch the case for the America
Firsters. The US, said Hillary in a speech given at the Manhattan
headquarters of the prestigious Council on Foreign Relations,
must "avoid isolationism" and follow a doctrine of "international
engagement." What does this mean? The Hill, as the New York Post
likes to call her, did not get very specific: instead, she
sternly addressed the (presumably) Republican opponents of global
meddling:
"To those who believe we should become involved only if it is
easy to do, I think we have to say that America has never and
should not ever shy away from the hard path if it is the right
one. I believe America needs a renewed internationalism, not an
old isolationism."
NEWFANGLED LIBERALS
Old is bad, of course, and new is good. Having abandoned (indeed,
reversed) their onetime antiwar stance, today's liberals have at
least retained their loyalty to the newfangled. But, hey, wait a
minute: what's so "new" about internationalism, anyway? The
American people have been handed this line since 1914, for
god'ssakes, ever since Woodrow Wilson dragged us into a European
war that soon led to another. Heck, the Roosevelts, both Teddy
and Franklin, derided non-interventionists as cowards, sissies,
traitors, and worse – and the same line of guff was handed out
during the cold war, this time by conservatives. In the post-cold
war era we are hearing it from the left again, straight from the
pursed lips of the First Lady Herself. In her most extensive
treatment of foreign policy issues to date, Hillary Rodham
greeted her fellow warmongers at the CFR by thanking the Council
"for what you have done and stood for over the last century. To
challenge the forces of isolationism and champion
internationalism, reflecting both in our enduring values and our
strategic interest." In short, there's nobody here but us
interventionists, so let's get down to brass tacks.
MURKY WATERS
God, how ungrammatical and deadly dull a speech it was! Filled
with malapropisms – "But these are albeit a necessary, but not
sufficient understanding of the world in which we live and lead"
– the speech was the verbal equivalent of a startled squid
secreting a protective cloud of murk. The murk, however, was lit
up with strings of bright code words and catch-phrases: "This new
internationalism must be shaped, of course, to meet new
challenges," and "Second, new challenges require new thinking
about national interest and security." But of course. Our "core
values" determine that we must "stand by Israel" during the
current Middle East crisis. Ad infinitum, ad nauseum. The effect
was to give Hillary's talk a hectoring and sloganeering style, as
if it had been written in some Orwellian Newspeak of her own
invention, an abbreviated staccato language known only to
internationalists.
STYLE AND SUBSTANCE
Why is it that us isolationists always have the best orators? One
thinks of Senator William C. Borah ("the Lion of Idaho"), William
Jennings Bryan, and Patrick J. Buchanan. The other side hasn't
had a star performer since Franklin Delano Roosevelt went on to
his just reward: one thinks of the pipsqueakish Harry Truman (a
terrible speaker), the tin-mannish Al Gore, and, worst of all,
the grim harridan Hillary Rodham Clinton. But the
interventionists rarely address the people directly, and so they
don't have to worry so much about the niceties of style: just as
long as politicians like Hillary get their message across to the
people who really matter – don't worry, guys, I'm with you all
the way.
A TERRIBLE RIGHTEOUSNESS
The Council on Foreign Relations is, of course, the
organizational incarnation of the foreign policy establishment, a
bipartisan alliance of big business, big government, and bigtime
academia that traces its roots back those well-born Anglophiles
and New York banking circles so eager to get us into World War I.
Sizing up her audience, like any New York City ward-healer,
Hillary told them what she thought they wanted to hear: she
attacked the "refrain" that "that we should intervene with force
only" in the cases of "wars that we surely can win, preferably by
overwhelming force in a relatively short period of time." Clearly
presenting herself as the Joan of Arc of a newly militant
internationalism, she pronounced anathema on those evil
"isolationists" and scolded them for their lack of her own
terrible righteousness:
"To those who believe we should become involved only if it is
easy to do, I think we have to say: America has never and should
not ever shy away from the hard task if it is the right one. Just
because we are living in a new and uncertain world, it does not
mean we cannot continue to exercise our leadership."
NONE TOO THRILLED
While this received hearty applause from the mandarins in
attendance, the New York Post reports that
"Not everyone in the audience was thrilled with her speech. One
man said her doctrine amounted to a 'new imperialism' and asked
her if she believed in President Kennedy's vow at his 1961
inaugural to "pay any price, bear any burden" in helping other
countries. Clinton replied: 'I do not believe we should pay any
price or bear any burden. That is an extreme statement that I
certainly could not ascribe to. I think we should pay appropriate
price for appropriate return in advancing our interests.'"
It may come as a surprise to her fellow Democrats to learn that
John F. Kennedy was an extremist, but then this startling
revelation didn't seem to bother members of the Kennedy clan who
later joined her on the campaign trail.
MARBLES AND MARMALADE
"An appropriate price for appropriate return" – a curiously empty
and soul-less formulation, a cold phrase that may one day come
back to haunt her, especially if she fulfills her long-rumored
presidential ambitions. How many American lives is, say, Israel
worth? What about Kosovo? How is this amoral calculus to be
calculated? By what standard are we to judge when a "return" on
our investment in lives and treasure is "appropriate"? Just who
is getting this "return," anyhow – and what form does it take? So
many questions, and so few answers. Does she mean campaign
contributions – or just the intangible psychic reward of watching
our "core values" – as she puts it – "spread all around the
world" like marmalade oozing over a marble?
THE ORACLE SPEAKS
Like the ancient Sibyl who presided over the Delphic Oracle,
Hillary often speaks in riddles and her language is meant to
obscure rather than illuminate her ultimate goals. But of one
thing we can be sure: this Amazon has a warlike agenda, and she
has to be stopped – yes, even at the price of voting for the
prepubescent Rick Lazio.
SHE'S NO FOOL
She may be evil, but Hillary is no fool. She knows that the
constituency for our foreign policy of global intervention is
narrow. The First Lady bemoans the lack of support for overseas
"engagement" – she never uses the word "war," of course, although
her husband started more than any President in modern history –
and she scolds the business elite for not being internationalist
enough:
"If we are serious about combating any of our long term global
challenges then would have to create a broader, deeper, stronger
constituency for engagement. I think one of our greatest threats
to an international leadership is not just opposition to those
who probably don't have passports, but apathy of those who do.
And this is from polling data and research information from the
1960s. And it was striking to me how business leaders understood
clearly the need for a bipartisan foreign policy and a very
strong presence in support of American leadership. That has
certainly changed over the last decade. That's where people's
eyes often glaze over when we are talking about foreign policy
issues we clearly need to bring home the stakes in these issues
put human faces on them but we need leadership in the private
sector and the public sector to do that."
HILLARY'S "MARSHALL PLAN"
Hillary is right to be worried about the popularity of her
husband's foreign adventures: support for the Clintonian
"humanitarian" version of global interventionism is narrow,
shallow, and weakening among the very classes it is meant to
benefit: the elites in business and academia, who, in the past,
have provided a key base of support for our bipartisan policy of
global meddling. Business wants to know why we have to export our
wealth to Eastern Europe and the third world, and redistribute US
tax dollars in the name of a new Marshall Plan. This is what
Hillary is touting, along with Al Gore, but the Marshall Plan was
specific to the time and place in which it occurred. Postwar
Europe was in ruins, and, while critics maintained that the only
path to European recovery was in freeing up markets, and that the
plan amounted to a windfall subsidy for US exporters, at least a
superficially plausible case was made for massive US aid in the
wake of a devastating world war. But what is the justification
this time? There has been no devastating war in Europe, except
the one started by her husband against the people of a sovereign
state who had never attacked us – and who were subjected to
devastating economic sanctions, up until very recently. If she is
talking about paying reparations to the people of Yugoslavia for
the effects of the barbaric bombing and the brutal sanctions,
then yes, I'm all for it – but what do we need a "Marshall Plan"
for a post-cold war Europe in which the Soviet bloc imploded
without a shot being fired?
. . . AND THE MOURNERS
That is why peoples' eyes glaze over when the old-fashioned
rhetoric of interventionism is rolled out once more, and Uncle
Sam assumes his aspect as the Bulwark of the West, the Defender
of Global Peace, the Great Humanitarian Interventionist. They
listen politely, but aren't fooled. They know we cannot save the
"problem" peoples of the world, not from their own Byzantine
history, and surely not from themselves. Those Arab boys will be
heaving rocks at Israeli occupiers unto eternity, or however long
the occupiers decide to stay, whichever comes first. The Kosovars
will always hate the Serbs, and vice-versa, inter-tribal warfare
will wrack Africa far into the foreseeable future, and all plans
to suburbanize Colombia will come to naught. Furthermore, there
is nothing Hillary Rodham Clinton – and all the gathered might of
the United States armed forces – can do about it. But oh, the
misery they will cause in the process of proving themselves
wrong: the trouble and the bloodshed, the body-bags – and the
mourners, who will ask: What did they die for?
PRESIDENT HILLARY – THE NIGHTMARE UNFOLDS
It is no secret that Hillary Rodham wants to be President: in
playing with her Ouija board, communing (as she often does,
according to her own account) with Eleanor Roosevelt, one can
only imagine the conversation:
" Eleanor, why didn't you run for President?"
"I didn't have to, my dear. . . ."
HILLARY'S BOMBS OVER BELGRADE
But Hillary is not one to stay at home baking cookies, nor is she
content to play the power behind the throne. Remember, it was she
who really bullied her hapless husband into ordering the bombing
of Yugoslavia: she called him up and argued that the Serbs were
engaged in "genocide" on the scale of the Holocaust – and
reportedly threatened him with some pretty dire but unspecified
consequences if the air raid sirens weren't wailing over Belgrade
and soon. What she clearly wants, most of all, is not to have to
get on the horn with anybody but the Joint Chiefs of Staff – and
then only long enough to give the order to attack. . . .
TRICK OR TREAT!
As a member of the US Senate, representing the key state of New
York, she will be within striking range of reaching her goal. If
and when she reaches it, God help us all. The rigid righteousness
of this woman, combined with the armed might of the US, would
constitute a lethal and immediate threat to all the world's
peoples. For no one would be safe from her "humanitarian"
ministrations, from bombing to outright invasion, from Inner
Ruthenia to Outer Mongolia. It is scary, this Halloween season,
to ponder the ominous prospect of President Hillary Rodham
Clinton, but it is a possibility that cannot be discounted. If
Gore fails, who will face Bush in 2004? Isn't it time for a woman
President: and not just any woman, but Hillary the amazonian War
Goddess, Pallas Athena in full armor and wielding a sword?
PAY ANY PRICE
She must be stopped. In pursuit of that end we must be willing to
pay any price, bear any burden – yes, we must even be willing to
vote for Lazio, whose foreign policy positions are for the most
part either incoherent or indefensible – to make sure this amazon
never leaves her tent and ventures forth on the field of battle.
The peace of the whole world depends on it.
Justin Raimondo is Editorial Director of AntiWar.Com
We invite you to visit their website. They may be contacted at
ega...@antiwar.com
Published in the October 27, 2000 issue of Ether Zone Copyright
© 2000 Ether Zone (http://etherzone.com) Reposting permitted
with this message intact.
We invite your comments on this article in our forum!
God Bless America
Fuji
"IT IS TIME FOR THEM TO GO! Defeat Gore and Ramrod Clinton in November."
(T- 91 days until eviction and delousing the White House!)
Docky Wocky
"I believe America needs a renewed internationalism..."
____________________________
What if she wins?
This brings up some serious questions. Can a pathologic liar be permitted to
even go through the motions of taking an oath of office? Looking at her
record, it is obvious that there is no legal, binding, pressure, or threat
of retribution for failing to tell the truth that would even phase her, if
and when she pretends to go throught a swearing in ceremony.
The safest course is to eliminate her before it comes to making a mockery of
the Constitution. Oaths of office have no meaning to an athiestic,
anti-American, internationalist, marxist, feminist, nazi.
She will devote herself to further destruction of the former United States
of America. And that is only the good part.