Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Has Hillary Clinton moved the US State Department to the right of Condoleezza Rice?

Expand Messages
  • Peter Dow
    Well here is another article critical of Hillary Clinton s running of the US State Deparment but from a quite different perspective.   I am not sure what to
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 21, 2009
    • 0 Attachment

      Well here is another article critical of Hillary Clinton's running of the US State Deparment but from a quite different perspective.


      I am not sure what to make of Wayne Madsen's article below as I am against right-wing fascist death squads as much as most people but then John Negroponte was appointed as Condi's deputy at the State Department and I can't see Condi supporting fascist death-squads so why would Condi allow someone who was running death-squads to deputise for her? If that is true about Negroponte then it is a puzzle and only Condi could shed light on it.


      The article also implies that there is something embarrassing about American Democrats co-operating with Republicans or supporting Israel and normally I would stop reading right there but there was more to the article than that so I read on.


      In response to the article I would say that in general terms, there is fighting for freedom and democracy and there is fighting as a fascist to impose the goals of global capitalists and they are not the same fight - not the same fight at all!


      Fascist global capitalists might be tempted to use fascist death-squads to eliminate progressive governments, trade unionists or environmentalist critics who were threatening profits.


      Freedom fighters for democracy would never use undemocratic coups and death-squads and in fact would oppose such tactics 100%.


      Those who support private industry and properly regulated capitalism should like Condi does make their case in open debate and at the ballot box and you fight only for the freedom to have that open debate and democratic government. if you lose the argument and the vote you respect that, accept an opportunity could be lost and if necessary, you walk away and take your investment elsewhere.


      Like the song goes, "You gotta know when to hold em, know when to fold em. Know when to walk away, when to run".  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu5W9G8s9YQ


      No-one in the corporate world should sink to the fascist depths of trying to subvert the US military and misdirect them into covert actions to eliminate progressive governments, trade unionists, environmentalists or others who stand in the way of profits by means of coups and death squads.


      Not only is fascism bad for the victims but such tactics store up a lot  of problems for everyone in the long run. There was a CIA/MI6 inspired coup to remove a progressive government from Iran in the early 1950s and impose the Shah and look how that turned out - a counter-coup which imposed a theocratic regime and global capitalists lost everything! Fascist coups and death squads are never the way!


      I am getting the impression from this article that the negotiating and diplomacy arm of the US (the US State Department) is failing and instead the far right and their so-called "solutions" to political problems are becoming ascendant in the US State Department and maybe some multinational companies are being advised to resort to fascist tactics to get their way as they once did.


      All because with Condi gone there is now no-one at the US State Department to give a better more powerful democratic lead.


      It is just a impression now but I do have a bad feeling about Hillary Clinton and I would really like Condi to be back in charge of the US State Department so that we can all sleep at night knowing the world is in safe hands.


      I have no proof whether Clinton or Obama or whoever is the problem exactly yet but it is definitely a bad feeling right about now.


      Anyway, read the article below and see what you think. Have I got the wrong end of the stick?


      - Peter Dow




      Hillary Clinton moves State Department to the right of Condoleezza Rice
      By Wayne Madsen
      Online Journal Contributing Writer

      Jul 21, 2009, 00:19


      (WMR) -- Although the State Department under Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was a hotbed of neoconservative intrigue and secret operations, not one progressive democratically-elected Latin American leader was ousted by a U.S.-inspired military coup, although there were a number of abortive attempts. However, that situation has changed under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who has given off mixed signals about the military junta that overthrew Honduras’s progressive President Manuel Zelaya late last month.


      Clinton met Zelaya at the Organization of American States summit at San Pedro Sula, Honduras, just a few weeks prior to the coup d’état, which is now reported by both Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Bolivian President Evo Morales to have been carried out with the active support of the U.S. Southern Command in Miami, as well as U.S. military personnel at the Soto Cano/Palmerola airbase, a U.S. base that Zelaya planned to transform into a commercial international airport over the opposition of the U.S. military advisers who lord over the Honduran military. Many of Honduras’s senior officers, including the coup leaders, were trained by the notorious Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation in Fort Benning, Georgia, the old “School of the Americas.”


      Clinton reciprocated Zelaya’s hospitality by refusing to call the coup against Zelaya a “coup.” Such an utterance would have legally required the Obama administration to cut off all aid, including economic, to Honduras under the US Foreign Assistance Act.


      Clinton’s ambassador in Tegucigalpa, Hugo Llorens, a right-wing Cuban exile from southern Florida’s hotbed of reactionary support for Latin American oligarchs, was also accused by Honduran loyalists of supporting the coup.


      Clinton began talking out of both sides of her mouth. While calling for the return of Zelaya to the presidency, she also spoke directly to Honduran junta “president” Roberto Micheletti, unrecognized by every other world leader, and then began making noise about two sides to the “coup” story and that Zelaya did not necessarily have to be returned to power. This is quintessential Hillary Clinton: the bald-faced lie with a straight face is her trademark as much as it was with “Tricky Dick” Nixon.


      While Clinton engaged in her dalliance with the junta leaders, she also stated that Iran was building a “super embassy’ in Nicaragua, where Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega, an ally of Zelaya, is president. The claim of an Iranian embassy in Managua was yet another bald-faced lie out of the mouth of Clinton, who is now seen as a gringa tool throughout much of Latin America. It was Clinton’s inane attempt, under the influence of her neocon pro-Israeli advisers, to restore the 1980s Latin American world of the Iran-contra nexus, with a slight twist: rather than Iran paying indirectly for weapons for the anti-Sandinista contras, it was now buttressing the Sandinista government in Nicaragua.


      It was then announced that Clinton’s presidential campaign adviser Lanny Davis, a consummate Washington, DC, slime merchant and ardent Zionist, became a paid shill for the pro-Honduran junta Honduran Chamber of Commerce, CEAL. Davis is reportedly coordinating his activities with Republican members of the Congress who support the junta, including Cuban-American reactionary Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL), as well as Otto Reich, George W. Bush’s Cuban-American Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs who worked overtime to overthrow Chavez in Venezuela and Morales in Bolivia.


      It would not be the first time that Hillary’s entourage made common cause with Republicans but more on that later.


      Another Clinton lobbyist pal, Bennett Ratcliff, was hired on by the coup leaders to advise them in their negotiations with President Zelaya in Costa Rica. Those negotiations were mediated by Costa Rican President Oscar Arias. Arias has his own conflict-of-interest with Clinton. The Costa Rican president, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, is quite chummy with the globalist moneybags pal of Clinton, George Soros. Clinton’s other two friends, professional election advisers James Carville and Stanley Greenberg, have promoted the election campaigns of Arias’s pro-free trade allies in Latin America. Zelaya scrapped his participation in such contrivances by allying with the counter-free trade movement spearheaded by Hugo Chavez, the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas or “ALBA,” which also means “Dawn” in Spanish.


      Last Wednesday, Clinton sent another troublesome message to the people of Honduras. She gave a major foreign policy address to the Council on Foreign Relations. Her audience included her one-time Iran adviser and anti-Iran hawk and Lanny Davis chum Dennis Ross, now kicked upstairs to the National Security Council, but also a man who epitomizes the dark days of U.S. military and covert involvement in Central America; George W. Bush’s former Director of National Intelligence, ambassador to Iraq, and UN Ambassador John Negroponte, who was also the U.S. ambassador to Honduras during Iran-contra days and literally ran U.S.-sponsored death squads. Clinton was obviously sending a message with Negroponte’s appearance that she feels that revelations that Dick Cheney ran his own death squads around the world are perfectly fine with her.


      Clinton has also laid down a gauntlet to the progressive leaders of Venezuela and Ecuador. Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa gave the U.S. military its walking papers from its military airbase at Manta on the Pacific coast. Clinton has responded to Ecuador’s and Venezuela’s desire to see a reduced U.S. military presence in their Andean region by signing off on a Pentagon plan concocted under the aegis of her “new friend,” Secretary of Defense Bob Gates, to establish up to five U.S. military bases in narco-fascist ruled Colombia. Three airbases are planned for Palanquero, northwest of Bogota;Apiay in eastern Colombia, near Venezuela; and Malambo in the north on the Caribbean coast. Two U.S. naval facilities are planned for Malaga Bay on the Pacific and Cartagena on the Caribbean. The military base deal is a direct threat to Venezuela and Ecuador. It also sends a message to the right-wing paramilitaries in Colombia that as far as Mrs. Clinton is concerned, the past is prologue -- the Mena, Arkansas, cocaine pipeline supported by her husband, then-Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton, may soon be open for business again.


      Mrs. Clinton has always seemed to have an affinity for fascists and their fellow travelers. She has written of “The Family” Christian cult leader Doug Coe, who provides housing on C Street on Capitol Hill for a number of conservative Republican and a few Democratic congressmen and senators, as “a unique presence in Washington: a genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to deepen his or her relationship with God.” However, Coe’s record shows that the only people he wants to “deepen his relationship” with are a number of tinhorn dictators around the world, including past military junta leaders in Honduras, Guatemala, and other Latin American countries.


      Hillary Clinton comes off as a progressive but her family background yells out a clear “no” to that notion. According to Bill Clinton, Hillary’s father, Hugh E. Rodham, a Barry Goldwater Republican in the 1960s, casually used the word “nigger” until after Bill Clinton was sworn in as president. One can hear Mr. Rodham coming home from central Chicago to his upper middle class home in Park Ridge, a Chicago suburb, and railing against the “niggers” downtown. How did Hillary respond? Well, the good progressive she was, she volunteered in 1964 to be a “Goldwater Girl” and supported the GOP presidential candidate whose only electoral votes that year were his home state of Arizona and the Deep South segregationist states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina. But outside those states, there was another hotbed of Goldwater support: the Park Ridge home of Hillary Clinton.


      The French have a saying that applies to exasperating dilemmas represented by Mrs. Clinton: “plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose” -- the more things change, the more they stay the same.” 

      --- On Sat, 18/7/09, Peter Dow <peterdow@...> wrote:

      From: Peter Dow <peterdow@...>
      Subject: [rice-for-president] Condi 2005 VS Hillary 2009. [Re: Condoleezza Rice gives GOP advice at Reagan Library.]
      To: rice-for-president@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Saturday, 18 July, 2009, 3:46 AM

      Well when Condi said at the Reagan Library that she personally took an oath not to comment on the Obama administration, saying “we owe them our silence and support.”
      The "we" there meant whom exactly?
      Condi and former President Bush perhaps, because they both have the ear of President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton to give advice when required, might be a fair assumption.
      Former Vice President Cheney has not been silent but then maybe Obama is not listening to Cheney's private advice?
      Condi can't mean Congress because what is the point of having a Congress if it is silent and supports the president 100% all the time and just rubber-stamps the president's wishes?
      Condi has said she doesn't want the press and the media to be silent and supportive of Obama. Condi said she regrets the demise of the independence and depth of analysis of newspapers. That'll be our cue to speak out then.
      Well Rice for President Yahoo Group dares to go beyond the 30 second sound bite and the red carpet photographs (though we do those too if it is Condi's sound bite or photograph).
      After all, if this group owed Obama our silence and support then we would call ourselves a "re-elect Obama 2012" group (we don't, we won't )
      So in the spirit of supporting in-depth analysis and criticism, here is an article I surfed across today which is not silent and which is not 100% supportive of the Obama administration and I found it an interesting read because I really would like to see an Condi VS Hillary debate sometime.
      - Peter Dow,
      Group Owner, Rice for President Yahoo Group
      The Invisible Secretary of State: Hillary Clinton's Failure of Leadership on the World Stage
      WebMemo #2548
      http://www.heritage .org/Research/ WorldwideFreedom /wm2548.cfm

      As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton has been almost as elusive as the Scarlet Pimpernel. Her profile on the world stage has been significantly lower than that of her immediate predecessors, Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell, who were highly prominent figures in their first six months in office. In marked contrast, Clinton has struggled to make her mark as an international leader and has on several occasions been embarrassingly overshadowed by Vice President Joe Biden on foreign affairs issues ranging from Israel to Iraq. She has also been marginalized by the White House's appointment of a series of special envoys and special representatives on issues such as the Middle East peace process, Sudan, and Afghanistan/ Pakistan.
      Clinton's low-key and at times overly cautious approach is symbolic of the Obama Administration' s floundering foreign policy--one significantly lacking in coherence and direction. Her underwhelming address to the Council on Foreign Relations[1] in Washington this week merely reinforced the image of a confused foreign policy and an American leadership hugely uncomfortable with the idea of a United States as the world's only superpower.
      Lacking in strength and vision, and extraordinarily naïve for a post-9/11 world, Clinton's see-no-evil- hear-no-evil speech was one of the weakest delivered by a secretary of state in modern times. It was a speech that could easily have been written by a bureaucrat sitting in Brussels or Turtle Bay, surveying an imaginary world where the United States is merely one of several equal players rather than the most powerful nation on the face of the earth.
      Clinton's Council on Foreign Relations Speech
      Despite being her most important speech so far as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton's July 15 address to the Council on Foreign Relations failed to make an impact. It was more a damp squib rather than a powerful policy statement--largely a tired retread of the failing foreign policy doctrine of "smart power" instead of a clear-headed assessment of major foreign policy challenges.
      Clinton's speech was full of grand references to "creative partnerships for development, " a "multi-partner world," and a new "architecture of global cooperation" but remarkably short on clear policy prescriptions. Strikingly, the United States' most important international partnership, the Anglo-American Special Relationship, was not even mentioned.
      Clinton's speech was also distinctly lacking in any serious assessment of the huge threats faced by the United States from an array of state and non-state actors alike, including rogue regimes such as Iran and North Korea as well as a global network of Islamist terrorists. There was no sense at all that the U.S. was engaged in a global war against an enemy seeking America's destruction or that Washington was faced with an array of adversaries seeking to dominate Asia and the Middle East through nuclear might.
      Missile defense, a vital component of any preparation against future attack by Iran or North Korea, did not even merit a mention, nor did the sacrifice and service of hundreds of thousands of American servicemen and women bravely defending the free world. Finally, the secretary of state spent little time discussing the importance of human rights and barely mentioned the concept of freedom--a significant exclusion.
      Given the number of critical issues garnering little or no mention, it is clear that the CFR speech was a hugely idealistic exercise in wishful thinking at a time when the world has never been more dangerous.
      A Flawed Strategy of Engagement
      The naïve principle of "engagement" lay at the very heart of Clinton's CFR speech. The rising threat from Pyongyang barely merited discussion in Clinton's analysis, except for a rather optimistic boast about "two unanimous Security Council resolutions with real teeth and consequences for North Korea." The secretary of state pointedly avoided any direct criticism of Kim Jong-Il and his tyrannical regime and made no reference at all to the fact that North Korea had recently fired a range of ballistic missiles and even tested a nuclear bomb. The mass starvation of millions of North Koreans by the regime in Pyongyang was also conveniently swept under the carpet, as was continuing human rights violations by China and Russia.
      Nor did Clinton directly condemn Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by name, or any other of the country's Islamist rulers, for the brutal murder and suppression of protestors on the streets of Tehran following last month's rigged elections. While conceding that she was "appalled by the manner in which the government used violence to quell the voices of the Iranian people," Clinton made it clear she remained firmly committed to direct talks with Tehran over Iran's nuclear ambitions and emphasized "the importance of offering to engage Iran and giving its leaders a clear choice." There was no reference to what measures the United States and its allies should take against Iran if it failed to halt its uranium enrichment program, thereby neutering any threats of further economic and political sanctions--let alone the potential use of military power.
      In contrast to her tough rhetoric on the Iranian nuclear issue when she campaigned for the presidency, Hillary Clinton has adopted a remarkably dove-like tone while in office, extending the hand of friendship to a brutal dictatorship elected through ballot rigging and intimidation. Like President Obama, the secretary of state remained largely silent during the immediate aftermath of the Iranian elections and, in an effort to not offend the Iranian leadership, completely avoided referring to the re-election of Ahmadinejad as fraudulent. This was a cowardly approach, one that significantly undercut America's image as a great nation that will always stand up for the cause of liberty and freedom in the face of tyranny.
      The Obama Administration has made a greater effort than any U.S. Administration in history to extend the hand of friendship to unsavory regimes. There is barely a tyranny on the face of the earth that has not been earmarked for "engagement, " from Tehran to Caracas to Khartoum. The Obama/Clinton doctrine is increasingly defined by a refusal on the part of the Administration to take an aggressive stand against despotism and by the relegation of human rights concerns to the bottom of the well of foreign policy issues.
      Obama/Clinton Doctrine: Fraught with Peril
      There are many dangers inherent in this strategy, including lending the veneer of respectability to dictatorships that crave international acceptance when none is merited. Such an approach will swiftly undermine the activities of opposition movements and non-governmental organizations operating in repressive societies--organiza tions that rely upon the isolation of their governments within the international community to seek democratic reforms and political change.
      This doctrine also buys valuable time for regimes such as Iran to advance their nuclear programs and erodes international pressure to strengthen sanctions. By adopting the European Union's policy of "constructive engagement" with Tehran, the United States has given Ahmadinejad a new lease on life, with the Iranian tyrant acting in an increasingly aggressive and assertive fashion, with the knowledge that the U.S. is now highly unlikely to use force against his nuclear facilities.
      A Dazed and Confused Foreign Policy
      Clinton's underwhelming performance so far as secretary of state is representative of a U.S. foreign policy that projects weakness rather than strength and is leaving the United States increasingly vulnerable in the face of an array of enemies. She has sorely disappointed those who argued that she would toughen the President's position on key international issues, especially the Iranian nuclear threat.
      The brutal reality is that rather than strengthening Washington internationally, the much-hyped Obama/Clinton doctrine of "smart power" is an empty shell that masks a strategy for America's decline as a world power. The long-term strength and security of the United States depends ultimately upon strong defenses, including the launch of a global missile defense system as well as the advancement of economic and political freedom across the globe.
      America's position as a superpower is being weakened by President Obama and Secretary Clinton's failure to stand up to tyranny, and their rash embrace of odious dictators will ultimately tarnish America's image. An Administration that chooses to appease evil rather than confront it will ultimately decline in credibility both at home and abroad, in turn leaving the homeland more vulnerable to attack.
      Not a Popularity Contest
      World leadership is not a popularity contest. Rather, it is about making tough decisions and adopting positions that will be met with hostility in many parts of the globe. It is about the assertive projection of American power, both to secure the United States and to protect the free world. Such leadership is often a lonely and unenviable task that at times will require the use of maximum force against America's enemies.
      The United States needs stronger leadership on the world stage from both the White House and the State Department, including a tougher stance toward America's foes from a secretary of state whose voice is unusually meek and silent. This is a time for America to project its might and confront its adversaries- -not to retreat behind a failed strategy of "engagement. "
      Nile Gardiner Ph.D., is the Director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at The Heritage Foundation. Erica Munkwitz assisted with research for this paper.

      --- On Wed, 15/7/09, Peter Dow <peterdow@talk21. com> wrote:

      From: Peter Dow <peterdow@talk21. com>
      Subject: [rice-for-president ] Condoleezza Rice gives GOP advice at Reagan Library.
      To: "Rice for President" <rice-for-president@ yahoogroups. com>
      Date: Wednesday, 15 July, 2009, 11:59 PM

      Ventura County Star
      Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Tuesday that the Republican Party will thrive only if it stops requiring a “litmus test” on being a Republican.

      Condoleezza Rice, prepares to address the audience at the Reagan Library on Tuesday in Simi Valley. The Republican Party can thrive only if it stops requiring a “litmus test” to be a Republican, she said.

      Rice spoke about the importance of democracy and the ability to think outside of one’s own political party ideals during her sold-out appearance at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum in Simi Valley.
      More than 1,000 people attended Rice’s speech as part of the Perspectives on Leadership Forum.
      The Birmingham, Ala., native served as secretary of state from 2005 to 2009. She was also President George W. Bush’s national security adviser.
      Rice has made Time magazine’s list of the world’s 100 most influential people four times, and was ranked twice as the most powerful woman in the world by Forbes magazine.
      During a question-and- answer period after her speech, an audience member asked Rice her feelings about former Secretary of State Colin Powell, a Republican, and his support of President Barack Obama.
      Rice said Powell, who she considers a good friend, “believes in democracy and fought for it.”
      Rice said it’s important in a democracy that “we get to make choices and we don’t have to shed our political affiliation over those choices.”
      She added that the Republican Party will thrive only if “we broaden our horizons and by not having a litmus test for being a Republican.”
      But Rice, who was once a Democrat but changed political affiliations, said she personally took an oath not to comment on the Obama administration, saying “we owe them our silence and support.”
      Rice’s speech focused on the importance of democracy, especially in the Middle East, a subject she focused on while secretary of state.
      She said Iran’s disputed June 12 election was “a fake election,” and the government “has lost any sense of legitimacy with its own people,” many under the age of the 35.
      “The Iranian regime is done,” Rice said.
      Rice also said democracy’s continuance depends on the media, especially newspapers because they allow analysis beyond 30-second news bites on cable television.
      “I think (the demise of newspapers) is a really damaging turn of events,” Rice said.
      Rice, who is a professor of political science at Stanford University, said it’s important to encourage music and arts in schools, saying that those subjects are an essential part of cognitive development in children.
      At one time, Rice was training to be a concert pianist, but said “she was pretty good, but not great” and that she would have ended up “playing at Nordstrom’s and not Carnegie Hall.”
      Rice said she grew up in the segregated South, where her late father, John W. Rice, couldn’t vote. She said she now appreciates living in the United States, where she was able to become the first black secretary of state and be in a country where there is now a black president.
      She said people from around the world have told her how they view the United States.
      “Our national myth is the log cabin. You can come from humble circumstances and do great things,” Rice said.

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.