Notes on US election – What can be hoped for?
By Peter Ewart
A choice is being put forward in the upcoming US presidential election – some might call it a trap – between what is presented as a so-called moderate, progressive, and peaceful Hillary Clinton and an extreme, reactionary and war-mongering Donald Trump. But does this choice really reflect reality?
Indeed, it can be argued that Hillary Clinton is the creature of and chosen war candidate for the US defense industry (1) (2). It is a fact that her campaign has collected more donations from defense corporations than any other Democratic or Republican candidate, not to speak of the millions of dollars donated to the Clinton Foundation over the years by these same corporations and their client states such as Saudi Arabia (3).
Then there is her track record of support for US military intervention and aggression abroad. She was a cheerleader for the bombing of Serbia when her husband Bill was president and is said to have played a key role in convincing him to undertake this aggressive action. She supported George W. Bush’s disastrous invasion of Iraq.
And, when she was Secretary of State in the Obama administration, it is well known that she led the charge to commit aggression against the sovereign country of Libya, resulting in the torture and murder of its leader Qaddafi, and plunging the country with the highest standing of living in Africa into chaos and disorder. Cackling in a notorious media interview, to this day she shows no regrets for the disaster she wreaked upon the country (4).
In addition, she supported Al Queda and ISIS linked terrorist forces in their ongoing attempts to overthrow the Assad government in Syria (5). This is not to speak of her active support, as Secretary of State, for coups against elected governments in both the Ukraine and Honduras. Nor of her ongoing war mongering rhetoric and ramping up of tensions against Russia, China, Iran and other countries.
It is not surprising that, in this election, a number of prominent Republican neo-conservatives, notorious for engineering and promoting the invasion of Iraq, have moved over to support her (6). Unfortunately, some prominent “peace” activists have also.
The irony in all this is that, unlike war hawk Clinton, Donald Trump has, at least to some extent, questioned the “regime change” efforts and endless foreign wars of both Republican and Democratic administrations that have plunged the Middle East into chaos, prompted an immigration crisis in Europe, and heightened tensions everywhere.
This is not to suggest that Trump, as president, would necessarily be less dangerous than Clinton. He also makes extreme chauvinist and war mongering statements, along with actively promoting racism against the millions of undocumented Latin American immigrants in the US, people of Muslim religion and so on.
But it does highlight the danger of claiming that Clinton is the “lesser of two evils” when it comes to launching unjust and aggressive war.
It also highlights that the issue of aggressive war is not a “left” or “right” position. What has become clear is that there are many Americans voting Republican and many voting Democratic who are sick of the endless wars and foreign interventions of the US government and the Defense industry. Whole countries and regions have been devastated, and, in addition, many US soldiers killed or wounded. All the while, health, education, transportation, and other infrastructure in the US suffers from an acute lack of funding.
Nor is the issue of aggressive war a matter of being pro- or anti-business. Even a U.S. business leader like Peter Thiel is fed up with the huge resources being handed over to Defense industry and war-profiteering corporations and the resulting ballooning of the national debt. “Instead of going to Mars,” he said at the Republican Convention, “we have invaded the Middle East. … It’s time to end the era of stupid wars and rebuild our country.”
Whatever the result of the US election, a positive factor will be the emergence of a strong antiwar movement that will provide a check to the war mongering of whichever party ends up in power.
And we need a strong antiwar movement in Canada also. The Trudeau government and the other parties in Parliament gave standing ovations to Obama (who despite all his “peace” rhetoric has escalated war preparations, drone assassinations, and other interventions) when he visited Canada recently and to his requests for more Canadian troops being sent to Eastern Europe and Syria.
Will the parties in Parliament also give standing ovations when a new US administration (which may very well be headed by Hillary Clinton) calls for the even further ramping up of war preparations and “regime change” in the world?
The world is closer to a major, potentially catastrophic war than many politicians and media pundits will admit. The main factor that can avert such a war is a strong antiwar movement. In the wake of the US election it seems that is what needs to be built everywhere – for the sake of the planet and future generations.
Peter Ewart is a columnist and writer based in Prince George, British Columbia. He can be reached at: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Vlahos, Kelley B. “Hillary Inc. The military industrial candidate.” The American Conservative. Nov. 20, 2014. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-military-industrial-candidate/
- Cohen, Alexander. “Defense contractor employees give the most to Hillary Clinton.” The Center for Public Integrity. April 1, 2016. https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/04/01/19496/defense-contractor-employees-give-most-money-hillary-clinton
- Schatz, Bryan. “Hillary Clinton oversaw US arms deals to Clinton Foundation donors.” Mother Jones. May 28, 2015. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/hillary-clinton-foundation-state-arms-deals
- “’We came, We saw, He died.’. Revisiting the incredible disaster that is Libya.” Zero Hedge. January 2, 2016. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-07/we-came-we-saw-he-died-%E2%80%93-revisiting-incredible-disaster-libya
- Baldwin, Chuck. “Hillary Clinton admits US created Al Queda, ISIS.” NewsWithViews.com. May 26, 2016. http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin910.htm
- Khalek, Rania. “Robert Kagan and other Neo-Cons are backing Hillary Clinton.” The Intercept. July 25, 2016. https://theintercept.com/2016/07/25/robert-kagan-and-other-neocons-back-hillary-clinton/
I used to worry the Donald Trump would “blow it” and hand Hillary Clinton the presidency on a silver platter, but as it turns out Hillary is no amateur in the bungle department either.
We may think we’re insulated from all that happens across our common border, but the fact is – we are still the tail on the dog, and when the dog takes a bath, so does the tail !!
“And we need a strong antiwar movement in Canada also. In the wake of the US election it seems that is what needs to be built everywhere – for the sake of the planet and future generations.”
I agree with the meaning of the entire three paragraphs. The latest place where we ought not to be is on the Latvian border with Russia.
Trump does NOT actively promote racism against the millions of undocumented Latin American immigrants in the US, what he does actively promote is enforce the immigration laws against those who are ILLEGALLY invading the US and are there ILLEGALLY!
Trump thinks he can do what he wants if he becomes president..he doesn’t realize he would just be figured head. He will hate that and will end up trying to be a bull in a china shop..which the world would pay for.
Clinton …still not sure..
You should change Trump to Clinton and quit reading CBC BS.
Right on! I saw an American on TV and she said that the election choice is between two options: Being stabbed or being poisoned!
Sad state of affairs.
Well why not? Obama did whatever he wanted, circumventing Congress and acting outside his constitutional powers. Since he set the new standard, why should Trump work within the rules?
Peter was to kind to Hillary, starting with Watergate, the Whitewater questionable real estate deals, demonizing any woman who complained of hyper sexual Bill. There is the out right lies about Bengazi, and her use of a private server to hide and avoid FOI requests and her illegal handing of that ongoing issue which would put anyone else in jail.
There are an anonymous and questionable donations to the Clinton Foundation resulting in favours owed to questionable people and countries. Along the same line are who pays Bill’s exorbitant speaking fees and what is owed for paying those fees.
Trump was against the invasion of Iraq, Libya. Hillary and Obama ocarastated Libya to stop Kaddafi unifying Africa.
I am not a fan of Conrad Black but he makes a lot of sense here. If the Clintons get into office basically kiss your ass goodbye.
Here is a video must see that will never be seen on CBC. This video is a real eye opener
You just gave someone the advice “to quit reading CBC BS.” CBC videos are o.k. ?
The mutt likes to cherry pick for information :). At times CBC sucks..other time it’s the gospel ..lol
Sorry, my mistake! You said it will not be seen on CBC. I watched some of it and in fact it will never be seen on any of the networks, unfortunately.
PVal is that all you got, very weak.
Read it again, he said it will NEVER be seen on CBC.
Dirtman, I already admitted that I made a mistake about seamutt and the CBC! Perhaps you did not notice!
No I didn’t. I hadn’t read all the replies when I posted that and there’s no editing or deleting on this forum so it stayed.
Yes seamutt, that video is a real eye opener! Unfortunately it’s not shown on mainstream media. Even if it was, I suspect that those who support Hillary would shut it off after only a few minutes!
Oh please, a video based on a book written by the head of a hard line conservative organization. What would you expect, a Clinton love in? Hillary has enough real baggage without trumped up quasi-allegations, none of which were proven when fact checked by both the NY Times & Washington Post. You complain about the left leaning CBC, fair enough, but don’t spew out crap from an organization (the Government Accountability Institute) that has such far right wing leanings.
Actually the facts are there. Why is she being given a free ride by the liberal left media? Why do you agree with the times and post?
Clinton is a devious warmonger, help us all if she gets elected.
No the facts are not there, just allegations & some suspicious circumstances. I would rank this hack job right up there with the videos on 9/11 that “show” a Jewish conspiracy or secret military super weapons. Why would I believe the Times or the Post?…hmm…Both reputable news organizations vs a right wing ideologist with an agenda. Believe what you want but don’t pass off conspiracy trash as fact.
The NY Times & Washington Post are reputable??? Boy, are you misinformed! They’re both far left cheerleaders for Clinton.
Yeah, I guess papers that have won dozens of Pulitzer Prizes have no credibility. Have you ever read the Times? Cheerleaders for the Clintons??? Read today’s issue, both Bill & Hillary get lambasted. The Times financial section has a definite right leaning slant, hardly the hallmark of a “liberal left” publication like say, The Tyee or Huffington Post.
Trump has not explained how he will do anything promised yet..every time he is asked how he just spins it to either slamming Clinton or Obama but usually he just starts rambling about nonsense.
Ya well Obama and Clintons will accomplish by deceit and force.
Right you are, P Val, it’s almost impossible to get Trump to answer a question, most of the time he just starts rambling on and on about something else. So what he will actually do if he gets into the White House is impossible to say. I suspect he’s well aware that he won’t be able to do what he says he will.
Obama’s half brother voting for Trump.
So the career criminal got the rigged democratic nomination.
Is there a way for them to elect someone other than Trump or Clinton?
Naw because the system is f…ed, and media is a lot to blame.
Not now. That’s what the primaries are for.
Almost forgot a good one, Hillary telling stories about dodging sniper fire in Bosnia. Peaple want this wack job as president, oh help us.
Trump will be the next president of the United States and the rule of law will once again rein supreme under the constitution. The era of war through presidential decree and CIA fiat will be over.
This election they have four strong choices for president.
The green party will get the Bernie supporters, enough to deny Hillery a few key states.
The libritarian party already has 20% plus support in the polls taking from Clinton and Trump.
Under this scenario neither Clinton nor Trump can win an outright electoral college majority needed to get elected president. If no one party wins the electoral college majority than the vote goes to the states through the house of representatives with each state entitled to one vote.
In the USHouse of Representatives the republicans have a huge majority. They will elect Trump. All Trump has to do is deny Clinton a clear electoral college victory and he will be president. Expect Trump to talk up the Greens for Bernie in states where Hillery holds a thin lead.
Trump will do everything he can to break the two-party hold on American politics and bring the rule of law back to the United States.
Impressive campaign ad.
Comments for this article are closed.