U.S. Armaments Industry Backing Hillary Clinton
October 19th, 2007In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
—From the farewell speech of U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961
Paying attention to U.S. presidential elections is probably the most egregious waste of time imaginable, and I promise not to do it much, but for those of you who still don’t get it, even now…
Hillary Clinton is Cheney in drag.
Via: Independent:
An analysis of campaign contributions shows senior defence industry employees are pouring money into her war chest in the belief that their generosity will be repaid many times over with future defence contracts.
…
“The contributions clearly suggest the arms industry has reached the conclusion that Democratic prospects for 2008 are very good indeed,” said Thomas Edsall, an academic at Columbia University in New York.
Republican administrations are by tradition much stronger supporters of US armaments programmes and Pentagon spending plans than Democratic governments. Relations between the arms industry and Bill Clinton soured when he slimmed down the military after the end of the Cold War. His wife, however, has been careful not to make the same mistake.
After her election to the Senate, she became the first New York senator on the armed services committee, where she revealed her hawkish tendencies by supporting the invasion of Iraq. Although she now favours a withdrawal of US troops, her position on Iran is among the most warlike of all the candidates – Democrat or Republican.
This week, she said that, if elected president, she would not rule out military strikes to destroy Tehran’s nuclear weapons facilities. While on the armed services committee, Mrs Clinton has befriended key generals and has won the endorsement of General Wesley Clarke, who ran Nato’s war in Kosovo. A former presidential candidate himself, he is spoken of as a potential vice-presidential running mate.
Mrs Clinton has been a regular visitor to Iraq and Afghanistan and is careful to focus her criticisms of the Iraq war on President Bush, rather than the military. The arms industry has duly taken note.
Right. And the exercise in futility, I think, is precisely believing that political involvement could fundamentally change the system; in reality, it’s absorbing energy (as designed) that perhaps could effect useful change.
One of several exceptions are articles like this – it’s useful for tracking. Hillary as president makes perfect sense. First woman president, a symbolic precedent, at a time of massive change. The cause of everything bad was Bush – now we work to clean up the mess – with and through the military-industrial complex. ‘Progress’ continues toward a communo-fascist brave new world 2008.4 ouch…
scare the living hell out of them
http://www.thisnovember5th.com
{I realize that is overstating things a bit, but still would be worth it to get a message across}
messianicdruid, I was considering the Ron Paul campaign another possible exception, in the sense that some percentage of those who ‘take a closer look’ might become curious enough to find out how things really work. But, I think I’ll be proven wrong; with the percentage of minds-opened so small it’s irrelevant, and with most of the powerful grassroots energy redirected into political-system-abyss. Actually, the RP campaign might be the perfect system relief valve. (Bring me the witch’s broom, then we’ll talk – Now Go!) Hell, I’m already wrong…
dale, I agree RP can not do it alone, niether can he with all his present supporters do it, alone. And as you say, he may just be a pressure release. It’s the only hope I can see, on the political scene. Maybe he is being set up as a Hoover to take the blame for the previous years’ decesions. I think with RP at the helm, it may not drag on as long as 1930 to 1944 did.