The Democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, still gets high marks at least in Europe, compared to the Republican candidate Donald Trump, demonized by corporate media because of his outlandish remarks about Muslims, women, the wall with Mexico, and other bizarre statements he had made. Despite Trump’s crude political opinions, he has many followers among predominantly white Americans. He portrays himself as a valiant campaigner against the Washington set that, as he sees it, stands for corruption and wickedness. He can be considered a wild maverick.
Donald Trump, compared to Hillary Clinton, has at least a clean political record. If he has financial skeletons in his closet, the corporate media on Clinton’s side will certainly waive these around. A few days ago, the FBI saved her neck by refusing to bring charges against Hillary Clinton, although, as Secretary of State she has handled her entire e-mail traffic, including top secret documents, via her private server. A day before FBI Director James Comey stated that Hillary Clinton had behaved in a “highly careless” manner, her husband Bill, former U.S. President, met Attorney General Loretta Lynch privately at the airport in Phoenix, Arizona – allegedly by accident – to discuss this affair. The Justice Department thereafter decided not to charge her.
On 5 July 2016, the website Counterpunch carried a radio interview with John Pilger,1 a reknowned Australian journalist, author and filmmaker based in the United Kingdom. He figures among the most prominent critics of US imperialism. Pilger had nothing positive to say about Hillary Clinton. The following is a brief summary of John Pilger’s opinion on Hillary Clinton’s, representing an important voice within the anti-imperialist left.
According to Pilger, Clinton policies “will bring great aggression to the US and the world”. Clinton’s considerable contribution was the destruction of Libya, a former stable, and modern country. Gaddafi, although he was a dictator like many others, had to go because he wanted a certain kind of independence from Western domination, and he played a significant role in Africa. He contributed from his oil revenue an enormous amount of money to an African Development Bank. His declared aim was the establishment of a pan-African currency that would help the development of the continent. He wanted a certain kind of independence for Africa or at least Northern Africa. “Hillary Clinton blew this to bits”, said Pilger. “She oversaw the assassination of Gaddafi, better a gory murder of a man.” Infamous is her frivolous comment: “We came, we saw, he died.”2
Clinton made the dispute in the South China Sea an “American” dispute, which could lead to a serious confrontation between China and the US. During her time as Secretary of State, there was a massive military buildup along the Russian and the Chinese border: At the Russian Western border, the largest build-up since WW II and in Asia, US deploys sixty percent of its air and naval forces. Pilger compares the NATO build-up in East Europe to the Nazi build-up that led to the 1941 invasion of the Soviet Union under the code name of Barbarossa. Hillary Clinton supports the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) agreement, which has little to do with trade but rather with hegemony. Trump, on the other hand, is opposed to all international trade agreements because they are allegedly at the detriment of U.S. interests.
According to Pilger, Clinton calls for further punishing Russia economically. She acts as a cheer-leader for “economic warfare”, a tradition of Democratic U.S. administrations. Most US wars were started by liberal democrats, he said: “Democrats have a rich tradition in warmongering.”
Pilger forecasts that Clinton will continue Obama’s deceptive policy style. He promised in 2009 to rid the world of nuclear weapons, close Guantanamo, and pursue saner policies than his predecessor. In fact everything got worse. Under his administration, the nuclear build-up has risen faster than under any other US President. The US spends currently $35 billion a year on nuclear weapons. “Obama is one of the most violent Presidents”, said Pilger. Only public relations make us think otherwise.
John Pilger opines that Clinton belongs to the most dubious people in the political establishment. “Her policy in the past was directed against the working class, women, and minorities. Due to the manipulation of the corporate media, her terrible record is unknown.” To continue this policy, Trump represents the most useful bogeyman. Comparing both, Pilger holds “Clinton the far more dangerous candidate”. It would be degrading to African Americans, to women, to the civil rights movement to end up with Hillary Clinton, said Pilger. He expressed significant criticism of progressive people who think in terms of identity instead in terms of real issues. The people earn their assets not of what they are such as blacks, women, gender, but what they do and of their humanity.
Pilger states that Trump and Clinton are two sides of the same coin. According to him, the strongest censorship is exercised by liberal media like the NYT, Washington Post, BBC, and the Guardian. These media still enjoy high credibility which makes their distortions and omissions less obvious to the educated public.
Pilger’s criticism of Hillary Clinton’s policy seems even for American ears extremely radical, especially for progressives or liberals. In Germany and Europe as a whole, Clinton appears the more serious US presidential candidate, although her terrible political record is not very well known and if it does, it is largely swept under the carpet. For the political elites in Europe anything seems better that Trump, even Hillary Clinton.
Clinton is the voice of the US military, business, financial, media, and the Zionist elites. This political interest conglomerate is the only one that will profit from a future war, which the US empire and its military fist NATO are planning for. The recent meeting of this organization, held in Warsaw, decided to deploy thousands of NATO troops along the Russian border in the three Baltic states and Poland. By electing Clinton, American citizens, will elect the war party that has not given up on attacking Iran. The ones to suffer will be ordinary folks who have no interest in Clinton or other big wheels.