Hillary Clinton and Foreign Policy

Dear Friends,

I have long been concerned about the hawkish, interventionist foreign policy of Secretary Clinton.  In an essay in The New York Times this morning entitled "The Real Threat to Hillary Clinton" Jacob Heilbrunn (here) posits that the real threat to Secretary Clinton's bid for the Presidency is not Senator Warren but former Senator Jim Webb from Virginia.  I know very little about Senator Webb, but I intend to find out more.  Mr. Heilbrunn describes him

as a Vietnam War hero, former secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration, novelist and opponent of endless wars in the Middle East.

He was an outspoken critic of President George W. Bush's wars, asked the question, "Do we really want to occupy Iraq for the next 30 years?" and voted against the Iraq war.  Secretary Clinton, on the other hand voted for the Iraq war.  Senator Webb's foreign policy views have been very consistent with his first hand knowledge of the horrors of war, while Secretary Clinton continues to try to move her views around to suit her perceived needs.  Secretary Clinton's record is clear that she is a hawk and an interventionist.

Senator Webb's views are certainly not perfect as he was a strong proponent of the coal industry while in the United States Senate, but if Senator Webb fully jumps into the race for the Democratic nomination, perhaps we can have a real debate about foreign policy and perhaps he will prove to be a viable alternative to Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Justice and the Powerful

Dear Friends,

Justice and fairness are sorely lacking in the world today.  Perhaps they always have been, but now it is just so evident.  You have to be intentionally ignorant not to see this lack of justice.  The manner in which our criminal justice system deals with the powerful and the weak is a perfect example

This dichotomy was starkly present in the opinion section of The New York Times yesterday.  One of the lead editorials was entitled "Prosecute the Torturers and their Bosses" (here).  While the editorial calls for the prosecution of the people in power who approved/ordered torture, it admits

as hard as it is to imagine Mr. Obama having the political courage to order a new investigation, it is harder to imagine a criminal probe of the actions of a former president.

I completely support the call to prosecute those who planned, ordered, condoned and carryout torture.  Unfortunately, the lack of justice in the United States makes it impossible for me to believe that there will ever be any prosecution of these powerful criminals.

Charles Blow's column "Pursuing Justice for All" (here) discusses the complete lack of justice for those who lack power and particularly those persons of color.  The column relates the case of a 14 year old black boy convicted of killing two white girls in South Carolina in 1944.  He was tried, convicted and executed within three months of the killings.  The story is grotesque.  He was 95 pounds, received a completely inadequate defense, was found guilty by an all white, all male jury, and electrocuted.  He was so small he had to sit on a book to fit in the electric chair.  The story says either a telephone book or the Bible.  Recently a South Carolina judge threw out the conviction.

This was a victory of sorts: a 70-years-too-late admission that the justice system failed that black child, and that the failure culminated — in short order — in the taking of his life. Yet something about it feels hollow and discomforting, like the thunder that rolls long after the lightning has cracked the sky and split the tree.
It boldly announces itself in all its noisy nothingness. It was the white flash that did the damage and produced the splinters.
That is all too often what “righting” racial injustice looks like in this country: a hollow pronouncement that follows the damage but doesn’t prevent its recurrence. 

The last sentence of the above quote says it all about justice in my country.  The lack of prosecution of the powerful for torture and the racially biased prosecution of black Americans, no matter how we might talk about them at the time or later, clearly instructs future generations that the powerful can commit crimes without fear of accountability, but the weak must fear prosecution whether they have done anything wrong or not.  No nation that lacks equal justice under the law can call itself civilized.  The United States tortures people and executes often innocent people.  What is civilized about that?

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal