Jeffrey Sachs Blames Hillary Clinton for Our National Security Woes


Yes, neocons are still around and may have an inside track to the White House once again. (Photo: Wikimedia)

Yes, neocons are still around and may have an inside track to the White House once again. (Photo: Wikimedia)

It’s almost unfathomable how much money Hillary and Bill Clinton have made from giving speeches, mostly to financial companies. While that $153 million (according to CNN) was earned since Bill Clinton’s second presidential term ended, it now almost makes more sense to view Hillary Clinton in the class of tycoons who become politicians, such as Donald Trump and Mike Bloomberg.

But it’s not just Hillary Clinton’s speeches to and affiliations with Wall Street that have become a rising crescendo of alarm. At Huffington Post, Jeffrey Sachs, authority on economic development and world poverty, continues to tack left.

There’s no doubt that Hillary is the candidate of Wall Street. Even more dangerous, though, is that she is the candidate of the military-industrial complex. The idea that she is bad on the corporate issues but good on national security has it wrong. Her so-called foreign policy “experience” has been to support every war demanded by the US deep security state run by the military and the CIA.

Sachs elaborates:

… Yet Hillary’s connections with the military-industrial complex are … alarming. It is often believed that the Republicans are the neocons and the Democrats act as restraints on the warmongering. This is not correct. Both parties are divided between neocon hawks and cautious realists who don’t want the US in unending war. Hillary is a staunch neocon whose record of favoring American war adventures explains much of our current security danger.

Did you see what he did there? He casts neocons, who consider themselves models of realpolitik, as the opposite of realists. Very clever casting them as the true radicals (which they are). I know: hard to believe after they were discredited by Iraq War that they are still around and, even worse, still have a pipeline to the presidency.

Even more dramatically, Sachs places the blame squarely at Hillary Clinton’s feet when he writes that her record “explains much of our current security danger.”

Also, as I have, he points out that the word “experience” is value-neutral. (Or worse — pejorative.)

Hillary’s record as Secretary of State is among the most militaristic, and disastrous, of modern US history. Some experience.

Maybe it’s not Sachs tacking far left, but an acknowledgment of how far right Clinton is when it comes to foreign policy.