Guest Post by Robert Barsocchini. Mr. Barsocchini is a historical researcher, investigative journalist, and writer for the film industry.
Hillary Clinton, indeed, speaks out strongly for and supports women’s rights – except when they get in the way of the true top interest of Clinton and people like her: US plutocratic gain.
Thus, Hillary Clinton has supported or, despite her huge platform, done nothing to oppose, the most extreme crimes against women (and everyone else) throughout her political ascension.
Policies Hillary Clinton has supported or been unopposed to have killed, maimed, crippled, scarred, made homeless, and orphaned millions of little girls and women. See various sections in this record.
Here are two particularly egregious examples of Clinton’s specific prioritization of US plutocratic gain over women’s rights:
Afghanistan / Saudi Arabia:
While acting as a bastion of women’s rights, Hillary Clinton utters barely a peep about major US allies, like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, who wickedly repress women and others through murder, beatings, floggings, stoning, torture, and other forms.
Saudi Arabia is the only country where women are not allowed to drive.
When asked about women trying to obtain the right to drive cars in US-backed Saudi Arabia, Clinton made some mild statements, outside of Saudi Arabia, and the Obama/Clinton regime continued to heavily support (biggest weapons shipments in US history) and work closely with (arming jihadists) Saudi Arabia, which Clinton herself stated in a (leaked) diplomatic cable is the world’s biggest supporter of Sunni terrorism, as well as the Taliban and Al Qaeda (see “Terrorism” section).
Clinton’s mild rhetoric regarding extremist repression of women by this major US ally (and others) stands in stark contrast to her rhetoric about leaders of US-deterrent states. This applies to Putin, regarding his bloodless absorption of Crimea (which faces far less opposition from the international community than annexation (Israel) and criminal sanction (Cuba) policies supported by the USA). For Crimea, Clinton referred to Putin as Hitler. She saves her strong rhetoric for people who stand in the way of US imperial domination goals, not for US allies who abuse women, ethnically cleanse, commit genocide, torture children, and the like. (See various sections herein.) Nor is Clinton’s strong rhetoric used for US officials (including herself) who commit torture, aggression, terrorism, genocide, occupation, annexation, and sponsor systematic abusers of women like the Saudis, the Taliban, and various other jihadists.
Clinton’s record, in virtually every instance, consists of prioritizing forceful US domination of the world over women’s rights, human rights, democracy, and the like. Those terms are good for propaganda, but when they present obstacles to the real interests of US power, the concepts are ignored, blocked, prevented, and/or intentionally destroyed.
On Hillary Clinton and support for the Taliban from Bill Clinton and US corporations, such as dirty energy company “Unocal”:
“[W]hen a [Bill] Clinton official was reminded that the Taliban persecuted women, he said, “We can live with that.” (here)
As Hillary Clinton, despite her huge platform, remained silent on numerous acts of terror and genocide committed by the USA, thus passively supporting or accepting those acts (see various sections herein), she remained silent, when she was supposed to, on support for the Taliban from her husband and US corporations:
“…a strong campaign [was] waged by rights activists in America, particularly the Feminist Majority led by Eleanor Smeal and Mavis Leno, which lobbied Hilary Clinton and Madeleine Albright very fiercely to stop the Unocal project and come out against the Taliban’s repression of women. [But] the Clinton administration viewed the Taliban’s rise favorably… [because, in addition to two other strategic reasons] the U.S. wanted to build this pipeline. There was a lot of support from the Pentagon and the State Department for the Unocal effort.” (here)
Thus, for US plutocratic gain and imperial strategic reasons, Hillary Clinton, champion of “women’s rights”, dutifully kept her mouth shut, and outright refused to open it and take advantage of her platform as First Lady, while the Taliban brutally abused women and others, with US support.
“As it became clearer that Taliban policy-makers were beginning to lean toward Bridas [a non-US oil company] by late 1997, the Clinton administration responded by suddenly paying heed to human rights/women’s groups who had been protesting Taliban conduct for the past two years. In November 1997, after years of relative quiet, Clinton’s Secretary of State Madeleine Albright publicly condemned the Taliban’s treatment of women… [but] it was only when absolute [US] control of that oil was challenged that the Taliban regime was openly discredited…” (here)
The Bill Clinton regime, including Hillary Clinton, used women as a tool of US imperial, plutocratic gain. Maybe this was one of Hillary’s “hard choices”, or maybe supporting the brutalization of women to try to secure a gas project for some US company was a no-brainer.
Also note: the USA’s sponsorship of the terrorist jihadists who eventually became the Taliban started in the mid to late 1970s, before, and specifically to incite, the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan. As late as the 2000s, the USA, still trying to make a partner of the Taliban, was trying to get the terrorist fundamentalists to expand their brutal regime to cover all of Afghanistan. Details and sources here.
For an extensive record of Hillary Clinton’s support for war and other depravities, see here.