On The Other Hand...

Now that I've pointed the finger, justifiably in my opinion, at Secretary Clinton, let me tell you what I think we could say would have been different had Clinton made it into the White House.

I think we'd be handling the economy in a far more responsible manner. Rather than flushing billions in American tax dollars down the tubes to stimulate lending without any oversight or accountability measures in place, I think we probably would have seen more logical, proven solutions put into effect. Let's face it, Clinton's grasp of economic structures and function is at scary level. She consistently polled better on that issue than McCain and Obama because even the sexist media couldn't hide that fact.

I think Clinton would have made moves to change the culture of the Executive Branch, much as she is trying to do a la gay State employees. The benefit for women's rights in this country would have been tremendous.

I would like to say we would be handling foreign policy different. But let's face facts. There is very little overall difference in the continuing issues faced by our Presidents and their foreign services. We have those that are expendable, like Tibetans, like Israelis, like Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza, as Rwandans were. We'd have no resolution to the situation in Darfur. We would continue to call Abbas a moderate while homosexuals are openly executed. None of that ever seems to end does it?

The simple truth is that because money and evil are the guiding forces that make international relations turn, apart from changing that, we are always going to end up with the same losers, and the same winners.

Is it an unreasonable pot shot at Clinton for not standing up to the Chinese and saying, "You may hold a lot of our debt, but the ethical standards that modern nations should be striving for is seriously lacking in your country. Perhaps our continued relationship will result in positive changes in that regard, and we will continue to push for reform in Chinese society?" You can say that she serves at the pleasure of the President (or in this case, his displeasure), and you would be correct.

You could say that perhaps she didn't know it was going to be like this when she took the job. But when it became obvious that this is what the job was going to be like, that this is what you would be saying, and whom you will be saying it to, you could walk away. I have not seen any sort of public row over foreign policy issues between Clinton and Obama. Is it possible that there is opposition being expressed behind closed doors? Protests behind closed doors don't make a difference in the ethical position of the United States. If she knows that the policy she is being asked to advocate is wrong then she should say it's wrong and walk away. To do otherwise is a sign of acceptance.

What is that they say about the road to hell?

We went through this with Colin Powell didn't we?

Remember him sitting at the UN General Assembly talking about moving labs on trucks and aluminum tubes? Sixteen intelligence agencies said Saddam was not an immediate threat. Did Powell just not know? Did he just take the word of the President and go? He opposed Bush behind closed doors, we went to war, he was pushed out, and the damage was done. What would have happened if he had stood up publicly and denounced his President, and the drumbeat of war? Perhaps we might not have more than 4000 dead American soldiers and thousands more dead Iraqis.

Is it possible that it may come to her leaving on ethics in the months to come? Will there be that moment when she will be at the crossroads and choose not to go? I think she crossed over when she went to China. She traveled down that road further when she consented to taking on the assault on Israel.

There comes a time when you have to decide whether you really stand for something, or stand for nothing.

"From the beginning of our history the country has been afflicted with compromise. It is by compromise that human rights have been abandoned."~Charles Sumner