Hillary Clinton has been made out to be another big push for positive change in America, the reason being that she has the potential to be the first female President of the U.S. However, the biggest issue lies in her history of being willing to strip away the rights of Americans and her quick-trigger attitude toward foreign intervention.
Clinton's views on foreign policy are rife with inconsistencies. She has longstanding opposition against Iran due to their "sponsorship of terrorism," but at the same time, she supports and accepts over $500,000 in gifts and over 10 million in donations from the Saudi royal family for her family's foundation while she herself has stated that "donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide."
Even more perplexing is that Saudi Arabia is the home of Wahhabism, the ideology professed by ISIS. What would this mean should Clinton become Commander-in-Chief and the Saudi monarchy becomes too threatened by ISIS? I am incredibly doubtful that the Islamic world would view an American intervention into the country that houses Mecca as a positive thing.
This is an important issue, because Clinton's past actions have shown her to have little thought for unintended consequences. This was shown in Libya when she acted as the main orchestrator of the invasion to oust and kill Muammar al-Gaddafi, which has since turned Libya into a place of ruin, roving militias and possibly a long civil war. Of course, increased anti-American sentiments came with that, as was demonstrated in Benghazi.
Clinton as president would not only pose issues internationally, but domestically, as she has proven to be quite disquieting when it comes to constitutional and basic human rights. An exchange with Wolf Blitzer at a 2007 Democratic Party debate revealed this:
Blitzer asked Clinton, "You say national security is more important than human rights. Senator Clinton, what do you say?", to which Clinton responded, "I agree with that completely. The first obligation of the president of the United States is to protect and defend the United States of America. That doesn't mean that it is to the exclusion of other interests."
She had also previously shown this with gusto when she voted for the PATRIOT Act and publicly compared those who support gun rights to terrorists.
Her position on accountability and abuses of government power became clear when she decried Edward Snowden for simply having shown the American people what their government is doing. That, in conjunction with the quote from the debate, paints a chilling picture as to how she must view the role of the government in relation to the people it exists to serve.
Clinton may be trying to tout herself as a bastion of progressiveness and forward thinking, but her record shows her to be incredibly ruthless internationally and domestically. I agree it would be a great step to elect a woman president, but I want it to be a woman who will fight for the best interest of this great country.
Reach the columnist at abbooth1@asu.edu or follow him on Twitter @AndrewBuckBooth
Editor’s note: The opinions presented in this column are the author’s and do not imply any endorsement from The State Press or its editors.
Want to join the conversation? Send an email to opiniondesk.statepress@gmail.com. Keep letters under 300 words and be sure to include your university affiliation. Anonymity will not be granted.
Like The State Press on Facebook and follow @statepress on Twitter.
