The presidential race is right around the corner and many politicians have already announced their bid for candidacy. Already, I’ve heard many people say they’re “ready for Hillary” and that it is time for America to have its first female president. Although I agree that having a female president would possibly push for the advancement of women rights here in the U.S. and elsewhere around the world, I do not see Hillary Clinton as the right candidate to assume such a responsibility. Her positions on issues such as the Iraq War and her unrelenting support for Israel don’t really scream “savior of womankind and supporter of freedom” to me. Here’s why.
It is no secret that Clinton voted in support of the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) during her position as U.S. senator from New York (2001-2009). The AUMF came as a response to the September 11th attacks as the government was trying to reassert its power after a deadly attack on American soil. This resolution gave cause to the U.S military to send troops to fight whomever it believes caused the attacks. This included fighting individuals, organizations or nations that America saw as responsible for or in any way related to 9/11 in order to prevent future terrorist attacks. Thus the Iraq War began, launching the Middle Eastern country into a bloody and chaotic period that has claimed the lives of anywhere from 140,000 to 159,000 civilian casualties. I don’t know about you, but calling her a peace loving feminist doesn’t really make sense when looking at those numbers.
Not only has Clinton supported the war in Iraq, she also unrelentingly supports Israel and described Benjamin Netanyahu as a friend. She also defended Israel in its last round of attacks on Gaza in the summer of 2014; an operation that left more than 2,100 Gazans dead, around 500 of whom were children. I would not be comfortable with voting for Clinton, or any other candidate for that matter, knowing that she will support and give full immunity to Israel no matter how horrendous their crimes against humanity may be. It seems hypocritical to champion Clinton as someone who supports human rights and peaceful solutions when her actions clearly show us otherwise.
This brings me to next pedestal people seem to put Clinton on; the feminist warrior. First let me explain what a feminist is. A feminist is someone who supports women’s struggle for economic, social and political equality, everywhere and not just in western countries. A feminist is a person who celebrates the differences between men and women but believes that equal opportunity and respect should not be based on how you were born, but rather on how you carry yourself. I don’t see a feminist when I look at Clinton. I see a politician paraded as one although she has supported wars that have killed thousands of women. I also see a politician who has orphaned thousands of children as a result of her policies. In a speech at a U.N. conference on women in Beijing in 1995, Clinton said,
“By gathering in Beijing, we are focusing world attention on issues that matter most in our lives – – the lives of women and their families: access to education, health care, jobs and credit, the chance to enjoy basic legal and human rights and to participate fully in the political life of our countries.”
I would like to ask Clinton today if she still believes in those values after she has taken the lives of thousands of women and orphaned their children. Will those women and young girls be able to access education, healthcare and jobs? Will they be able to enjoy basic and legal human rights? Participate in their countries’ political spheres?
It is time for us to stop supporting hypocrites who have shown us time and time again that their actions speak much louder than their words. Voting is a huge responsibility. If we vote for people who carry out and support such inhuman practices and cause so much death and destruction, we too are responsible for the innocent lives that will pay the price of our votes. Murder is murder, no matter how politically powerful the murderer might be.