How About: Hilary Clinton Is Responsible for Global Insecurity?

In the lead up to the presidential debate tonight, Hillary Clinton has taken one for the team. Clinton asserts she's to blame for a lack of security that facilitated the Benghazi 9/11 attack on the U.S. Embassy in Libya. Great! She should take responsibility. It's her job description to advise the President on matters relating to U.S. foreign policy.

Hillary Clinton's war on Libya
Some might argue though that while the premise for her admission is correct, it is flawed. Hillary Clinton is responsible, but it wasn't for the lack of security at the Embassy. Clinton reportedly persuaded Barack Obama to "take a hard line with Libya – New York Times speak for engage in a aerial (and stealth) war on Libya. The end game was regime change. This was evident from the way chief diplomat Clinton celebrated the death of Muammar Gaddafi on CBSNews (VIDEO).



Of course, the term "war" is still used by U.S. institutions (oops) and U.S. media (here, here, and here) to describe U.S. actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, since it's generally agreed that when one country drops bombs on another country – they've committed an act of war. However, the United States hasn't officially declared war on a country since World War II.

Long gone are the "halcyon days" when American presidents sought war authorizations from a marginalized institution supposedly representing the people called a Congress and bombs were dropped from piloted planes on military targets. Drones and mercenaries – un-piloted planes and private military companies do the dirty work of targeting "terrorists" -- should a civilian, or two or three... get in the way - that's got a term too: collateral damage.

One exception to the illiberal use of the term war is: the "Global War on Terror" declared by George W. Bush in 2001. It's ON! Although, constitutional law scholar, Obama, has overhauled the name. The new and approved Orwellian term is: "Overseas Contingency Operation."

There are some one half of one percent of the American population still charged with giving their lives for the "cause," but sadly, in America, even the job of killing continues to be outsourced. As if outsourcing the business of organized violence in a country which MLK called the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today isn't bad enough; prison "slave" labor costing only 23 cents an hour means longer unemployment lines.

The new American dream, dedicate to your work, labor long hard hours, get downsized anyway, only to have your job outsourced, lose your benefits, lose your home, lose your sobriety, hold up a bank to feed your drug habit, get caught and jailed -- achieve full employment, and benefits too!

On the existential bright side; see, anti-war activists who protested the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, Iraq, Afghanistan... the United States was listening when you chanted: "NO MORE WAR!"

One could be lured into believing that this fail on Libya, along side her history of lying (to bolster her foreign policy credentials), and the fact that the U.S. has continued the same hegemonic, warmongering, murderous mindset under Clinton's stewardship at the State Department, would effectively come back to bite Hillary Clinton on her pantsuited chubby backside. But one would most likely be delusional; because as Solomon Comissiong writes in his piece: When Will Radical Become the Norm: “Americans eat whatever psychological poison is fed to them by the corporate media and government.”

Evidently, if the U.S. media concludes that an evil and corrupt politician has redeemed themselves -- usually by taking a prescribed "time out" of the spotlight, then they're good to endorse their wife's run for public office or headline the DNC. The U.S. was always corrupt, but more and more they resemble the "banana republics" they've usually had a hand in engineering. It's only a matter of time before it all unravels, right? Hasn't the U.S. operated enough government destabilizing campaigns in "overseas contingency operations" to recognize the signs of approaching chaos?

U.S. media pundits posit that Americans don't care about U.S. foreign policy during election cycles. Hopefully, that statement is a dismal lie floated by embedded propagandist. Americans should consider the merits of a presidential candidate based on how well that person performed in their high-profile government job as the U.S. administrator in charge of foreign policy.

Of course, that assumes that the people's voices counts at the polls. Even the once esteemed Chief Executive's office is seen by many Americans as ceremonial – largely reserved for approved members of the 1% of the aristocratic plutocrats.

The U.S. needs a revolution to replace these selected psychopaths.

"I take responsibility, Clinton told CNN in an interview while on a visit to Peru. "I'm in charge of the State Department's 60,000-plus people all over the world, 275 posts. The president and the vice president wouldn't be knowledgeable about specific decisions that are made by security professionals. They're the ones who weigh all of the threats and the risks and the needs and make a considered decision."

Until the revolution, Hilary Clinton fading into obscurity would be a good step toward global security.