The nation will pay a steep price in endless gratuitous wars that manufacture enemies at prohibitive cost if she succeeds.
Mrs. Clinton smugly asserted that women are superior to men in securing peace and uplifting entire societies. In the manner of a papal encyclical, she sermonized: “We know when women contribute in making and keeping peace, entire societies enjoy better outcomes. Women leaders, it has been found, are good at building coalitions across ethnic and sectarian lines and speaking up for other marginalized groups.”
She urged female leadership in foreign conflicts and relations, and boasted that “[Women] are agents of peace and change.” Her professed unique female insight into the dynamics of war and peace occasioned her exhortation to “empathize” with our enemies and to show them “respect.”
Mrs. Clinton’s counter-historical and counter-factual blather about female superiority ranks academically with Vice President Dan Quayle’s alteration of a 12-year-old student’s correct spelling of “potato” to “potatoe” in a spelling bee. She would be ridiculed and satirized unmercifully in the media if she were not a woman in the heyday of imagined female indignities.
Contrary to Mrs. Clinton, no woman leader in history has been renowned as a peacemaker.
Queen Nefertiti was as devoted to war and violence as was her husband Amenhotep IV.
Cleopatra was no more or less inclined toward war than Mark Antony.
Catherine the Great eagerly participated in the partitions of Poland and the expansion of the Russian Empire by two wars against the Ottoman Empire.
Queen Victoria presided over the chronic wars of the British Empire, including China, Afghanistan, India, Burma, Crimea and South Africa.
Indira Gandhi fought Pakistan over the independence of Bangladesh, and forcibly annexed Sikkim.
Margaret Thatcher fought the Falklands War, and chivvied President George H.W. Bush to attack Iraq with the muscular words, “This is no time to go wobbly.”
Madeleine Albright, the first female U.S. Secretary of State appointed at Mrs. Clinton’s urging, championed the war in Kosovo. She admonished Colin Powell, then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: “What’s the point of having this superb military that you’re always talking about if we can’t use it.” In May 1996, Ms. Albright, who was then the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., was asked by “60 Minutes” correspondent Lesley Stahl, in reference to years of U.S.-led economic sanctions against Iraq, “We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?” To which Ambassador Albright responded, “I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it.”
That complacency was truly nauseating. More Iraqi children died because of U.S. sanctions than the number of U.S. military deaths in World War II fighting Hitler, Mussolini and Emperor Hirohito.
Further, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was not then threatening the United States. His greatest concern was neighboring Iran led by Shiite mullahs with whom he had warred from 1980 to 1988. Yet Ms. Albright displayed all the ferocity and callousness as Lady Macbeth.
Mrs. Clinton’s record is even more chilling. As first lady, she supported the Bosnian War, the Iraqi sanctions that killed 500,000 Iraqi children and the Kosovo War. As U.S. senator from New York, she supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and they continue to this very day at staggering cost. As Secretary of State, she supported the war against Libya, greater military force against Syria, and increased troop strength in Afghanistan. Since resigning from office, she has supported war against the Islamic State, war against Syria, and renewed war in Iraq.
As a political leader, Mrs. Clinton has never opposed any war ever.
In sum, her pronouncement that women leaders are better at peace than men is a total fraud, like cold fusion. Yet she gets a pass because she is a woman
For more information about Bruce Fein, visit brucefeinlaw.