Who is the
Arch Racist: Hillary or the Donald?
By John V. Walsh
December 30, 2015 "Information
Clearing House" - "Counterpunch"
- Who is the arch racist, Hillary or Trump? To
answer that, let us ask another question, a simple
one. Which is worse: to denigrate some members of a
group or religion or race – or to kill them by the
millions? And maim more millions and displace even
more millions? Which is more “racist”? With that in
mind, who is the arch racist, Hillary or The Donald?
Do the
liberals who criticize Trump, but not Hillary, as
racist forget the slogan of the anti-Vietnam War
movement, “Stop the Racist Bombing.”
And which
causes more blowback, more revenge attacks by the
victims – the denigration with words or the killing
with bombs and sanctions?
Then
consider the careers and statements of Hillary
Clinton and Donald Trump. Is there any doubt who is
the greater offender in terms of hostility to
Muslims? And yet in all of the accusations of
“racism” hurled at Trump from the editorial pages of
the NYT to the most “progressive” web sites and
outlets, there appears no corresponding charge
against Hillary as racist. That is symptomatic of a
deep imperial sickness, an inability to see what is
all too clear. It is also an indication of the deep
reach of the elite into all outlets of communication
from the mainstream to most of the alternative ones
Let us
consider some of the things that Donald Trump has
had to say, most notably
the following from the last debate of 2015 among
the GOP candidates:
TRUMP:
In my opinion, we’ve spent $4 trillion trying to
topple various people that frankly, if they were
there and if we could’ve spent that $4 trillion
in the United States to fix our roads, our
bridges, and all of the other problems; our
airports and all of the other problems we’ve
had, we would’ve been a lot better off. I can
tell you that right now.
We have
done a tremendous disservice, not only to Middle
East, we’ve done a tremendous disservice to
humanity. The people that have been killed,
the people that have (been) wiped away, and for
what? It’s not like we had victory.
It’s a
mess. The Middle East is totally destabilized. A
total and complete mess. I wish we had the $4
trillion or $5 trillion. I wish it were spent
right here in the United States, on our schools,
hospitals, roads, airports, and everything else
that are all falling apart. (Emphasis, jw)
Doug Fuda,
a Catholic antiwar activist describes this statement
as “almost a call for a desperately needed American
repentance.”
Just
campaign rhetoric, you might say – although hardly
the kind you hear from the rest of the candidates,
especially on the value of the lives of those the US
bombed into oblivion. Then consider the following
from
Trump’s March, 2004, Esquire interview:
Look at
the war in Iraq and the mess that we’re in. I
would never have handled it that way. Does
anybody really believe that Iraq is going to be
a wonderful democracy where people are going to
run down to the voting box and gently put in
their ballot and the winner is happily going to
step up to lead the county? C’mon. Two minutes
after we leave, there’s going to be a
revolution, and the meanest, toughest, smartest,
most vicious guy will take over.
What
was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds
and hundreds of young people killed. And what
about the people coming back with no arms and
legs? Not to mention the other side. All
those Iraqi kids who’ve been blown to pieces.
And it turns out that all of the reasons for the
war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!
(Emphasis, jw)
That
statement was made 11 years ago when Trump was a TV
sensation, not a political candidate. A simple rule
is that the greater the temporal gap between a
candidate’s statements and voting day, the more
heartfelt will be the statement. With that statement
of 2004 you could not get further from the sentiment
expressed by Hillary’s support for the war on Iraq
or the proclamation by her close colleague Madeleine
Albright that the Clinton sanctions on Iraq which
killed hundreds of thousands, five hundred thousand
children among them, were “worth it” to overthrow
Saddam Hussein! And Hillary herself peddling every
neocon war in sight from Iraq to Libya and now
Syria. How can the liberals and progressives
excoriate Trump but not Clinton as “racist”? And how
can they ignore Trump’s words of compassion for
those on “the other side”? Those words are unique
among the current contenders for the presidency and
they ought to earn Trump a sobriquet quite different
from “new Hitler” or “racist.” Have the so-called
progressives lost touch with reality?
And now
Hillary claims that Trump’s words fuel the fire of
ISIS. The fires of ISIS were raging long before
Trump made his appearance on the national political
scene. And they burn bright because the wars waged
by the
demented Hillary and the rest of the Washington
political elite provided the fuel that fed the
Jihadist flame. Trump’s words, advocating a
temporary halt to the entrance of Muslims into the
U.S., if they have had any effect at all, were but a
handful of woodchips next to the forests of fuel
that Hillary’s wars provided the conflagration that
is ISIS. But Hillary is no stranger to the most
outrageous of lies, including the charge that ISIS
has made a video featuring Trump.
Now on late
night TV Hillary, despite all the blood of
non-whites on her hands, has the gall to say that
Trump is “dangerous.” He certainly has become a
danger to her shot at the presidency. But for her to
act as though she cares one wit about the lives of
people of color, especially Arabs and Muslims, is a
very sick joke.
In the
context of the presidential campaign, my liberal and
progressive friends, go ahead and excoriate The
Donald to the max for any genuine racism or bigotry.
Have at it. This writer for one welcomes it. But do
not do so without mention of Hillary’s record with
the blood of millions of Muslims all over it, as the
New York Times does. At best that is a
half-truth, which of course is a full lie.
|