What Hillary Clinton Privately Told Goldman Sachs

By David Swanson | Oct 18, 2016 | Politics, US, Viewpoints | 0 |

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaking with supporters at a town

hall meeting at Hillside Middle School in Manchester, New Hampshire. (Gage
Skidmore/CC BY-SA 2.0)
It's fascinating that even the bankers in whom Clinton confides her militarist
mania ask her identical questions to those I get asked by peace activists.
At first glance, Hillary Clintons speeches to Goldman Sachs, which she refused
to show us but WikiLeaks claims to have now produced the texts of, reveal less
blatant hypocrisy or abuse than do the texts of various emails also recently
revealed. But take a closer look.

Clinton has famously said that she believes in maintaining a public position on
each issue that differs from her private position. Which did she provide to
Goldman Sachs?
Yes, Clinton does profess her loyalty to corporate trade agreements, but at the
time of her remarks she hadnt yet started (publicly) claiming otherwise.
I think, in fact, that Clinton maintains numerous positions on various issues, and
that those she provided to Goldman Sachs were in part her public stances, in
part her confidences to co-conspirators, and in part her partisan Democratic
case to a room of Republicans as to why they should donate more to her and less
to the GOP. This was not the sort of talk shed have given to labor union
executives or human rights professionals or Bernie Sanders delegates. She has a
position for every audience.
In the speech transcripts from June 4, 2013, October 29, 2013, and October
19, 2015, Clinton was apparently paid sufficiently to do something she denies
most audiences. That is, she took questions that it appears likely she was not
secretly briefed on or engaged in negotiations over ahead of time. In part this
appears to be the case because some of the questions were lengthy speeches,
and in part because her answers were not all the sort of meaningless platitudes
that she produces if given time to prepare.
Much of the content of these speeches to U.S. bankers dealt with foreign
policy, and virtually all of that with warfare, potential warfare, and opportunities
for military-led domination of various regions of the globe. This stuff is more
interesting and less insultingly presented than the idiocies spewed out at the
public presidential debates. But it also fits an image of U.S. policy that Clinton
might have preferred to keep private. Just as nobody advertised that, as emails
now show, Wall Street bankers helped pick President Obamas cabinet, were
generally discouraged from thinking that wars and foreign bases are intended as
services to financial overlords. Im representing all of you, Clinton says to the
bankers in reference to her efforts at a meeting in Asia. Sub-Saharan Africa
has great potential for U.S. businesses and entrepreneurs, she says in
reference to U.S. militarism there.
Yet, in these speeches, Clinton projects exactly that approach, accurately or
not, on other nations and accuses China of just the sort of thing that her far
left critics accuse her of all the time, albeit outside the censorship of U.S.
corporate media. China, Clinton says, may use hatred of Japan as a means of
distracting Chinese people from unpopular and harmful economic policies. China,
Clinton says, struggles to maintain civilian control over its military. Hmm. Where
else have we seen these problems?

Were going to ring China with missile defense,' Clinton tells Goldman Sachs.
Were going to put more of our fleet in the area.
On Syria, Clinton says its hard to figure out whom to armcompletely oblivious
to any options other than arming somebody. Its hard, she says, to predict at all
what will happen. So, her advice, which she blurts out to a room of bankers, is to
wage war in Syria very covertly.
In public debates, Clinton demands a no fly zone or no bombing zone or safe
zone in Syria, from which to organize a war to overthrow the government. In a
speech to Goldman Sachs, however, she blurts out that creating such a zone
would require bombing a lot more populated areas than was required in Libya.
Youre going to kill a lot of Syrians, she admits. She even tries to distance
herself from the proposal by referring to this intervention that people talk
about so gliblyalthough she, before and at the time of that speech and ever
since has been the leading such person.
Clinton also makes clear that Syrian jihadists are being funded by Saudi
Arabia, UAE, and Qatar. In October 2013, as the U.S. public had rejected
bombing Syria, Blankfein asked if the public was now opposed to
interventionsthat clearly being understood as a hurdle to be overcome.
Clinton said not to fear. Were in a time in Syria, she said, where theyre not
finished killing each other . . . and maybe you just have to wait and watch it.
Thats the view of many ill-meaning and many well-meaning people who have been
persuaded that the only two choices in foreign policy are bombing people and
doing nothing. That clearly is the understanding of the former Secretary of
State, whose positions were more hawkish than those of her counterpart at the
Pentagon. Its also reminiscent of Harry Trumans comment that if the Germans
were winning you should help the Russians and vice versa, so that more people
would die. Thats not exactly what Clinton said here, but its pretty close, and its
something she would not say in a scripted joint-media-appearance masquerading
as a debate. The possibility of disarmament, nonviolent peacework, actual aid on
a massive scale, and respectful diplomacy that leaves U.S. influence out of the
resulting states is just not on Clintons radar no matter who is in her audience.
On Iran, Clinton repeatedly hypes false claims about nuclear weapons and
terrorism, even while admitting far more openly than were used to that Irans
religious leader denounces and opposes nuclear weapons. She also admits that
Saudi Arabia is already pursuing nuclear weapons and that UAE and Egypt are
likely to do so, at least if Iran does. She also admits that the Saudi government
is far from stable.

Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein asks Clinton at one point how a good war
against Iran might gohe suggesting that an occupation (yes, they use that
forbidden word) might not be the best move. Clinton replies that Iran can just
be bombed. Blankfein, rather shockingly, appeals to realitysomething Clinton
goes on at obnoxious length about elsewhere in these speeches. Has bombing a
population into submission ever worked, Blankfein asks. Clinton admits that it has
not but suggests that it just might work on Iranians because they are not
democratic.
Regarding Egypt, Clinton makes clear her opposition to popular change.
Regarding China again, Clinton claims to have told the Chinese that the United
States could claim ownership of the entire Pacific as a result of having
liberated it. She goes on to claim to have told them that We discovered Japan
for heavens sake. And: We have proof of having bought [Hawaii]. Really? From
whom?
This is ugly stuff, at least as damaging to human lives as the filth coming from
Donald Trump. Yet its fascinating that even the bankers in whom Clinton
confides her militarist mania ask her identical questions to those I get asked by
peace activists at speaking events: Is the U.S. political system completely
broken? Should we scrap this and go with a parliamentary system? Et cetera.
In part their concern is the supposed gridlock created by differences between
the two big parties, whereas my biggest concern is the militarized destruction
of people and the environment that never seems to encounter even a slight
traffic slowdown in Congress. But if you imagine that the people Bernie Sanders
always denounces as taking home all the profits are happy with the status quo,
think again. They benefit in certain ways, but they dont control their monster
and it doesnt make them feel fulfilled.
This article was originally published at DavidSwanson.org.