Listening to some of her more strident supporters, you’d get the feeling that if Hillary Clinton could, she would do what Obama is only suspected of wanting to do by conservatives. Namely, to personally round-up every gun in America. And you know, I think they’re right.
That is, of course, if we all agree she’d probably help get them sold overseas somewhere.
I cannot stand double standards, and when it comes to gun violence there is no bigger double standard in the Democratic Primary right now than on the issue of guns. Even as a Sanders supporter, I’m bummed that he took money from the National Rifle Association. We all know how vile a lobbying interest they have become. But what irks me more than anything on the issue is that for starters, Sanders happens to still have an abysmal rating from the NRA, and he happens to have, what I have written about in the past, a pretty sensible opinion on guns. Still, of course it’s shitty that he took money from Wayne LaPierre et all, and I have zero problem with him being criticized for that.
However, let’s put all the cards on the table.
It is well-documented that during her tenure as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton helped oversee arms deals between dealers and other countries who had been contributors to the Clinton Foundation. Knowing how knee-jerk reactionary Hill-Hawks can be, let me give you some reporting from that uber-conservative rag, Mother Jones (you know, the people who gave us Mitt Romney’s “47%” video?) back in December of last year on the subject.
In 2011, the State Department cleared an enormous arms deal: Led by Boeing, a consortium of American defense contractors would deliver $29 billion worth of advanced fighter jets to Saudi Arabia, despite concerns over the kingdom’s troublesome human rights record. In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, Saudi Arabia had contributed $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, and just two months before the jet deal was finalized, Boeing donated $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to an International Business Times investigation released Tuesday. (source)
So let me just ask the people who think Bernie’s record on guns is so much worse than Hillary’s — is it that you want to reduce gun violence everywhere, or just gun violence here? Because it seems to me that Clinton just favors offshoring gun violence. And I’m not even getting into the moral repugnance of basically using a charitable foundation and your connections in the highest levels of government to broker deals for deadly weapons. I’m just pointing out the utterly galling hypocrisy of Clinton on this issue.
How about we just call guns a wash for both sides? Or is it really that you’re okay with innocent people of color being gunned down, as long as they’re in another country and just “collateral damage” in some proxy war Clinton is telling us we absolutely must fund and support for “reasons” and “national security?” Maybe we could just admit that politicians of all stripes sometimes have to make compromises on principles we don’t want them to. And then maybe we could realize no politician — Bernie, Hillary, or anyone in between — is the Messiah.
I’m not really trying to tear Hillary down for this, as much as I’m trying to point out just one of many massive blind spots Hillary supporters have. I’ve seen so many just latch on for dear life to the NRA talking point about Bernie, and while, again, that is a basis for a very legitimate criticism of him, Hillary is not justified when she does it. Because here’s the thing — unless and until someone can prove that Sanders used his connections in government to link up people who donate to his charity for the purpose of selling guns and other implements of war, there’s a disconnect in the rhetoric and reality.
No one despises the NRA and their goons more than I do. But to pretend as if they’re the only ones pumping guns out into the world is stupid and disregards reality to the point of hilarity. Or is that, in this case, “Hillary-ty?”
Sorry. Couldn’t resist.