Hillary’s Ties to the Defense Industry Run Deep

Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) was an early and enthusiastic supporter of President Bush’s Iraq war. Clinton’s curiously flat, midwestern voice could be heard on the floor of the U.S. senate proclaiming, “Saddam Hussein is a tyrant” and, “So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation.” In other words, Hillary was roarin’ to flex some muscle and go to war.

But Clinton’s pro-war posturing put her squarely at odds not only with the base of the Democratic party but with a majority of New Yorkers who intuitively mistrusted President Bush and suspected his motives had more to do with oil and less to do with national security. What was Hillary Clinton thinking?

Now, four years and 3,513 American deaths later, we may finally have the answer.

According to report in The Hill, Sen. Hillary Clinton has secured more earmarks in the fiscal 2008 defense authorization bill than any other Democrat except for panel Chairman Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI.)

In fact, the bill contains about $5.4 billion in earmarks, or projects, not requested by the Pentagon. With their slim majority, the Democrats on the panel claimed two-thirds of that sum. Clinton is among their more junior members.

By contrast, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), also a Democratic presidential candidate and Clinton’s rival for the nomination, has only one request in the defense bill.

Clinton’s share of the pork contained in 26 earmarks is worth about $148.4 million, most of which were also sought by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY.) Clinton and Schumer agreed several years ago to go after projects together, according to several sources.

According to the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense, Clinton has secured 360 earmarks worth a combined $2.2 billion from 2002 to 2006 in all spending and authorization bills.

Said Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense:

“She has learned how to play the game and to use her power on the committee to bring home dollars for her constituents. She knows how to toot her own horn with the constituents, and that will likely play into her national campaigns.”

Sen. Hillary Clinton’s beneficiaries include some of the largest military defense companies in the world. They include giant Northrop Grumman, which secured $6 million for the AN/SPQ-9B radar; New York-based Telephonics, which won $5 million for a standardized aircraft wireless intercom system for the National Guard Black Hawk helicopter fleet; Plug Power Inc., another New York state company, which got $3 million for fuel cell power technology; and Alliant Tech Systems (ATK), which won $3.5 million for the X-51 B robust scramjet research.

The Senate considers earmarks distinct from the equipment and projects that appear on the military services’ so-called unfunded requirements list, so such funding is not disclosed as an earmark. A good example is the additional $4.1 billion for the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle approved by the committee. The committee also included $575 million in the earmark requests for MRAPs for the Army, Air Force and Special Operations Command as part of the Iraq supplemental funding for 2008.

All earmarks approved in the defense appropriations bills are assured funding.

So it should come as no surprise to antiwar Democrats frustrated by Sen. Hillary Clinton’s refusal to issue an apology for her 2002 vote authorizing President Bush to go to war with Iraq. An apology from Hillary isn’t an admission of error in judgment but a repudiation of the very people who have helped her become the Democratic presidential front runner. Clinton’s not about to bite the hand that feeds her.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Hillary Clinton, Iran war, Iraq war, Republicans. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Hillary’s Ties to the Defense Industry Run Deep

  1. Brigadoon says:

    I disliked her in Oct. 2002 when she cast her vote in support of the Iraq war but after reading this piece, my dislike for her has turned to loathing. If she’s the nominee, I simply won’t vote. I can’t support a Hawk of this magnitude. Fuck her.

  2. TOM339 says:

    So Clinton and Schumer cut a backroom deal that hauls in the military pork and wins their respect and support but also allows them to publicly to be against the war.

    Ah, another word for this is: liar.

    And people wonder why the American public hates Washington politicians?

  3. Harry says:

    Explains why she won’t say “I’m sorry” for her pro-war vote. Mr. Gore, we need you!

  4. Adirondacky says:

    Another in the myriad reasons not to vote for Hillary under any circumstances.
    If the nominee isn’t either Obama or Edwards then it’s preferable to not vote at all.
    Write off ’08 and focus on 2012.

  5. Larry says:

    Hillary’s ties sound like a neocon ties to the same industry.

  6. Matteo says:

    Great blog entry, Christopher. Here’s some background on Hillary’s benefactor, Northrop Grumman Corporation.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman

    Northrop Grumman Corporations is the third largest defense contractor in the world and the number-one builder of naval vessels. As of February 2007, Northrop Grumman employs almost 200,000 people wordwide.

    It’s subsidiarie, Newport News Shipbuilding manufactures all U.S. aircraft carriers, and is the only company capable of building Nimitz-class supercarriers. It also produces a large percentage of U.S. nuclear submarines. A separate sector, Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, produces amphibious assault ships and many other commercial and military craft, including icebreakers, tankers, and cargo ships. In a partnership with Science Applications International Corporation, Northrop Grumman provides naval engineering and architecture services as well as naval maintenance services.

  7. joost says:

    Hillary Clinton = war whore. Nuff’ said.

  8. Idaho Librul says:

    This also explains why Sen. Carl Levin keeps voting to continue funding the Iraq war.

    Like Hillary, he’s a wholly-owned subsidiary of military industrial complex.

    I guess it’s easy for people like Clinton and Levin to send other people’s kids to die. As long as it isn’t their kids going to Iraq.

  9. TOM339 says:

    Matteo –

    Google “Alliant Tech Systems (ATK)”

    http://www.atk.com/

    Here’s their mission statement:

    Our mission is to ensure that our customers accomplish their mission — whether it’s a military operation, a satellite launch, or a technological breakthrough. We provide solutions for mission assurance through our three business groups: ATK Mission Systems, ATK Ammunition Systems, and ATK Launch Systems.

    This is who owns Sen. Clinton?

  10. Brigadoon says:

    Each of those defense contractors have one thing in common: death. They manufacture machines, boats and airplanes designed to kill human beings.

  11. panasit says:

    Great statement Christopher on Hillary and much insight into the true character of her base.

    While the MSM claims her supporters are mostly women, in reality, this would mean the “women” have missles tied to their backs.

    If we don’t get this type of influence out of national politics, I fear for our future.

  12. dad2059 says:

    That’s why she’s called “Shillary” around these parts.

    But here in Upstate NY where there’s a dirth of good paying jobs anymore, there’s alot of people willing to work for Lockhead-Martin, Northrup-Grumman, Telephonics and others for the lucre these companies pay, conscience be damned when you’re buying a house or sending a kid through college. And Hillary knows this.

    The neocons are everywhere and we’ve glorified war like the Romans did.

  13. TomCat says:

    Hillary is my last choice among Democratic contenders. That said, she’d be better then Bush. Of course, so would Torquemada.

  14. Mark says:

    I’m sticking with Obama. His hands seem the least dirty of all the Democrats. If he isn’t the nominee and you-know-who gets it instead, I just can’t say for certain I will vote for her and this article only helps to reinforce the negative opinion I have of Hillary.

  15. balkan says:

    Great entry!

  16. Pingback: Obama Takes Bold Step in Holding Politicians Accountable to the People « Think On These Things

  17. Pingback: What’s the Cost of Admission to Hillaryland? « Think On These Things

  18. Pingback: 8 Reasons Hillary Clinton Could Never Be a “Second Black President” « Think On These Things

  19. Bob Smith says:

    Up until now, I was skeptical about how Hillary would perform as president. Now, I see that there is hope for her. She will certainly make a better president than Al Gore or John Kerry would have. I admire her realistic support for the defense industry. History shows that a woman leader must be tough and make the necessary choices in spite of whiners. Go Hillary!

  20. robert says:

    Obama is no better,if he was in the Senate in 2002 he would of probably voted the same,as soon as he started running for Senate in 2004 his anti-war positions started changing more to the Right. He has voted for all war appropriations, he wants to expand the military by 100,000 combat troops,wants to do nothing about the bloated wasteful military budget,voted to a confirm war hawks and pro-torture candidates like Condi Rice,Robert gates,Gonzalez, etc,has helped campaign against anti-war Democrats including Lieberman Bush’s closest democratic ally for the Iraq war. Voted to reaffirm the Patriot act, etc etc Dont be fooled Obama is as Pro war as Hillary is.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s