First and foremost, I respect Hillary Clinton as a human being and admire her courage in advocating health care reform in the early '90s. However, people change over time and Bernie Sanders is far more qualified than Clinton to be Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces.
I would never have made this YouTube video had Clinton not moved so far to the right on foreign policy that a Trump presidency might be just as hawkish in terms of war.
As for Donald Trump, logic dictates that if a person is known for saying "you're fired," then such an individual shouldn't have access to America's nuclear arsenal. Even Jeb Bush has "grave doubts" about Donald Trump as Commander in Chief. Trump shouldn't be anywhere near the White House, but then again, neither should a person with neoconservative allies who voted for the Iraq War. He also owes an apology to John McCain.
As for Hillary Clinton, her prior decisions and judgement, from Iraq to the bombing of Libya, have already been deemed mistakes. How supporters ignore these prior blunders is incomprehensible, especially since these decisions correlate directly to instability in the world today.
If you disagree with any of the reasons below, remember to focus on the logic of my argument, and not any conspiracy theories about why I'm writing this piece, or what I've written in the past.
1. Hillary Clinton's Iraq War vote combined with her prison lobbyist donors make a dangerous combination for any future Commander in Chief.
The militarization of police has its roots in America's perpetual wars, and the fact that Hillary Clinton still has a hawkish foreign policy speaks volumes, especially when taking into account the prison lobbyists that have funded her campaign.
According to a Huffington Post article titled Hillary Clinton Says She'll End Private Prisons, Stop Accepting Their Money, Clinton has accepted a great deal of money from the same interests invested in mass incarceration:
Lobbying firms that work for two major private prison giants, GEO Group and Corrections Corporation of America, gave $133,246 to the Ready for Hillary PAC, according to Vice. Those companies operate a number of criminal and immigrant detention facilities, some of which have been plagued by allegations of abuse and poor treatment of detainees.
While the Iraq War ushered a new era of America's war on terror, this war has also been linked to the militarization of police by The Atlantic in a piece titled How the War on Terror Has Militarized the Police. In addition, the horrors of war have resulted in many veterans landing in prison, and nearly one in ten inmates has served in the military.
As for the issues important to Black Lives Matter and non-white Democrats, Clinton's Iraq War vote and ties to the prison lobby run contrary to the goals of racial justice and demilitarizing the police.
Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, is the antitheses of Clinton on these issues and doesn't take money from prison lobbyists, nor does he have neoconservative advisers. As president and Commander in Chief, Sanders would be free from these influences.
2. Bernie Sanders voted against the Iraq War using the same intelligence Clinton used to call her vote a mistake.
Sanders was right, and not only foreshadowed the chaos that ensued in the Middle East, but also explained the consequences to our military in this speech to Congress:
Fifth, I am concerned about the problems of so-called unintended consequences. Who will govern Iraq when Saddam Hussein is removed and what role will the U.S. play in ensuing a civil war that could develop in that country?
In contrast, Hillary Clinton now calls her vote a "mistake" and still believed the Iraqi insurgency was failing in 2005.
No, I'm not going to vote for a person who voted for Iraq, especially when I spent so much time on Ring of Fire with Mike Papantonio voicing my disdain for Dick Cheney.
3. America's Commander in Chief should be able to type an email without an expanding FBI investigation.
Real or fabricated, Hillary Clinton is linked to far too much controversy and ongoing scandal to be an effective leader.
Also, a foreign donor controversy lends questions as to how autonomous President Clinton will be pertaining to foreign policy decisions.
Leading 1.3 million active personnel in the U.S. military requires a person who doesn't need a personal attorney at all times.
President Bernie Sanders won't have to worry about advice from a personal attorney or an FBI investigation. Sanders is scandal-free and isn't the target of impeachment during his first year in office like Clinton.
Also, Jim Webb and others have questioned Clinton's claim that she was turned away from the Marines.
Like this story, Hillary Clinton once claimed to be under "sniper fire" in Bosnia, which never happened.
4. I fear the consequences of Hillary Clinton using the AUMF to wage war.
Bernie Sanders says "I'll be damned" if America sends more soldiers into quagmires and won the Congressional Award from the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
Hillary Clinton has neoconservative support and will have something similar to a "necon" foreign policy. One neoconservative historian states in The New York Times that he's "comfortable with her" on foreign policy and that Clinton's foreign policy is "something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that."
This evolution towards increased militancy isn't something Democrats or the country need at the moment. We already have war hawks in the GOP. It's bizarre that supporters of Hillary Clinton hate Dick Cheney and the NRA, but have no problem sending Americans to the Middle East with guns, in order to implement a hawkish foreign policy.
Also, I explain in The Huffington Post and Salon why the DNC needs to be taught a lesson. If Americans have only one choice on foreign policy, war, Wall Street and other issues, then we're in danger of becoming something other than a democracy. Both Republicans and Democrats voted for Iraq; only Bernie Sanders gives you a choice against this tragic consensus.
But Sanders and Clinton voted in a similar manner while in Congress, right?
This myth obscures the major differences between a member of Congress and a president. Only the president has the power to unilaterally wage war and spend billions, and President Obama's war against ISIS has cost 2.4 billion, in addition to a recently scrapped $500 million program arming the Syrian rebels. The AUMF gave Obama the authority to do so, and while Congress gave tacit approval in terms of funding, there has yet to be a formal Congressional decision pertaining to America's war on ISIS and terror.
5. Bernie Sanders will not be influenced by public opinion regarding war and fighting ISIS.
A major terrorist attack in Paris caused Hillary Clinton and Trump to espouse hawkish talking points about defeating ISIS.
According to Clinton, America should "intensify and broaden our efforts to smash the would-be caliphate." Clinton also stated "This is a worldwide fight, and America must lead it."
In contrast, Bernie Sanders remained calm and offered a sober response to defeating ISIS and ridding the world of this genocidal organization:
"I want to be smart. I don't want to see young men and women coming home in caskets. I don't want to see us spending trillions of dollars on a war," he told Couric. "I want to see the entire world coming together and I want to see the Muslim nations on the ground."
Only Bernie Sanders mentions "men and women coming home in caskets" and the real consequences of war.
Sanders was right about Iraq and he's right about ISIS today. As I explain in The Hill, foreign policy disasters like Iraq helped create ISIS and the terror experienced in the world today. America has already witnessed Hillary Clinton as Senator and Secretary of State; few can name any major foreign policy accomplishments. We can, however, name mistakes. Bernie Sanders is far more qualified to be president than Clinton or Trump, especially since he's foreshadowed the consequences of perpetual wars, and doesn't focus only upon the need to destroy our enemies. Considering Republicans have mentioned they'd try to impeach Clinton if she won the election, this reality alone makes Bernie Sanders far more qualified to lead the nation on war and foreign policy.
Also on HuffPost:
