Hayden gets Hillary Wrong

From http://www.truthnews.us/?p=2176

 

Hayden Gets Hillary Wrong

Kurt Nimmo
Truth News
April 27, 2008

Jake Tapper writes the following for ABC News:

In The Nation, former 60s radical Tom Hayden — in an essay called “Why Hillary Makes My Wife Scream” — hammers Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, for attacking Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, for his association with former Weather Underground member William Ayers. “Hillary is blind to her own roots in the sixties,” Hayden writes. “She was in Chicago for three nights during the 1968 street confrontations. She chaired the 1970 Yale law school meeting where students voted to join a national student strike again an ‘unconscionable expansion of a war that should never have been waged.’ She was involved in the New Haven defense of Bobby Seale during his murder trial in 1970…

I bet that drives “conservatives” nuts, especially the ones who spent the last twenty years listening to Rush Limbaugh, a master of the false left-right paradigm.

But things are never what they seem, especially in politics. The corporate media would have us believe the Clintons were 60s leftists. In fact, according to Roger Morris, author of Partners in Power who worked at the White House in both the Johnson and Nixon administrations, the Clintons were CIA operatives plotting against the antiwar and cultural movements of the 1960s and early 1970s.

In 1996, the Telegraph wrote:

According to the book, the bearded, dishevelled Rhodes scholar was recruited by the CIA while at Oxford — along with several other young Americans with political aspirations — to keep tabs on fellow students involved in protest activities against the Vietnam War. Morris says that the young Clinton indulged in some low-level spying in Norway in 1969, visiting the Oslo Peace Institute and submitting a CIA informant’s report on American peace activists who had taken refuge in Scandinavia to avoid the draft. “An officer in the CIA station in Stockholm confirmed that,” said Morris.

Makes sense. Do you think the Bilderbergers would endorse a 60s radical with “political aspirations” for the presidency, as they did with Bill in 1991? Of course not. However, it can be argued both Bill and Hillary are Marxists, although not the sort conforming to the Hollywood version of what a Marxist is.

In fact, Marxism and the Bolshevik Revolution were financed by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, a large stockholder in the Rockefeller-controlled Chase Bank, and a financial associate of the Guggenheims and the Morgans. Congressional testimony has revealed that Rockefeller sent large sums of money to Lenin and Trotsky so they might instigate the Communist Revolution of 1905. Communism was a near perfect control system that appealed greatly to Rockefeller and the Rothschilds.

Hayden continues:

Most significantly in terms of her recent attacks on Barack, after Yale law school, Hillary went to work for the left-wing Bay Area law firm of Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, which specialized in Black Panthers and West Coast labor leaders prosecuted for being communists. Two of the firm’s partners, according to Treuhaft, were communists and the two others ‘tolerated communists’. Then she went on to Washington to help impeach Richard Nixon, whose career was built on smearing and destroying the careers of people through vague insinuations about their backgrounds and associates.

All these were honorable words and associations in my mind, but doesn’t she see how the Hillary of today would accuse the Hillary of the sixties of associating with black revolutionaries who fought gun battles with police officers, and defending pro-communist lawyers who backed communists? Doesn’t the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whom Hillary attacks today, represent the very essence of the black radicals Hillary was associating with in those days? And isn’t the Hillary of today becoming the same kind of guilt-by-association insinuator as the Richard Nixon she worked to impeach?

Tom’s missing the point here — Hillary was simply an effective CIA operative, same as her husband. “Even Hillary Clinton was a Cold Warrior of sorts. Described in Morris’s book as ‘a closet Contra supporter’, she quietly aided Contra fund-raising in Little Rock,” the writes the Telegraph. “She also used her influence in US liberal circles to undercut the legitimacy of peace activists and pro-Sandinista church groups opposed to President Reagan’s policies in Central America.” Others describe the young Hillary as a Goldwater supporter, although this is a bit of embroidery as well.

“The point is not that Bill and Hillary Clinton are Right-wingers in disguise — although Morris demolishes the pretense that they were progressive reformers in Arkansas. It is that they have no conviction, no ideology, no guiding purpose. Driven by raw ambition, they will make any compromise necessary to advance their interests.”

Obviously, Hillary is not a “right-winger in disguise,” whatever that means exactly, although it should be obvious she is a self-seeker with “no conviction, no ideology, no guiding purpose” beyond getting into the White House so she can serve her masters.

Tom Hayden, it would seem, took a wrong turn and got lost somewhere between 1968 and 2008. He is now unable to see Hillary for what she is — a servant of the very ruling elite he has presumably spent most of his life fighting against.

Not that we should hold it against him. Millions of so-called leftists of that tainted era suffer from the very same inability to see the forest for the trees.