Hillary Clinton Promotes the TPP in Singapore 11-17-2012

[Scootaloo]

6. And US foreign policy is usually reprehensible and ethically void.

So we come to a question, when we look at the people who are tasked with promoting policy that is openly destructive to vast swathes of the world.

is there a breaking point? a moment where the person in that position has to make a decision between being an ethical, decent person... and "doing the job"? Very likely. How many Secretaries of State have favored ethics and tendered their resignation when policy demand they promote something ethically repugnant?

To my knowledge, none. There is a deep level of sociopathy that seems necessary to hold the position. Where you can facilitate the giving of US weapons and "experts" to a bloody despot who then uses them to crush people seeking democratic reform, knowing full well that his police enjoy raping female protesters without batting an eye. Where you can stare at men and women getting chopped to pieces and say "not our problem." Where you look an interviewer in the eye and say half a million dead children are "worth it" to prove a point. Where you can hold hands and share dinner with a guy who is, right at that moment, conducting mass executions of political opponents, holding mass trials in absentia, all with foregone death penalties. Where you can sit in front of the United nations and with a straight face, lie about anthrax with a bottle of craft glitter and the need to annihilate another nation. Wehre you can pat yourself on the back for spewing napalm on villages and leaving a trail of coups and mass-murdering juntas in your wake.

Now, I know, international politics is a nasty place and there are no saints. This sort of job, and thesort of people who can do it effectively are probably necessary, as much as i wish they weren't.

But they should never bee in charge of any nation.

Never.

Not Kerry, not Clinton, not Rice, not Powell, not Albright, not Christopher, none of them.