If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
The death of accountability and criticism
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
This is one of the most articulately written and empassioned editorials on the current evasion tactics employed by the political elite in Washington who seem to forget the very principles of public debate upon which America was founded.
Thought id toss it into the ring as a signpost against the typical slanderous remarks often levelled at those of us with a dissenting view...
http://www.democracymeansyou.com/serious/anti-american.htm
Thought id toss it into the ring as a signpost against the typical slanderous remarks often levelled at those of us with a dissenting view...
http://www.democracymeansyou.com/serious/anti-american.htm
0
Comments
A polarization of ideals, or at least an attempt at that, where if you dont think the war is a good idea then you must be a terrorist.
1. Wasn't that a poke at the US media reporting more than politicians?
2. Hasn't this been going on for decades? See McCarthy, Vietnam protests etc.
Other than that I would agree with the sentiments - a dissenting voice isn't necessarily a traitorous one...
You hold tight to your irony and Ill stick with the truth, something the military establishment has never been known to uphold.
Or does it just happen to every Democrat President but with this one you have the Monica Lewinsky ammo to throw around?
In my view when the most serious accusation about an ex-President his detractors mention is that he cheated on the wife and tried not to get caught, that is a very good indication of how good the Presidency actually was.
But I guess anyone who doesn't subscribe to the ultra right wing, militarist, free market, christian fundamentalist, anti-environment pro business agenda of the Republicans is not worth having.
The thing that really gets me is that some idiots actually try to blame 9/11 on Clinton! If anyone or anything other than the terrorists is to blame it's the ever present right wing, aggressive unilateralist foreign policy that the Republicans are so happy to embrace and that has mighty pissed off more than 1bn people throughout the world.
Clandestine, you might enjoy not in our name. Tons of celebrities took out an expensive anti-war ad. Ran it in the NY Times etc. there's a website about the organization too.
Jane Fonda is a member. Her, of all people.
Let's see...
Clinton...
Best known saying:
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman"
Accomplishments:
Managed to get 19 soldiers killed by refusing requested support after he changed the parameters of the mission in Somalia.
Managed to shoot a camel in the butt with a cruise missile after the bombing of the WTC.
Talked lots about solving the IRA issue, and the Palestinian issue. In the end? Accomplished nothing.
Ruled over the largest bubble economy in US history. Maybe he learned economics from the Thais or Japanese. The US economy (and therefore the world economy) is suffering the results.
After the bombings of US Embassies in Africa...did nothing.
After the bombing of the USS Cole....did nothing.
Continually downsized the US military while increasing deployments to the point that military personnel rarely spend half a year at their duty post.
And this is without Whitewater, the White House travel agency glitch, vandalizing the White House, the Health Care fiasco, his inappropriate relationship with an intern, or his impeachment for commiting perjury.
Great Presidents either say or do great things. Clinton did neither. And his impeachment shows perfectly how badly he worked with Congress (only the 2d impeachment in American history...not a great precedent).
Like many a Republican President before him and like GW today. At least Clinton made substantial progress toward lessening the conflict in an arena of extremists, who - like you - think the gun and the bomb are the only answer to everything wrong with the world.
Hey, just like the Reagan/Bush Administration after the gassing of the Kurds at Halabjah, imagine that! (only to make matters worse, the chemical weapons were supplied by the US as well).
How sad for you that Clinton should have cared about the red-lining deficit created by Reagan and subsequently Bush Sr.'s admins. He said he would bring the deficit down paving the way for more economic stability at home and my goodness, he did just that.
Its about time we closed our bases and stopped trying to dictate to the nations of the world how they will be run. Maybe then we might actually make some substantial progress toward reducing global terrorism the right way, by acting as a responsible world neighbour instead of an authoritarian economic and military empire.
Substantial progress? Oh yes, really noticable in the "occupied territories", isn't it? :rolleyes:
Kind of funny, actually. If Clinton cared so much about the deficit, why did he put forward that "National Health Care Plan"? Or did he just care about it when cuts came from areas he could care less about?
As for the second paragraph, Clinton was responsible for more military deployments than any President since Nixon. Maybe you should think about that while you praise him.
Nice dodge since we were talking about Northern Ireland and the IRA, or are you suffering from conflict induced memory loss? Perhaps youve been visiting the Golden Triangle a bitt too frequently and the opiates have taken their toll. :rolleyes:
But to be fair, one can see that Clinton brought the process a damn site closer to settlement even in the Middle East, too bad Likhud never had any intention of making peace.
The quote you used. Are you having a bit of problem with reading comprehension?
Arafat also never had any intention of peace. And he never will. Peace would lose him his cause.
Actually, my original reply did. If you're smart enough to pick it up.
Had the formidable Republican machinery not been set in motion in order to pursue to the very end what was in essence a completely pointless and irrelevant (non)story, Clinton would have not been placed in a position where he had to utter that sentence and lie. Had it been the other way around I wonder if the whiter-than-white Republicans would have given much of a shit if the President had been shagging around. Needless to say in most other nations the incident would have not gone further than some cheeky headlines in the tabloid press.
As opposed to G.W. Bush who managed to drop 50,000 tonnes of high explosives after the 2nd WTC attack and still miss its target.
Do you care to compare Clinton's presidency with Bush's so far?
Enron, WorldCom, the Kyoto agreement, international relations and US image abroad at its lowest point in American history, the economy, a general feeling of corruption and favouritism, contempt for social care, etc, etc.
Ah, a perfect example of the true death of accountability. The President of the United States commits perjury, and you claim it is other people's fault.
Of course, my point was that his perjury is the most memorable line of his Presidency. Not much of a legacy for a man who wanted to be remembered in the same manner as John F. Kennedy.
Both the Taliban and Al Queda have been significantly damaged. A great number of the higher positions in the hierarchy of Al Queda have been killed or captured. There is a fair possibility that Bin Laden is dead. Yep, great comparison.
Where is your compassion, Greenhat? :eek:
Don't you know? It was all of the pressure exerted by GWB that made Komrad Blow-job do the things he did! :rolleyes:
If it weren't for Bush, then Klinton would be the upstanding pillar of righteousness that clandestine-collaborator believes him to be...
Really? They seem very active and functional, and if half of the arrests made throughout Europe turn up to be linked to Al Qaeda I'd say they're in top shape.
Has it occurred to you that perhaps Clinton knew a knee-jerk retaliation attack after the USS Cole and US Embassies bombings would have resolved nothing since America knew then (as it does now) that even 1,000 cruise missiles won't any damage to the operational effectiveness of Al Qaeda? If memory serves he did launch a few missiles against a medicine factory somewhere. It achieved nothing other than perhaps giving Americans some sense of revenge against an enemy it cannot see.
If anything Clinton should be congratulated for not launching a pointless retaliation strike that would have almost certainly killed innocent people and further damaged international relations with half the world.
I'm trying to figure out if you are actually a supporter of terrorism or actually as foolish as the above post indicates.
Ever consider that the inaction of the Clinton administration led directly to the deaths at the World Trade Center?
A typical Republican response that avoids facing the fact that it is the aggressive, oppressive, biased and selfish policy the USA has inflicted on countless nations that triggered the attacks, not the inaction of anyone.
If anything you should be grateful that Clinton wasn't as trigger-happy and internationally inept as Bush is. For the terrorists might have held an ever bigger grudge against the US and crashed the planes on that nuclear plant upstate (which appeared to be their original plan until they decided it'd be too excessive).
The best way to prevent attacks is to stop your unilateralist and one-sided policy in the Middle East and persecution of anyone who does not dance to your tune.
No Bush, no Clinton, nobody would have been able to stop those attacks. Who was in power when the planes struck anyway?
Have you ever actually met a terrorist? You actually believe that garbage you posted, don't you? Funny how it has never worked. Terrorists have been with us for the entirety of recorded history, and all kneeling to their so called causes has ever done is created greater acts of terrorism.
Without Clinton's inaction, it is possible the terrorists would not have attempted the hijackings on 9/11. Is it sure? No, but it his inaction sure didn't dissuade them.
You are a hypocrit and so obviously blind to the complicity of those you unquestioningly support Greeny. You give my colleagues (both conservative and liberal) no end of amusement with your constant unsubstantiated claims and accusations.
If anything Clinton restored some diplomacy to world affairs before the hawks swooped back in to hold the world at gun point. If not, we well might have been attacked sooner.
And since terrorists have always been with us I could also blame Bush Snr. for not doing enough either. Al Qaeda was created during his presidency.
Guess he needed his man free and unmolested for the big day as insurance against what we now see was a progressive decline in public opinion and the pre-planned Afghan invasion. How convenient for Bushie that nobody was asking any questions too soon.
Some very interesting reading concerning many unanswered questions and the Bush admin complicity...
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO206A.html
To be fair, Clinton had little to do with the bubble economy and restraining its current effects. Alan Greenspan would be a better target.
You need to do a bit more research, Clandestine. Clinton ordered Bin Laden not be apprehended, not Bush.
He also ordered Chicago FBI investigators to cease their investigations into local Saudi miilionaire Yassim Al-Qadi's possible ties with the 1998 Embassy bombings, which had been ongoing.
Best you you follow your own advice and get a clue.
Notwithstanding that, fact or not, a subsequent stand down was ordered by Bush ...
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=103&row=0
(which makes far more sense given his ties to the Bin Ladens) in January 2001.
In fact, a number of of officials including at least one DIA investigator resigned shortly after Bush took office for his obstruction of investigations into terrorist activities in Afghanistan well before 9/11. Another rather suspect point in this whole sordid mess.