community-based, non-corporate, participatory media
“Asteroid Hits Earth, Millions Die—GOP Says Clinton Responsible”
by Mark Drolette
Sunday, May. 23, 2004 at 11:05 AM
mdrolette@earthlink.net
Bill Clinton has been blamed by his detractors for just about everything from curdled milk to genetic mutations. But might there be a more recent president whose own record of misdeeds puts Clinton's to shame? Read the following for why it just may be time for Clinton critics to quit caterwauling.
I swear, I think it's only a matter of time before I read the above headline or one similar. Bill Clinton’s been out of office for over three years now, and he’s still being blamed for just about everything but the Civil War (I'm sure someone--maybe Ann Coulter, AKA "Ann Slanders"--will dig up an Arkansas ancestor who’s culpable somehow). It matters not how trivial the issue or even whether there’s a rational connection; the compulsion by his detractors (and my, they are a rabid lot) to throw Clinton's name accusingly into just about any discussion is seemingly unstoppable. And when it comes to serious topics, like dealing with terrorism, well, you'd think old William Jefferson is Beelzebubba incarnate. But for sheer chicanery, President Bush has Clinton beat by a Texarkana country mile, and when Bush defenders insist they hear truth and sincerity in his words, I get a sick sense: I see deaf people.
First, a disclaimer: I dislike Bush intensely, but I’m not a big Clinton fan, either. I realize this may confuse those who tend to view the world in strictly black-and-white terms and for whom Bush, whose gray matter comprehends no gray areas, is the perfect president. But I was enamored neither with Clinton's unworkable "don't ask, don't tell" policy for gays in the military nor his cynical escalation of the exorbitantly expensive and draconian drug war. He was no champion of the Constitution and lived close to the legal edge when it came to raising campaign monies. But again, whether it’s these issues or others—like being “poll-driven,” the economy, or, ahem, just possessing good old-fashioned intelligence--of the two, Bush is the real evildoer (I’ve long wanted to use that word).
For instance, in the rainbow-bannered arena, Bush's phony proposed constitutional gay marriage ban (clearly election year pandering to his hardcore base) wins anyone’s homophobia contest hands-down. The drug war? Bush's unhinged attorney general has been even more zealous than the previous administration in continuing this crusade (and heaven knows John Ashcroft loves a good crusade), spending precious resources even after 9/11 to search for and destroy medicinal marijuana intended for terminally ill, wheelchair-bound patients. I know, I know: It’s all done in the name of compassionate conservatism.
Clinton’s constitutional transgressions? His First Amendment record was poor: His administration pushed for the (successful) installation of V-chips in all TV sets (perhaps one should have been installed in his libido) and pursued censorship in other areas. The Fourth Amendment didn’t fare much better under Clinton as the Justice Department began conducting warrantless searches during his tenure. But when it comes to rights (as in the denial of), Clinton pales in comparison to Bush, who, for instance, wants to make permanent the odious Patriot Act. Or how about the indefinite incarceration of an American with no access to family or legal counsel, as has happened to "enemy combatant" Jose Padilla? Also, a concerted, sometimes brutal effort at suppressing dissent has been employed across the land. Orwellian-named (shouldn't that be "Bushian-named"?) "free speech zones" are routinely set up in cities hosting the President, VP, or government-sponsored trade conferences, far from the action. It might be only a matter of time before FSZs are restricted to a few scattered parking lots in San Francisco and New York--pay-by-the-hour, no doubt. Perhaps daily rates will be available.
Clinton has been (rightly) slammed for shady fund-raising activities and using 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue as a giant moneymaking machine. He even provided Lincoln bedroom sleepovers as perks for big contributors for which Bush blasted him during the 2000 campaign. Either W forgot he'd said this (a distinct possibility) or ultimately decided he might like a piece of that action himself because, whaddyaknow, a couple years later news broke that Bush held White House slumber parties for—surprise--Republican campaign heavy hitters. Actually, Bush needed no inspiration from Clinton in misusing an official government residence: During his stretch as the Lone Star State's head honcho, the Corpus Christi Caller-Times reports that "eight of the 31 overnight guests at the Texas governor's mansion [in 1999] helped...Bush raise a record $70 million for his Republican presidential bid." Once again, Bush out-Clintoned Clinton, cheeky stuff when one recalls his pledge to "restore honor and integrity to the White House." Maybe Bush meant after HIS residency there.
While it's undeniable that Clinton was poll-driven, the current administration has no equal in that area. With the wormy but undisputed king of demographics Karl Rove as Bush’s advisor, not a single decision is made by the current administration without first calculating the net gain or loss in meaningful congressional or electoral votes. As for Bush being so pure that he doesn't listen to polls, this could only be true if one means he ignores comments made by Krakow residents.
Clinton-haters blame the former president for the country's economic problems under Bush. Hmm, let's see: America’s overall fiscal picture hasn't been this out-of-focus since, well, since Bush Sr. was in office (probably a coincidence). That giant sucking noise heard across the land caused by the disappearance of millions of jobs on Bush Jr.’s watch is strangely appropriate, given the surname of the last president who lost an even greater number. Herbert Hoover is not someone with whom most presidents would care to be associated, but W doesn't fret much over legacy. When queried by Bob Woodward for his book "Plan of Attack" about how future Americans (provided there are any) will view his decision to invade Iraq, Bush responds: "History. We don't know. We'll all be dead." Historically speaking, of course.
Speaking of speaking, I sure miss Clinton's public appearances. His personal comportment may suck (sorry), but his mind is brilliant. I mean, put Clinton's ability to grasp things political against Bush's, and it almost seems like Clinton is a Rhodes scholar while Bush is some fortunate son of average intellect who matriculated to a prestigious university based solely on his family's influence--doesn't it? I enjoyed listening to Clinton whether I agreed with him or not; he grasped the issues, understood nuances, and articulated them well. Contrast that with Bush's elocution "skills," and one's lucky if ear surgery and some counseling aren't required immediately after hearing him try to string together sentences that follow any known rules of English.
Now for the biggie: terrorism. One of the sillier claims making the rounds is that Clinton (or Al Gore, had he won in 2000--well, he did win, but the Supreme Court said he didn't double-dog dare ya win) would not have gone after al-Qaida in Afghanistan post-9/11 the way the heroic Bush did. Sorry, but ANY American president would have done the same thing. Make that any American period, including my besotted Aunt Earline, and she's been dead for twenty years. Bush gets no extra credit for doing his job (after not doing his job), but maybe that's a little harsh: It should be acknowledged he at least tried to make it appear he was interested in pursuing the real murderers before hanging a testosterone-fueled U-turn and careening toward Baghdad.
There's been a hue and cry from the right that 9/11 is all Clinton's fault and Bush was minding the store just fine; after all, Bush had only eight months to Clinton's eight years to be on the lookout for swarthy men who intended us great harm. Time for our non-revisionist history moment: Clinton spent much of his two terms shackled by self-righteous Republicans (is that redundant?) who were more obsessed about busting Clinton for something--anything!--than interested in serving their country. After years of witch hunts and a $52 million taxpayer-financed price tag, the moralistic Ken Starr finally nailed Clinton for nailings of his own, which, though perfectly legally, were certainly ill-advised. When Clinton compounded his poor judgment by lying under oath, he finally gave his pursuers something to hang their cone-shaped hats on.
Was this an impeachable offense? More so than--hypothetically speaking--lying about why this country had to attack a defenseless nation, causing untold misery and costing billions, solely to satiate some harebrained America-as-empire ideology? Why, of course! (Sorry, I had a Junior moment.) I mean, of course not, but that certainly appears to be the conclusion of anti-Clintonians whose pathological obsession often blinds them to anything resembling common sense.
As for who really, REALLY focused better on terrorism, Clinton or Bush: Former U.S. counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke told the 9/11 commission that the Clinton administration had had “no higher priority” than combating terrorism. When Clinton’s administration handed its terrorism-related intelligence to the incoming Bushies, though, the file didn’t quite find its way to the top of the in-box (both because it had icky Clinton fingerprints on it and also because it's hard to concentrate on ousting Saddam Hussein and genuine terrorist threats simultaneously.) There's no doubt, however, that by the summer of 2001, Bush and crew were asleep at the console, considering "the system was blinking red," according to CIA Director George Tenet. But I do want to state right here it is categorically NOT true that Osama bin Laden personally phoned the president beforehand to inform him of al-Qaida's plans (no one can say I don't defend the president when truth dictates it).
Alas, the upcoming litany of Bush's double-dealing is the decidedly unfunny part of our program, so I’m afraid the yuck stops here. President George Walker Bush: lied about the threat from Iraq and its ties to al-Qaida, lied about the “average” $1083 tax cut, directed the EPA to falsely tell New Yorkers their air was safe a few days after 9/11, has stonewalled the 9/11 and Iraq war intelligence commissions after first resisting their creations, displays little interest in finding the member(s) of his staff who blew CIA operative Valerie Plame’s cover, refuses to release energy task force records, ordered information about the Medicare bill’s true cost withheld from Congress until after its vote, proposes reclassifying as "manufacturing jobs" fast-food positions to help boost his jobs lost numbers, foisted his much-ballyhooed No Child Left Behind legislation on unwilling states only to stick them with $27 billion in underfunding, promotes himself as tough on terror yet just days AFTER 9/11 slashed by almost two-thirds the FBI’s $1.5 billion emergency anti-terrorism request, sends the military senselessly into harm’s way with high praise while, variously, opposing health insurance benefits for reservists and National Guard members, slashing funds for medical care and housing for military dependents, eliminating access to drug discounts for veterans…of course, I could go on, but I’m already in danger of developing carpal tunnel syndrome. It should be very painfully obvious to patriots: President Bush is an unscrupulous, opportunistic liar, and America is suffering immeasurably for it.
While Clinton may be greasy, Bush, following family tradition, is a big-time oil man. It is way past time for those who have moaned incessantly for oh-so many years about Clinton’s wickedness and how all things dark are his fault to give up the ghost, pack it in, call it a decade. It’s so last millennium, and considering the machinations of the current White House resident, transparently disingenuous. If you are a compulsive Clinton-hater and cannot see this, please: Hie thee soon to the nearest mental health facility and do yourself (and your poor, worn-out family) a big favor. Because when it comes to comparing the current president’s performance to that of his predecessor’s, any objective review of Bush’s wincingly bad song-and-dance routine would note he’s got too right feet and mention the tune’s grating reworked lyrics (with apologies to Irving Berlin): “Anythin’ Bill can do, I can do unbetter. I can do anythin’ unbetter than him.”
Thank you, Mark!
by John Levine
Tuesday, Jun. 01, 2004 at 10:02 AM
That sums up very well what I've been thinking for quite some time. Thanks again!
Asteroid hits Earth, Woman and Children Affected Most
by Unoriginal Leftists Again
Tuesday, Jun. 01, 2004 at 5:56 PM
First of all, this is a prettty unoriginal attempt at humor and critique.
Secondly, your absolute refusal to acknowledge that matters of foreign policy adn national security that have defined the Bush administration were IN FACT laid at the door step of this President in large part by the previous President, only typifies the ignorance of the AMerican Left and demonstrates your own lack of intellectual depth.
You little unoriginal diatribe could well have been written that the American Left blames GW for everything wrong in society from the increase in energy prices (even though the American Left has steadfastly refused an energy policy) to the historically low unemployment rates (which in the distorted self-serving view of the AMerican Left is somehow a bad thing) to the removal of Howard Stern from Pittsburgh Radio (oops, that one is the fault of the Bush Administration).
Face it, in your world it is "Blame Bush First". You ignore the facts. You ignore the analysis. You are consumed by a visceral hatred of GW. There is even a polpular Leftist book out called "The Bush Hater's Handbook" whihc was fawningly reviewed in the local alternative press this past week. Your bias has become laughable. But that is what stadns between the American Left and progress ... a single-minded devotion to anything other than the fiat of the American Left. You talk about compromise and inclusion, but your actions are all exclusionary. Your policies are nothing but personal atacks on the leaders whom you disagree with and disregard. You have nothing to offer in the way of solution or alternative. Listen to Air AMerica, it is non-stop college radio ranting about the idiots on the Right, persoanl attacks on individuals without meaningful analysis of policy, only conclusionary statements which all say "The Right is Stupid." OOOOHHHHHH, I am convinced that you are so smart now. (By 'you" I am referring to the AMerican Left at large and not to YOU specifically. Just so you are aware before you go off on some "your attacking me" rant.)
THe Right may not have appreciated Bill Clinton for the Political Messiah that he represented to the American Left, but the attacks on Bill Clinotn were not of the vitriolic nature that the Left now demonstrates towards President Bush. You all like to say that we spent all of that time and money investigating a BJ, but not once were any on the Left willing to stand up and call it what it really was... a President believing that he was above the law. The fundamental issue was that Clinton lied under oath to a court. He then ied to the American people to cover up his crime of crimnal perjury. I would remind you that Martha Stewart was recently convicted and will likely do jail time for the same crime. Yet Bill CLinton, who was impeached and disbarred for that crime, is still above the law to the American Left and is given a pass on this.
As far as Clinton's Presidency...he was not much of a hawk on issues of terrorism and homeland security. He now claims to have been keenly aware of the threat of Osama Bin L., but he passed up two opportunities to take custody of the criminal. He claims to have worked to facilitate better bureacratic cooperation, but his justice Departmetn did more to keep the seperations between investigative agencies in place. He famously blew up a vitamin factory in Africa in response to the bombing by AlQueada of our Embassy (resulting in the collateral damage of significant increases in malnutrition among children n the region due to the loss of the largest supply of reliable domestic vitamins). He also famously lobbed a couple of cruise missiles at some empty tents in the Afghan desert. He also quickly refused to investigate the possible terrorist links to the "crash" of TWA flight 800 (if you are interested do a search at the Village Voice website. They did some very good reporting on this.) However, his administration did manage to shoot to death a woman cradling here infant son (and the infant son) in the process of serving a local warrant on a man who had tried five days earlier to turn himself in for the charges described in the warrant but was turned away becasue the magistrate was not available (read the reports on something known as Ruby Ridge if you are truly concerned about the oppressive power of the government and how the officer that shot the unarmed woman was rewarded by the FBI for his acions that day). If the Patriot Act scares you, then look at its origins with the proposal of rolling wiretaps by Janet Reno's Justice Department (and keep looking for an example of an abuse of hte Patriot Act, because there hasn't been anything documented even though the Left beleives that we are all subject to daily body cavity searches by the Bush Admin).
And then tell me what you have to offer to solve all of your gripes adn problems (real, perceived, and just plain fabricated for political expediency).
Right-wing sinners
by Christian
Wednesday, Jun. 02, 2004 at 4:13 AM
You Bushmen realize that your continued worship of Bill Clinton's penis goes against the first commandment?
To John and ULA
by Mark
Wednesday, Jun. 02, 2004 at 5:49 PM
To John:
My pleasure. Thank you for taking the time to read it, and also for your kind comments.
To ULA:
Bearing in my mind, of course, that I am your humorless, parrot-like, intellectual inferior (and liberals are called elitist??), let me address some of your assertions:
Re: “matters of foreign policy and (sic) national security that have defined the Bush administration [that] were IN FACT laid at the door step of this President in large part by the previous President”: Funny, I must have overlooked Clinton's name as a founding member (along with Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz) of the Project for the New American Century, which has obviously had FAR more influence on Bush’s foreign policy than the previous administration ever could have. As a matter of fact, the Bushies were so fixated on distancing themselves from Clinton and pursuing their own agenda that they were much more interested in reviving the Star Wars boondoggle than listening to any warnings about al-Qaida. Neither administration covered itself in glory re terrorism, but get your facts straight. Plenty of credible voices, from Richard Clarke to Paul O’Neill to Joe Wilson (yes, I know: just publicity-hungry, glory-seekers all), leave no doubt that C/R/W and to some extent, Bush himself, were nearly tripping over themselves to use 9/11 to get to Hussein, as thoroughly nonsensical and dangerous as that was, and as insanely as that diverted resources from continuing a full-bore press on bin Laden who obviously HAD harmed us.
Re: “Listen to Air AMerica, (sic) it is non-stop college radio ranting about the idiots on the Right, persoanl (sic) attacks on individuals without meaningful analysis of policy, only conclusionary (sic) statements which all say "The Right is Stupid." A) I haven’t listened to Air America, so you may very well be right and B) this differs from the last 20 years of Rush Limbaugh’s slams on Clinton/liberals how, exactly…?
Re: “the attacks on Bill Clinotn (sic) were not of the vitriolic nature that the Left now demonstrates towards President Bush”: Surely, you did not type this with a straight face, did you? It's amazing to hear Bush defenders whine about the mean (and well-deserved) things said about him the last couple of years, considering the incessant spleen-busting fury voiced by the right over Clinton for, oh, nearly the last decade and a half or so. This is especially bizarre since his term ended over three years ago. But now that the tables are turned, the right gets upset. Poor, poor conservatives. My heart bleeds (as you know). How DARE we vent our anger and frustration—at an incumbent, no less!—who has sent this country unjustifiably into war (just for starters) even though we’ve had to endure still-continuing biliousness and ridiculous claims about Clinton for what seems like forever now. Or maybe—just because some say so—we’re supposed to wait until the "war on terror" is over in a few more decades/centuries before we can utilize our First Amendment rights and voice our views?
But just in case you missed it, the whole point of the piece is about the degree of transgressions committed by the two. If you really, truly believe in your hearts of hearts that lying under oath about consensual sex is worse than lying America into a senseless, imperialistic war, then nothing that I say or that anyone else says--and I mean, nothing--will get through a warped sense of morality like that.
And, since you asked so nicely, here are some solutions for you:
If I were president, I would:
1) Push for Iraq’s elections ASAP, give FULL sovereignty to the interim government (yes, including authority over the U.S. military; hey, that’s what this is [allegedly] all about, isn’t it, giving Iraq back to the Iraqis?) and (at this point) get down on my hands and knees and plead with the U.N., NATO (if it were so willing), and any other country that will listen to us after Bush has done his level best to piss them off, to deploy as many troops in the country as possible so that the U.S. can withdraw totally within two-three months max. Even if no other troops show, the U.S. should still get the hell out, because as long as we’re there, the violence will continue. Will it abate if we leave? I don’t know, but if it’s going to continue as long as we’re there, then it’s just one more reason for us to leave a place we never should have gone to in the first place. Of course, sadly for the neocons, this means the U.S. must halt construction of all permanent military bases that “may” be occurring there now. The interim government would have full power over awarding contracts, also (reconstruction or otherwise). I would push for an emergency conference of Iraq’s creditor nations to address a potentially fatal blow to any viable future for the country: its crushing international debt. I would pledge to Iraq that the U.S. will pay for the entire cost of the clean-up of cluster bombs and depleted uranium shells all over the country and also for any necessary decontamination.
2) Immediately cut by half the $4 billion the U.S. gives to Israel each year and put it in an account to be used toward improving Palestinians’ horrid living conditions in the occupied territories. I would then make it clear to the Israeli leadership that a solution must be reached regarding peace and a Palestinian homeland, and that it must cease its incursions; I would be as equally forceful with any legitimate uncorrupted Palestinian leaders and leading intellectuals I could find and use the $2 billion as a carrot, telling them there’s more where that came from, but they’ll have to simultaneously a) come through at the bargaining table, b) halt the violence against Israel, and c) acknowledge its right to exist. To assist in ending the suicide bombings, the U.S. (hopefully with help from other nations) would fund an immediate, massive training program to help rebuild the decimated Palestinian Security Force, with the pursuit and capture of suspected terrorists and their caches a priority. I’d ask the U.N. to bring in peacekeeping troops as buffers between Israel and the occupied territories and tell Israel if it doesn’t like it, it shan’t receive another penny of U.S. money. Peacefully resolving the Palestinian/Israeli mess is critical for the globe. It would also remove prime propaganda used to recruit new terrorists and help reduce anti-Americanism. Would it halt terrorism altogether? Of course not, but I sincerely believe it would measurably help reduce it.
3) Immediately halt the global missile defense system program: $130 billion and counting for a system that doesn’t work and is just downright stupid in concept. How would it have stopped 9/11 or how can it prevent a suitcase nuke from detonating in Pittsburgh?
4) Redouble—no, make that retriple—efforts to secure nuclear fissile materials in places like Russia and elsewhere that have been left loosely protected (if protected at all) for too long now. Bush should have focused on this true threat from the beginning instead of his hare-brained Iraqi misadventure.
5) Halt the “baby nuke” R&D process. It’s a waste of money and a good way to restart the nuclear arms race.
6) Place among my highest priorities the restoration of international cooperation/sharing of intelligence, coupled with INTELLIGENT diplomacy (and no, I’m not talking about “negotiating” with terrorists, which, obviously, doesn’t work; I’m talking about back-room efforts with balky states). This is our best shot at dismantling or crippling our enemies’ terrorist networks. Bush misses the point entirely by thinking he can bomb terrorist groups out of existence and arrogantly ignore allies and diplomatic efforts with others in the meanwhile. The military effort in Afghanistan was justified and a good starting point, but Bush’s Iraq foray threw the effort there to capture bin Laden and put a serious crimp in al-Qaida’s barbaric style (AND to genuinely help rebuild Afghanistan, as promised) seriously off-track. To most effectively combat terrorism, it will take a well thought-out, cooperative, global effort, coupled with discrete military operations—NOT invading entire countries, especially ones that don’t threaten us to begin with, are completely boxed in, and have no connection to those who DO most endanger us and who already HAVE attacked us.
7) Spend (tax cuts/incentives, grants, etc.) as much as it takes for R&D to develop renewable, clean, alternative energy sources to finally get America off the oil teat. I would sponsor legislation requiring Detroit to produce more gas-efficient vehicles while this work was ongoing. It’s unfathomable (unless, of course, one looks at the industries from which many administration insiders come) that this country is almost utterly dependent on this oil, much of which it procures from less-than-savory regimes. With our brains and ingenuity, we can’t come up with something better? Please! This is also another very concrete way to fight terrorism: Stop America’s whoring for oil and the requisite sleaziness that accompanies it.
I would save the domestic agenda for my second week in office.
lest we forget
by Irving
Saturday, Jun. 05, 2004 at 3:03 PM
All you intellectual Krakatoas who still whine and soil your panties over your inabilty to steal the 200 Election in broad daylight need to remember the pedigree of a Daley.
And did you forget how Jessee Jackson the Race Hustler went down there before the legally mandated recount could begin, his only purpose as a terrorist threat that they'd riot and burn and loot like they did in L.A. in 1992?
Did the NAACP ever once produce proof that dogs were used to keep people away from the polls? Is there a name and badge number for that State Trooper that supposedly was pulling people over on the Interstate!?? (What a prescient bastard he was). What of the phone-sex outfit hired to call people and plant seeds of doubt in their minds they might have punched the wrong hole in a card? (yeah, people too stupid to punch a hole. What else can a Leftist do and do right?)
The Left tried to steal the Election in broad daylight, and still failed. Miserably.
Get over it.
That's just laughable...
by John Levine
Sunday, Jun. 06, 2004 at 1:51 PM
"The Left tried to steal the Election in broad daylight"
That comment, that is. The RIGHTtried to steal the election in broad daylight, and because the Supreme Court helped them, the succeeded
I AM over it, a**hole. You didn't get the point of Mark's article...
Way to go on your response to ULA, Mark!
you're a sphincter, sure enough
by Irving
Sunday, Jun. 06, 2004 at 4:17 PM
Then address the facts.
Where's the proof that police and dogs kept people from the polls?
Where's that State Trooper?
Why did Jackson and Daley go down there to foment disruption and riot when everyone had been up allnight and was tired and suggestive?
What of the activist leftist judges in Florida?
What of the recounting of the recounts of paper ballots? Of the handling and handling and handling?
You're not only an asshole, you're a fantastic brain dead Leftist, complewtely bereft of critical thinking skills.
I've only scratched the surface, sugah. I'll lay some more facts on your microcephalic karma if you like.
addenda
by Irving
Sunday, Jun. 06, 2004 at 4:26 PM
And just what was the point of it's article, except to once again goad microcephalics into throwing their heads back in semen gargling unison and shout "homophobia!" ?
The Point
by John Levine
Monday, Jun. 07, 2004 at 8:52 AM
"And just what was the point of it's article"
Simple: Dubya's not doing a very good job...
Personal Insults...
by John Levine
Monday, Jun. 07, 2004 at 8:58 AM
If those are the best you can do to support your argument, I'll not waste my time trying to reason with a pea-brained idiot...
(nobody, save jerks who want to look educated, uses words like "microcephalic"...)
personal insults
by pea brained idiot
Monday, Jun. 07, 2004 at 9:11 AM
What's the matter, sugah? You got something against pea brained intellectuals?
You just took a dump on all your friends. 
![[masthead]](/images/masthead_140.png)