Bush didn't start it — Clinton did

Tom is the author of the comment above. I concur.

Amy Proctor (thanks, Amy!) wrote a fascinating post concerning former President Clinton and the war on Iraq. The complete post is well worth reading, but here's an excerpt:


The war in Iraq is not “Bush’s war”, it is America’s war and it has been since the early 1990’s.  In 1998, then President Bill Clinton on the eve of presidential impeachment hearings signed into law The Iraq Liberation Act which committed U.S. money to supporting the overthrow of a dangerous Saddam Hussein and laid out U.S. policy as supporting a free Iraq.

[ . . . ]

Then on December 16, 1998, Pres. Bill Clinton ordered a U.S. strike on Iraqi military and security targets partnered with British forces.

[ . . . ]

Now the U.S. military strike against Iraq occurred on the eve of Clinton’s impeachment hearings resulting in their postponement. The four articles of impeachment charged Clinton with perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of power in the Monica Lewinsky affair. The timing of military action in Iraq appeared to be a tactical maneuver by Pres. Clinton to avoid the humiliating proposition of becoming the first President in U.S. history to be impeached (which is what later happened), under such embarrassing circumstances.

[ . . . ]

Where are these Democrats today, and why are they opposing the Clinton law and initiatives that they so vehemently supported in 1998?

[ . . . ]

Should Bill Clinton arrested on war crimes for civilian deaths suffered by the strikes in Iraq and Bosnia? If not, how can liberals so hypocritically demand that action for Bush?


"Clinton Lied, Nobody Died" is a phrase common on bumper stickers in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Nobody died? Oh, really?

What about the US missile strike on the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade?

What about the timing of the US military strike against Iraq on the eve of Clinton's impeachment hearings?

Here's an excerpt of an interview with Richard Miniter, a Brussels-based journalist and author of Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror:


KATHRYN JEAN LOPEZ: In sum, how many times did Bill Clinton lose bin Laden?

RICHARD MINITER: Here's a rundown. The Clinton administration:

1. Did not follow-up on the attempted bombing of Aden marines in Yemen.

2. Shut the CIA out of the 1993 WTC bombing investigation, hamstringing their effort to capture bin Laden.

3. Had Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a key bin Laden lieutenant, slip through their fingers in Qatar.

4. Did not militarily react to the al Qaeda bombing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

5. Did not accept the Sudanese offer to turn bin Laden.

6. Did not follow-up on another offer from Sudan through a private back channel.

7. Objected to Northern Alliance efforts to assassinate bin Laden in Afghanistan.

8. Decided against using special forces to take down bin Laden in Afghanistan.

9. Did not take an opportunity to take into custody two al Qaeda operatives involved in the East African embassy bombings. In another little scoop, I am able to show that Sudan arrested these two terrorists and offered them to the FBI. The Clinton administration declined to pick them up and they were later allowed to return to Pakistan.

10. Ordered an ineffectual, token missile strike against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory.

11. Clumsily tipped off Pakistani officials sympathetic to bin Laden before a planned missile strike against bin Laden on August 20, 1998. Bin Laden left the camp with only minutes to spare.

12-14. Three times, Clinton hesitated or deferred in ordering missile strikes against bin Laden in 1999 and 2000.

15. When they finally launched and armed the Predator spy drone plane, which captured amazing live video images of bin Laden, the Clinton administration no longer had military assets in place to strike the archterrorist.

16. Did not order a retaliatory strike on bin Laden for the murderous attack on the USS Cole.


                                                                ------

Further reading (check out, in particular, terrorist attacks during Clinton's watch).

Here's something else that the liberals, Democrats, Michael Moore want to sweep under the carpet and hope we forget:





All these only reinforce my belief that Democrats are nothing but lying, cowardly, opportunistic sacks of shit.

Oh, yes, and racist as well.

A Freudian slip? The words of an Old Testament prophet ring true here:


       Can the Ethiopian change his skin
              or the leopard its spots?
              Neither can you do good
              who are accustomed to doing evil.
              (Jeremiah 13:23)


Of course, this should come as no surprise to anyone versed in the history of the United States. Prior to the Civil War, the Democratic Party resolutely defended slavery. In fact, they were commonly referred to as the "Party of Slavery" in the 19th century, and vigorously supported, among others, racial segregation, the Jim Crow laws, the Ku Klux Klan, and lynching. At the constitutional convention, Southern Democrats demanded constitutional protection for slavery. They pushed to stretch the constitutional protection for 80 years, finally starting the Civil War over it.

A self-confessed ex-liberal, Clark Baker writes:


the Civil War wasn’t between whites and blacks, but between Republicans who wanted to end slavery, and Democrats who did not. And as ugly as the Democratic Party’s roots and legacy of slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow, and Disenfranchisement is, why does the party still exist today?

The first clue of this information blackout comes directly from Democrats. Although the Republican Party proudly discloses their Abolitionist roots on their website, the Democratic Party (DNC) website ignores their slavery agenda, excluding the entire period between 1848 and the 20th Century. Instead, the DNC boasts the “longest running political organization in the world”, the “Democratic cause” (slavery) and their dominance in urban (e.g., black) politics - as if Democrats had nothing to do with the brutality used to round up blacks.

This is a synopsis of what the DNC website missed.


During the famous Lincoln-Douglas Debates in 1858, in which Lincoln represented the views of the abolitionists, Stephen Douglas, Democrat candidate for the Senate said:


I am opposed to taking any step that recognizes the negro man or the Indian as the equal of the white man.  I am opposed to giving him a voice in the administration of the government.  I would extend to the negro, and the Indian, and to all dependent races every right, every privilege, and every immunity consistent with the safety and welfare of the white races; but equality they never should have, either political or social, or in any other respect whatever.


While the Democratic Party in the 21st century have — forced by defeat in the Civil War — abandoned slavery, their fundamental beliefs remain unchanged: certain segments of society (or most of it) are not their equal, and these lesser folks require the "benevolent" ruling hand of wisdom and foresight of the Democrats. Hence their opposition to school vouchers — parents are not qualified to decide which school their child attends; corporal punishment — parents cannot be trusted to spank their children (but teachers can demand that students be put on Ritalin); and their support of fundamentally flawed policies such as affirmative action — minorities are not intelligent enough to be admitted into universities solely on the basis of academic merit; and socialized health care — the choice of which private health insurance plan to purchase is too complex a choice for most people.

Consider the reaction of Republicans and conservatives towards Michael Moore's documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11. Now compare it with Democrats threatening to revoke ABC's FCC license if they aired a docudrama with a contrarian position, Path to 9/11. What their actions essentially evince is this: people cannot be trusted to form their own opinions and make their own judgments. Above all, they must be shielded from information anathema to the Democratic Party's agenda.

The Democrats' key beliefs also explain for their support for illegal immigration into the United States, and consequent opposition to immigration reform and enforcement of immigration and labor laws. Illegal immigrants have no rights, possess no collective bargaining power, and thus, are forced to accept whatever wages set for them. As a result, employers of illegal immigrants exploit these vulnerabilities, often making them labor under unsafe conditions, and paying below minimum wage. Consider the improvement in working conditions and wages after an INS raid on a chicken-processing plant in Georgia sent hundreds of illegal workers packing:


The plant, Crider, was forced to hire Georgians--many of them black, and many from off the welfare rolls:

...for local African-Americans, the dramatic appearance of federal agents presented an unexpected opportunity. Crider suddenly raised pay at the plant. An advertisement in the weekly Forest-Blade newspaper blared "Increased Wages" at Crider, starting at $7 to $9 an hour -- more than a dollar above what the company had paid many immigrant workers. The company began offering free transportation from nearby towns and free rooms in a company-owned dormitory near to the plant. For the first time in years, local officials say, Crider aggressively sought workers from the area's state-funded employment office -- a key avenue for low-skilled workers to find jobs. Of 400 candidates sent to Crider -- most of them black -- the plant hired about 200.

Interestingly, there was a lot of friction between these new workers and the Crider management. Two sides to the story, I suppose, but it seems to me that Crider was disappointed to work with actual employees who could demand their rights and speak up and who expect an ice pack when they get injured on the job. It's much easier when your processing plant is staffed by powerless, compliant drones who you can threaten to send back to Mexico and who therefore dare not organize or even gripe.

(Source 1, Source 2)


Nick conjured a pithy image which perfectly describes the workings of the Democratic Party: they get the people addled to the government's teat; then, never weaned, the sheeple are led wherever their masters want them to be.

I have a more dramatic scene in mind — a quote from the transcript of the 2004 TV adaptation of Stephen King's Salem's Lot:


FALLEN PRIEST [kneeling before the master vampire]: Did I do the right thing with my life? Was I misled? You know, don't you? Is there a God?

BARLOW (master vampire) [cutting his palm and thrusting the bleeding cut in the FALLEN PRIEST's mouth]: Whoever feeds you... is your God.