What does that mean, rhester? Clinton balanced the budget. Clinton actually paid down some of the debt. The country didn't invade a sovereign nation during his 2 terms of office. Clinton let an intern give him a blow job. Bush is responsible for record deficits, record trade deficits, record growth in the size of government. The deaths of tens of thousands of people. What is your point?? Keep D&D Civil.
My point is that the bankers and industrialists and elites who run our government control what the presidents actually do. I will be glad to get on my google and provide a compelling case that Clinton and Bush serve the same masters. The neocons’ Democratic origins The most serious challenge to this foreign policy consensus came in the debacle of the Vietnam War. After the 1968 Tet Offensive made clear that the war was unwinnable, not only public opinion, but also leading business executives and sectors of the military and intelligence establishments turned against the war. This growing "antiwar camp" concealed differences between those who opposed the war in principle and those who thought cutting U.S. losses in Vietnam would help the U.S. advance its business and political interests elsewhere. In 1972, Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern, backed by a segment of business executives, including cosmetics boss Max Factor III, and the CEOs of Xerox and Continental Grain, and pursuing a conscious strategy of co-opting the left, recruited antiwar activists into his campaign.18 The bulk of U.S. business wasn’t willing to follow the McGovern backers–and neither were powerful forces inside the Democratic Party that had become accustomed to playing their assigned roles in the set-up of Cold War liberalism. The State Department had long corrupted the AFL-CIO (often mocked by leftists as the "AFL-CIA"), funneling millions in government money to a cadre of trade-union activists (many of them ex-leftists) who built anticommunist unions and parties throughout the Third World. The mainstream labor movement refused to back McGovern. Cold War liberal politicians, who combined liberal positions on social welfare issues with strong support for Cold War military spending, formed another piece of the Democratic establishment that rebelled against McGovern. The most prominent among these was U.S. Senator Henry (Scoop) Jackson of Washington–nicknamed "the senator from Boeing"–who mounted presidential runs in 1972 and 1976 based on his "strong on defense" positions. Having abandoned McGovern, these sections of the Democratic establishment contributed to his landslide defeat in 1972–a defeat that solidified the image of the Democrats as being "soft on defense." All of this history is important for today. The McGovern campaign and its aftermath is the story of the origins of the "neoconservatives" that most observers today believe to be the intellectual godparents of the Bush Doctrine. Almost all of the leading figures among today’s foreign policy neocons emerged from the Scoop Jackson and "AFL-CIA" wings of the Democratic Party. They found a home in the Reaganite Republican Party that came to power launching a New Cold War with the USSR. Richard Perle, the "prince of darkness" on today’s Defense Policy Board, began his Washington career on Jackson’s staff. The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol, the co-author of The War Over Iraq: Saddam’s Tyranny and America’s Mission, is the son of Irving Kristol, the one-time Trotskyist and editor of the formerly liberal magazine Commentary, and Gertrude Himmelfarb, another former liberal turned "virtuecrat." Defense Policy Board member R. James Woolsey III, a Washington lawyer who served in the Carter administration and spent two years as Bill Clinton’s first CIA director, was one of the most fanatical supporters of the theory that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks. Former Iran-contra criminal Elliott Abrams, the administration’s current director of Middle East policy, is a former staffer for Jackson and a former member of Social Democrats USA,19 the organization that supplied much of the cadre of the "AFL-CIA" escapades in the Third World. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz received his introduction to Washington as a graduate assistant to his mentor, defense intellectual (and former Trotskyist) Albert Wohlstetter, who served as an adviser to Jackson.20 The neocon hawks first roosted in the Committee for the Present Danger (CPD), a Washington lobby formed in the 1970s to urge an end to U.S. détente with the Soviet Union and to call for a huge increase in military spending. CPD founders Paul Nitze and Eugene V. Rostow were both Democrats who supported Reagan in 1980. Nitze, who later joined the Reagan administration, was hardly a fringe player. He was the chief author of National Security Council Directive 68, the 1950 blueprint for U.S. Cold War policy produced for the Democratic Truman administration. Of course, these neocon hawks found kindred spirits in longtime Republican hawks like Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Nevertheless, even today’s post-McGovern Democratic Party finds within its ranks people like Senators Lieberman and Graham, whose presidential campaigns hit Bush for not being tough enough in the war on terrorism. A leading propagandist for the war in Iraq was Kenneth Pollack, a former Clinton administration National Security Council official. In fact, another letterhead organization emerging from the Scoop Jackson wing of the Democratic Party, the Coalition for a Democratic Majority (CDM), included among its members major figures in the Clinton-Gore administration: Les Aspin, Clinton’s first defense secretary; Woolsey; current New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, Clinton’s energy secretary and UN ambassador; Henry Cisneros, Clinton’s housing secretary and Lloyd Bentsen, Clinton’s first treasury secretary. The CDM joined these Clintonites with such Reaganites as former UN Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick and Contra promoter Penn Kemble.21 The point here is that there is nothing inherently "Republican" about the neoconservatives said to be running the Bush foreign policy. U.S. imperialism is a bipartisan project, with its ideological warriors accepted in both major parties. link
Democrats and Republicans work quite well together to globalize the nation. Democrats through socialism Republicans through facism- or the nice word- imperialism It all still ends up in the Land of the fee and the home of the slave.
this is the one time in the week I can be totally delusional, just humor my twisted opinions and I would like to see it more Matrix and Alice in Wonderland with a dash of wacko conspiracy lunacy... Remember, I read the Bible everyday, more than I would admit and the rest of my time I enjoy reading about global conspiracies, secret societies, corrupt governments and I like cartoon movies. I just saw 'Barnyard'- has to be one of the best movies of the year. Serious to me is what I deal with when I am not posting in D&D-
D&D is my escape... I love the internet where you can spout off and sometimes be taken serious. I hope the Texans wake up and smell the David Carr roses... and Mario Williams is a great big 350 lb ball of potential. I was a VY guy. And my beer drinking days are over, though I love a really nice cold Lone Star.
imho, one's knowledge of a subject matter directly correspond to ones ability to succintly summarized the one's position, an executive summary. on the flip side, continued heavy reliance of the verbose writing by someone else---to the point of parroting---suggest a superficial knowledge.
I am extremely superficial- nail on the head. But I do boast to be a prolific reader and I am a history buff. I have volumes of books to recommend.... anyways any knowledge I have is leaking as I get older and I acquired it from reading. I have few positions I really care about except my faith in Christ.
That's cool. I've been accused of being an android by Ridley Scott. Try dealing with that! Keep D&D Civil.
Your hero Reagaon retreated from Lebanon when a big bomb went off. (Edit he was a Republican president before you were born). Too bad you can't get past a blow job to think seriously about the role of the president. and policy issues. Why not just say Bush didn't get a blow job from a woman not his wife therefore I support his presidency.
Clinton's personal misconducts should not affect how we judge his policies. I think that any person who thinks should be able to tell that many of Clinton administration's policies were indeed more effective than the policies of the current administration.
