I append below an answer to a NY columnist as well as an article of my own authorship. Comments would be welcome.
Dear Ms. Quinn, I read with considerable interest your column, "Can you imagine George Bush by another name?". Admittedly, you make some very cogent arguments and, in the main, I would agree with you. However, let us go a bit deeper into the meat of the matter, shall we? In your column you state: "Please, just close your eyes for a moment as I catalog the abuses George Bush has committed against our country. And then imagine he is Bill Clinton, a man you're predisposed to hate - and tell me you would still defend those actions. When you consider that George Bush declared war in Iraq based on a lie, close your eyes and imagine it was Bill Clinton who had told that lie. Keep your eyes closed and picture it. In fairness and honesty, would you defend him?" "In fairness and honesty, would you defend him?" Well, would you? Before you answer, please read carefully the article I wrote some time back that is attached to this e-mail. I know, for a fact, that most 'liberals' then and now defend the NATO gang rape of Yugoslavia as having been justified on 'humanitarian' grounds. Just as was the case with Bush's Iraq attack, Clinton lacked UN Security Council approval for his manufactured wilding. In point of fact, Bush and his neocon minions often cited Clinton's humanitarian invasion of Yugoslavia as justification for their rape of Iraq (once the hallucinatory WMDs and links to Al Qaeda had evaporated). After all, we were to be welcomed into Iraq with 'flowers and sweets' after 'humanitarily' treating Iraq to 'shock and awe', killing thousands of civilians in the process! Riddle me this, have you ever encountered a 'humanitarian' bomb? Just in what way does such a bomb operate? Does it land (harmlessly) and tend to the injured and maimed? Does it feed the hungry and shelter the homeless? Just curious. "When you consider that George Bush partied for days at his Texas ranch while New Orleans was dying, close your eyes and picture Clinton partying on Martha's Vineyard. Can you see it? Can you imagine Clinton ignoring the plight of thousands of homeless and dying? Would you defend him?" The answer is, of course not. However, many on the liberal side of the isle did defend Clinton who, it is reported, was being busily engaged with Monica while ordering bombing missions on Bosnian Serb civilians. So, do you defend him? Don't get me wrong, I am at least as appalled by the behavior of our boorish frat boy president and his legion of neocon minions and useless crony appointments as you are. I am just trying to point out that partisan blindness and deafness is an equal opportunity affliction. A POX ON BOTH THEIR HOUSES Much as I believe it a positive good for portions of the American public (and, even, some branches of the American media) to begin questioning the aftermath of Bush's unprovoked, illegal attack on Iraq, I can't help but wonder where was this public and media questioning in the aftermath of Clinton's unprovoked, illegal attack on Yugoslavia in 1999. Portions of the media (generally the 'liberal' sectors) are repeatedly raising questions about the lies, distortions and media manipulation that formed the purported raison d'être for Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq. The Congress and the media excuse their blatant pre-action warmongering on the Bush Administration's assertions surrounding WMDs(sic) and Saddam's 'threat' to 'world peace' and the US. In the period after 'major hostilities ended' in Iraq, the US has been totally incapable of adducing ANY evidence of usable or substantial stores of chemical or biological weapons, much less ANY evidence of a nuclear capability. As a fallback position, the Bush Administration (and, virtually everyone else) has contented themselves with the chimera of a 'justifiable humanitarian' intervention. "At least the Iraqi people have been 'saved' from the despicable tyrant Saddam." In all their self satisfied preening at having 'delivered the Iraqi people from a horrible tyrant', the question is never raised whether the thousands of innocents murdered by the US in the process (not counting the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed by a decade of draconian US sanctions which prevented medicines, medical devices and even common sanitation supplies from reaching the Iraqi public) would have found the price exacted as commensurate. The fact that SOME questions are now being raised regarding the Iraq imbroglio is all to the good. However, there are far larger questions to be raised and not only regarding the Bush/neocon junta. It has become abundantly clear that both 'liberals' and neocons favor the use of US arms abroad. The only difference being the putative 'reasons' for such imperialistic interventions. The neocons are at least honest in their villainy. They unabashedly favor foreign interventions to increase American power, both economic and geopolitical. The 'liberals', on the other hand, masquerade as favoring such interventions based on specious arguments of 'humanitarianism'. Both neocons and 'liberals' share the pretext of 'spreading democracy and freedom ' in these interventions. To demonstrate the blatant hypocrisy of the majority (mostly 'liberals') of those now lambasting the Bush Administration for its actions, preceding, during and after the Iraq attack, let's examine these self same critics' behavior in regard to Clinton's equally repugnant attack on Yugoslavia. The 'liberal' critics of Bush's attack on Iraq criticize Bush, his administration and the all too compliant mainstream media for having hyped, distorted and lied to the American Congress and people to justify said attack. In this the liberals are totally correct because it is undeniable that all the named malefactors DID INDEED hype, lie and distort the truth to form a plausible excuse for the attack. However, it has been amply demonstrated that Clinton, his admin-istration and the media were equally complicit in EXACTLY THE SAME PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR that they now castigate the Bush Administration and the pliant mainstream media for. Just as the Bush Administration's claims of 'imminent danger' and WMDs have been definitively proven to be illusory, so too were all the claims (unilateral atrocities, genocide and ethnic cleansing) of the Clinton Administration (loudly echoed and hyped by the self same mainstream media that acted as Bush's accomplices in the Iraq crimes). Let's review just a sampling of the lies, distortions and hype that were used in the case of Kosovo, shall we? Just as Bush now lies when he states that Saddam (actually meaning the Iraqi people) had "a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in.", so too did Clinton and his Machiavellian minions lie when they presented Milosevic (in this case meaning the Serbian people) as being implacably opposed to 'rational negotiations' at Rambouillet. Just as Bush openly lied about not allowing inspectors in (after all, who was Hans Blix?), so too did Clinton openly lie about Milosevic being opposed to negotiations (anyone heard of or remember the infamous 'Appendix B'?). Just as Bush blatantly lied about the existence of Iraq's WMDs, which lie formed the triggering event for launching the attack in the first place, so too the Clinton administration blatantly lied about the Racak 'massacre', which formed the trigger for its illegal and unprovoked attack on Yugoslavia. The Racak 'massacre' has been just as definitively debunked subsequent to Clinton's attack on Yugoslavia as Bush's lie on Iraq's supposed WMDs. The parallels and lies are far too numerous to detail in toto. However, the above is ample to prove the point that both 'liberals' and neocons have no compunction whatsoever to raping the truth to support their own illegitimate aims. The question that needs to be asked, in the final analysis, is why weren't the questions that are now being asked about Bush, the Iraq attack and its aftermath asked in the face of the monumental lies and deceptions of Clinton's attack on Yugoslavia. The question, when asked, answers itself. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] =============== Group Moderator: [EMAIL PROTECTED] page at http://magazine.sorabia.net for more informations about current situation in Serbia http://www.sorabia.net Slusajte GLAS SORABIJE nas talk internet-radio (Serbian Only) http://radio.sorabia.net Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sorabia/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
