Monday, March 31, 2008

Hillary definitely lied.

Earlier I said "Did she lie?". Then I said "Maybe she lied." Now Christopher Hitchens has convinced me. She lied.

So here's my question: Hitchens says in his article that Bill lied too, and not about Lewinksy, but about helping in Bosnia. And 250,000 people died.

So if Reagan ran operations in Central America that led to the deaths of more than a million.

And Clinton lied to the Bosnians and thus took some credit for 250,000 deaths.

And W lied to everyone leading to the deaths of a million in Iraq.

What did GHW Bush (Bush senior) do?

What about Carter?

And what will McCain, Hillary, or Obama do?

(see my lovely pleasant happy way of looking at the world?)


Russell Newton Roman, Jr. said...

Hmmmm? What did George HW Bush do? Hmmmm? Would tricking Sadaam Hussein into invading Kuwait (he asked permission, received it and only then did he attack his neighbor) leading to Bush senior's excuse for the first Gulf War? Would that count as less than admirable behavior? Hmmmm, says I, I says, hmmmm? Or perhaps being the brains and direct command and control responsible for the Iran Contra Scandal--you know, arming Iran in their war with Iraq, right after holding Americans hostage, and paying for it with drug money from the Contras who the U.S. supported against a legitimate, albeit socialist, insurgency. Is that good enough to make the list? Hmmmm?

Carter had some less than clean moments as well, which kinda escape me in the fog of general ineffectiveness that marked his fortunately short lived presidency. Mind you, had we followed his energy policy as outlined we'd be energy independent right now and none of this nonsense would be happening today. But there’s that ineffectiveness thing again. Hmmmm?

As for the Hillary and Bill show, I'm not buying Hitchens' scenario as all that black and white. There was probably some nasty realpolitik going on there, but the Clinton administration did intervene where none of the European powers would and so very many more than 250,000 deaths were averted. I regret those 250,000, if their deaths were truly avoidable through only U.S. intervention, but my recollection of events at the time would indicate that riding roughshod into the same region that had spawned World War I and most European governments feared would be the seed of World War III had more riding on it than Hillary's failed Health Care initiative and I personally place more value on Bill Clinton's eventual successful intervention than on what I presume was a very minor part of early hesitation to intervene. If Hillary accounted for a part, well, it's just more reason not to trust her, but not necessarily more reason to repudiate her hubby.

Let’s face it, President is a dirty job, but let’s not mistake the dirt inherent in that job with those Presidents who actually like to wallow in the mud (Bushes thrive in mud).

Heck, if you want to go all historical, you need only blame FDR for allowing Pearl Harbor to happen, leading to umpteen deaths in World War II. The annoying fact that we’d all be speaking German now and living in a modern segregated version of the Stone Age if he hadn’t, well, is but a detail.

President is a dirty job, but I’d rather have someone who knows when they have to deviate from their own moral center than have someone who couldn’t find their moral center if you dressed it up like a pig and stuck an apple in its mouth. The difference between Bill and his darling bride Hillary, I suspect.

Megs said...

yes we can?!!