Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Mr_Jefferson_24

(8,559 posts)
Fri May 1, 2015, 10:33 AM May 2015

Inglorious Goobers: Progressives Line Up to Defend Corrupt Clintons

by Chris Floyd

...But all of this was a sideshow. The learned Theban of Esquire somehow omits some salient facts from his magical history tour. For even as right-wing agents were needling Clinton about failed land deals and Oval Office canoodling, Clinton was overseeing the deaths of up to half a million innocent children (and many more innocent adults) through the draconian sanctions he imposed on Iraq. This, even though Clinton and US intelligence knew in 1995 that Iraq had destroyed all of its weapons of mass destruction. As I noted back in 2005, confirmation of this fact came from "from none other than the man in charge of the Iraqi WMD program, Saddam's defecting son-in-law, Hussein Kamel. Kamel's wealth of information on the destruction of Iraq's WMD 'was so extensive it was almost embarassing,' said UN interrogators."

This was not secret, by the way; it was reported in Time Magazine and other venues. And it was later confirmed independently by UN inspectors in 1998, who had verified the destruction of 95 percent of Iraq's WMD arsenal before they were stopped from finishing the job by Bill Clinton's four-day bombing assault on the country. Clinton justified the attack -- which killed dozens, perhaps hundreds of civilians -- by pointing to Iraqi "interference" in the almost completed inspections. The Iraqis were being quarrelsome, because they believed America had planted spies among the supposedly neutral inspectors. Clinton sternly denied such lies, and ordered the attack. (Conveniently, it occurred during his impeachment hearings.) However, just one year later, guess what: the UN admitted that, er, America had planted spies among the supposed neutral inspectors: "UNSCOM had directly facilitated the creation of an intelligence collection system for the United States in violation of its mandate."

Oh well. Bombing raids under false pretenses and the senseless death of half a million children due to sanctions based on "causes" known to be false -- I guess that's just "business as usual" too, eh Charles? As for Hillary's later vote to OK a whole war based on false pretenses (which, once again, saw the arms inspectors pulled out before they could confirm, again, the fact that Iraq had no WMD) -- well, hell, "every politician" since the dawn of time has done the same, ain't they, Goob?

But none of this matters to our progressives. Nor does Hillary's bloodthirsty record as Secretary of State, her vital role in the vast War Machine, ever pushing for more aggressive responses, for overturning governments (as in Honduras), for arming dictators (like her "close family friend," Hosni Mubarak), for targeted assassinations and drone attacks, for allying with extremists to reduce whole nations to chaos (Libya). Who can forget that moment when the mask slipped and Hillary revealed the true, brutal nature of our bipartisan ruling elite -- her gleeful exultation after Moamar Gadafy was sodomized and killed: "We came, we saw, he died!"....


http://www.chris-floyd.com/Articles/2495-inglorious-goobers-progressives-line-up-to-defend-corrupt-clintons.html
13 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
1. Rule in action: "Every ten years of so we should throw a shitty little country up against a wall"
Fri May 1, 2015, 10:43 AM
May 2015

- Michael Ledeen

That does seem to encapsulate a constant in American foreign policy under the Clintons and the Bush tribe. Only, I would not classify those who support this as "progressives." Not at all.

Mr_Jefferson_24

(8,559 posts)
4. Agreed. I would have preferred he use...
Fri May 1, 2015, 10:53 AM
May 2015

...something like "the make-pretend left" or "phony progressives" or "Clinton apologists" instead of "progressives."

MisterP

(23,730 posts)
7. hmm, "fauxgressive" was used to mean any critic of Obama from the left (since obviously He's the
Fri May 1, 2015, 01:36 PM
May 2015

epitome of leftiness and anything He does is by definition progressive)

 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
3. Thing is, "Progressive" has become such a bendy word and concept, these days.
Fri May 1, 2015, 10:46 AM
May 2015

The word has been co-opted. It has been used - by Democrats! - as a sort of pitying put-down.

Mr_Jefferson_24

(8,559 posts)
5. Yes it has. I've seen it used by both right and left to connote...
Fri May 1, 2015, 11:00 AM
May 2015

... weak minded, unrealistic dreamer, isolationist, loser, anti-business, etc.

We should expose and challenge having our language co-opted and redefined.

 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
6. Careful there - "Left" is now a dirty word, as is liberal. The Third Way has bought the
Fri May 1, 2015, 11:27 AM
May 2015

Democratic Party and restructured it so that now there is only a "Left Wing" - and that is meant as a pejorative.

LiberalElite

(14,691 posts)
11. I always wondered what was wrong
Fri May 1, 2015, 10:46 PM
May 2015

with the term "liberal" and why it had to be discarded in favor of the (IMO) squishy "progressive."

yurbud

(39,405 posts)
12. liberal doesn't mean "all the left" in the rest of the world
Sat May 2, 2015, 07:57 PM
May 2015

it has a more precise definition along the lines of managed capitalism.

The corporate wing of the Democratic Party doesn't even fit that definition anymore. They are moving toward the GOP M.O. of capitalism managing government.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
8. Great Article! Guaranteed to elicit a chorus of ...
Fri May 1, 2015, 03:14 PM
May 2015

"NO!!!!! Progressives HATE, HATE, HATE any and everything Clinton! ... Watch!!!!"

 

quadrature

(2,049 posts)
10. HRC's 1100 foreign donors ...
Fri May 1, 2015, 10:03 PM
May 2015

(the facts,as far as I know,
please correct any omissions or errors)

HRC(as incoming SoS) made an agreement with
the Obama administration concerning ...
openness, with respect to donors
to the Clintons' foundation...
at the same time, steering questionable
donations to the Canadian branch of the foundation
(where there are secrecy laws).
Looks like bad faith to me, or not?

how do you defend that?

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»Inglorious Goobers: Progr...