Inglorious Goobers: Progressives Line Up to Defend Corrupt Clintons
by Chris Floyd
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
leveymg
(36,418 posts)- 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)...something like "the make-pretend left" or "phony progressives" or "Clinton apologists" instead of "progressives."
MisterP
(23,730 posts)epitome of leftiness and anything He does is by definition progressive)
SamKnause
(13,106 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)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)... 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)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)with the term "liberal" and why it had to be discarded in favor of the (IMO) squishy "progressive."
yurbud
(39,405 posts)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.
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)"NO!!!!! Progressives HATE, HATE, HATE any and everything Clinton! ... Watch!!!!"
KoKo
(84,711 posts)quadrature
(2,049 posts)(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?