The Utter Hypocricy of the "Anti-War" People

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

Reading DU, you'd think that the War Against Iraq started with the Iraq War Resolution. Swept under the rug is Clinton's and the Democratic party's War Against Iraq for 8 straight years, bombing civilian infrastructure, sanctioning and starving the population, and making Saddam even stronger and more brutual by isolating the entire country.

This sounds like utter hypocricy to me - the War Against Iraq was just fine, unless the Republicans can pick up political points for it - then all of a sudden we are anti-war?

If Clinton had invaded Iraq - like he wanted to, and attempted to get support for - would DU be up in arms about it? If we beat Bush, and our Democratic candidate decides to "get the job done" in Iraq, and occupy the country for years, will there be the same "anti-war" anger and passion?

As a cynic, it seems to me the major opposition to the War Against Iraq from DU is the fact that Bush is getting the political points for it.

[edzontar]

1. Some us opposed the first war, and the sanctions....

As well as the recent murderous and corrupt intervention.

Believe me, it would be very difficult for me to support a candidate who voted for the IWR.

If that is how it plays ot, i shall probably do it, to stop Bush, but i will not like it, nosirree.

[Terwilliger]

8. ezdontar

"Those Dem bastards! Well! I'm going to spit on the screen after I vote for them!" :eyes:

[edzontar]

26. Hey look, I am actually opposed to the war--is that allowed?

If you supported it fine--going well, ain't it?

[Terwilliger]

53. my problem is with your holding your nose

and voting Dem anyway

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

61. Anti-corporate movement -> Anti-War movement -> Dean campaign->

->Working to elect a politician that is supporting the occupation. What's amazing is how effective the entire system is. Truly I am awed.

[jpgray]

2. We would still fight it. Don't you remember Clinton testing the waters?

Albright and Cohen were resoundingly booed at Ohio University(?) when they made overtures as though an invasion of Iraq were on the drawing board.

[wryter2000]

3. There's a difference

There's a difference between starting a war and sticking around to find a good way out of it. Bush* has made such a mess of Iraq, I doubt anyone can get us out immediately. Leaving Iraq in a chaos of our making is irresponsible.

I think if Clinton had wanted to invade Iraq, he would have done it. He wanted Saddam out, but he wasn't interested in "going it alone" to remove him by force.

[liberalhistorian]

4. And just where did you ever get the impression

that Clinton wanted to invade Iraq and attempted to get support for such an invasion? I don't recall that, and I don't recall him pounding into our brains every day what a danger Iraq was to us and the rest of the world, how it had to immediately be stopped, how it harbored all of the world's terrorists and tons of WMD's that it was aiming at us and planning to attack us with.

[jpgray]

6. See my post above, he did put out a feeler for it. (nt)

[Tinoire]

45. Read it and weep= OSU Berger Albright Iraq

It was quite a scandal at the time.

Read it and weep. Then go on to remember- not a peep from Clinton and most of the Dems on line with this war. Ask not why...


Clinton team jeered during town hall

COLUMBUS, Ohio - Facing tough questions from America's heartland, the Clinton administration's foreign policy team tried to make the case Wednesday for U.S. military action against Iraq. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright called Iraq's disputed weapons arsenal the "greatest security threat we face."

Speaking over persistent jeers at Ohio State University, Albright said President Clinton prefers a diplomatic way out of the crisis but stressed, "It must be a true, not a phony, solution."

<snip>

Some of the protesters held aloft a banner that said, "No War," but one caller identifying himself as a U.S. soldier on duty in Germany said he supported Clinton's approach.

<snip>

When one questioner said as many as 100,000 Iraqi civilians could be killed in an attack, Albright replied, "I'm willing to make a bet that we care more about the Iraqi people than Saddam Hussein does."

<snip>



Berger sought to frame the dispute in broad, strategic terms. He said the world could not afford to allow Iraq to flout the will of the international community.

"The lesson of the 20th century is, and we've learned through harsh experience, the only answer to aggression and outlaw behavior is firmness," Berger said.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has 10 times since 1983," Berger said.

Another questioner who identified himself as an assistant professor at OSU asked whether the United States has "the moral right" to attack Iraq.

Replied Cohen, "The question is also does Saddam Hussein have the moral right to use weapons of mass destruction, chemical and biological, against his own people?"


<snip>
http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/iraq/iraq172.htm

'Things worth fighting for'
Foreign policy team visits OSU
By Mike Spahn
Daily Staff Reporter
COLUMBUS - President Clinton's foreign policy team met yesterday at Ohio State University with a rowdy crowd in a town hall meeting to discuss the current situation in Iraq.

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Secretary of Defense William Cohen and National Security Adviser Sandy Berger met for 90 minutes with a crowd that often yelled and chanted in protest of possible U.S. military action against Iraq.

Albright said the goal of the meeting was to "explain the policy ramifications" of the Iraqi situation.

<snip>

"We will send a clear message to would-be tyrants and terrorists that we will do what is necessary to protect our freedom," Berger said.

<snip>

http://www.pub.umich.edu/daily/1998/feb/02-19-98/news/news1.html


Three Dead in Ohio
An Inside Look at the Town Hall Meeting in Columbus Ohio
by
Jon Strange



From the moment the Town Hall Meeting was announced, it was clear that it was a sham. All the same, as events unfolded and details were made known, the true depravity of mainstream media and international politics was exposed. For starters, the meeting, though allegedly a public forum for discussion between US citizens and the Clinton Administration's "Defense Team": Secretary of State Madeline Albright, Secretary of Defense William Cohen, and National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, was actually controlled entirely by CNN. This was not a public forum, a lesson in participatory democracy, or a chance for the people to make their voice heard, it was a manufactured event designed to increase the ratings of a corporate media giant and the ratings of a shaky presidency.

<snip>

The day of the Town Hall Meeting, about 200 people met up at a spot on OSU's campus, and we walked to the arena where the meeting was held. We chanted and held banners as we walked: "1-2-3-4 We don't want your racist war!" "Iraqi children are under attack! What do we do? Act up! Fight back!" You get the picture. As we walked, I passed out extra tickets that I got by waiting in line all day the day before. In all, I was able to hand out 28 tickets to some people who looked like they were ready to raise some hell.

We got to the arena, handed out our flyers to anyone who would take them, focusing especially on TV camera crews and news reporters. It always helps your cause if you can make a reporter's life easier. Do their work for them -- it guarantees better coverage, and gives you more control over your image.

A bunch of us made our way through the metal detectors and past some pretty extensive searches to our seats up in the white ticket section, far from the stage and the real action. Or so we thought. Moments into the meeting, with the CNN cameras rolling, a few of the women in our group stood and rolled their shirts up to reveal slogans they'd written on their stomachs - FUCK WAR. They wore camouflage and had giant X'spainted over their eyes. That was the first disturbance.

When Secretary Albright, Secretary Cohen, and Mr. Berger walked in, our group of about 25 stood up and booed them. We kept it up, heckling Albright through her opening statements, booing her and calling her a liar. Then we unfurled the banner that my friend had snuck in, wearing it under her floor-length skirt as a "slip." It read, simple and bold,"NO WAR." Chants we had used in the march earlier resurfaced, the big one being "1-2-3-4, we don't want your racist war!"

<snip>

The rest of this MUST READ article here: http://www.cafearabica.com/perspect/perspectold/opinion/per3dead12.html

Plenty more articles here: http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=OSU+%2B+Berger+%2B+Albright+%2B+Iraq&btnG=Google+Search

[jpgray]

56. Yeah, posted it above, not getting much attention

Thanks for the links. :hi:

[Tinoire]

62. Always a pleasure! Informed voters are what we need

& more of them! Thanks for your hard work :)

[mtop]

5. two anti-war candidates are big losers in Iowa

And we should take note that of the bottom 3 in Iowa, two are anti-war candidates, and Iowa is one of the most peacenik states in America. We're screwed!

I'm also concerned about Kerry not voting the money for the troops. He appears to be voting in Congress the way that allows him to get the most support instead of doing the right thing. Kerry bothers me because of this.

[Terwilliger]

9. one anti-war candidate

Dean played up his opposition to Bush's war

[redqueen]

13. "money for the troops"

This money was not for the troops. This money was for... lessee, the biggest offense I remember is $200 M for a bounty for Charles Taylor's head (you know ole Chuck, close buds with Pat Robertson?)

I know there were many more outrages in that bill... can't recall off the top of my head. Oh yes, zip codes - that was one. LOL. Troops, indeed.

[JVS]

64. Iowa is a peacenik state?

How is that?

[Guaranteed]

7. No offense...but your post

makes you sound like a Bush supporter. I'm not saying that you ARE a Bush supporter. I'm just saying those sound like Bush's talking points.

[Terwilliger]

10. why is the truth akin to Repuke talking points?

You've got to own up to responsibility on all sides.

[Guaranteed]

12. I'm just saying that that's what Bush is going to say,

which is the truth.

[edzontar]

28. Because they are.

Keep alert, is what I always say.

[Liberal Veteran]

11. And this has what to do with the 2004 primaries?

Just wondering.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

15. the 2004 primaries

are making the hypocricy and doublespeak much harder to ignore. We have hoards of people saying they won't vote for any candidate that voted for the IWR - but WILL vote for candidates that support the war continuing for years. We have crowds of "anti-war" people that won't vote for the only anti-war candidate, and instead will vote for the pro-war (now) candidate, because they won't vote for a pro-war candidate (yeah, I have trouble figuring that one out too).

It's related, don't you think?

[Liberal Veteran]

23. It would seem to me that just leaving at this point would be a mistake.

We really made a mess of things in Iraq and we have a responsibility now to fix it. We cannot put the genie back in the bottle and roll back time, so our only choice at this point is to mitigate the damage done.

Although I was against the war and marched against it, I have never been one who really cared about who voted what on the IWR. I just don't see the point in calling people out for hypocrisy when at this point it is really more a matter of people just trying to make the best of a bad situation and learn from the hideous mistakes of this mis-administration.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

44. it will be only "safe" and "okay" to leave Iraq

when the "job is finished" - i.e., when the oil has been pumped out. So, Republicans want to occupy Iraq to get the oil, but Democrats want to occupy Iraq to fix Bush's mess?

How gullible do you think we are?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. The war against Iraq was never "fine".

Under Clinton or Bush.

"If we beat Bush, and our Democratic candidate decides to "get the job done" in Iraq, and occupy the country for years, will there be the same "anti-war" anger and passion?"

If you would bother to read the posts of most of the "Anti-War" people you would see that most of us are lambasting Democrats for giving bush the green light. And, there are a number of us who won't be voting for bush or one of his Democrat collaborators of they get the nomination.

We expected the DumbSon to pursue a vicious policy in foreign affairs. What we didn't expect, and condemn, are the alleged Democrats who rolled over for him.

There's the hypocrisy.

[sandnsea]

16. Increased and strong pressure is not a war

Clinton didn't want to invade. He wanted the UN to get tougher about a real, unfettered and consistent inspection process. And a variety of other things, but he didn't want to go to war. I'm not sure where you got that idea.

However, I do think it hypocritical of all those who were protesting about the sanctions to turn around and protest the people trying to do something about them for the Iraqi people. Which was to force the UN to deal with it. Unless they're that small handful who hate everything America does, I don't know.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

17. bombing is war

Clinton BOMBED Iraq, over and over again. If that's not war, what is?

Which would be better - 5,000 dead Iraqis after an invasion, or 50,000 dead Iraqis after years of "increased and strong pressure" - i.e., bombing of water supplies and civilian infrastructure?

[Guaranteed]

22. It's not an invasion. nt

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

24. which would you prefer?

Getting killed by bombs or getting killed by an invasion? What a ridiculous distinction!

[Liberal Veteran]

31. Oh, come now. Bombing selected military targets hardly equates with...

...shock and awe and a ground invasion. I don't recall hearing about Clinton bombing restaurants on the off chance that Saddam might be there at the particular time.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

37. "selected military targets"

Yeah, selected military targets, like WATER PURIFICATION plants and electrical generators for civilian homes?

Democrats are so critical of Republican propaganda, and so believing of our own...

[Liberal Veteran]

48. If you choose to support the war, that's your business.

But don't try to convince me that Clinton would have willfully blown off Ali's arms like Bush did. And you aren't going to convince me that the 500 plus members of our military would have been killed. And you aren't going to convince me that our children's future was mortgaged to make Halliburton and Bechtel richer.

Might I respectfully suggest that you remember the real enemy are the neocons and the current administration and not your fellow democrats?

[David__77]

27. They're both evil.

And plenty of progressives opposed the Clinton policy.

[sandnsea]

36. Rwanda

There we did nothing and that's the fault of the U.S. too. Can't win with some people, just can't.

[tinanator]

67. absolutely right

and reason number one he only got one vote from me. Wrong is NEVER right, no matter the team colors. It took me abit to get your point.
"Anti-war" in quotes is right!

[el_gato]

18. when they asked Madeleine Albright

about all the death, especially among children, that the sanctions were causing she said something like "We think it's worth it"
And we're talking about massive suffering here.

As far as your last paragraph Sandnsea I can't make sense of it. Are you saying the invasion had anything to do with helping the Iraqi people? If so I have to disagree.

[sandnsea]

29. She has apologized for that profusely

And I was pretty clear about what I said about the UN. This war has been twisted enough. It's sickening. Go find something constructive to do, like raising money for the people of Iraq or Afghanistan.

[Terwilliger]

30. That's right activists...go pay for our wars, Dems have an election to win

CAN'T BOTHER TO DO THE RIGHT THING!

[George_Bonanza]

68. And what is the "right thing"?

Are you implying that great men like Senator Kennedy are either stupid or weak in endorsing a warmongering amoral hack like John Kerry? What people see in JK is a guy who made an error, but has not backed off in trying to either slow down or ending the mess that Bush made. Congress was not the authority over Bush, as he could've gone to Iraq with or without consent from them. The consolation prize for the Dems was that at least the IWR put some restraints on Bush, especially limiting the war to Iraq only, sparing the likes of Syria and others. It could've been more if Biden-Lugar was put in as the Dems intended, if a small group (which did NOT include Kerry) acquisced too soon and won too little.

So what is the right thing? Voting for Kucinich or Sharpton only? The former is a very good man but the democracy has spoken and the polls are simply not responding. The latter, I see as a very witty and entertaining guy, but as president? Not likely. So I guess the right thing is to never let go of one issue, cling to the past, blatantly allow the re-election of a sloppy and careless president, and ignore all the potential and proven good of 4 excellent men. Gotcha.

[el_gato]

40. a quick question sand

Do you believe this war was about helping the Iraqi people?

I sure as hell don't.

[Liberal Veteran]

51. Same here.

This war had nothing to do with any altruistic motives and to suggest otherwise is to give too much credit to the people in power who have proven time and again that they will turn a blind eye to oppression and cruelty and poverty if it doesn't fit their agenda to retain and increase their overall power and wealth.

[sandnsea]

58. Going to the UN was about helping the Iraqi people

That's what I said.

[Terwilliger]

20. will you please explain how the UN needed "force" to do anything?

from 1990 to 2003, the UN did what the US government told them to do

What is this anti-UN sentiment coming from Democrats?

[sandnsea]

34. Oh yeah, absolutely

Good grief. Libya on the human rights commission because the U.S. said so. The UN dragging its feet on Bosnia and Kosovo. Rwanda. And Iraq. Like I said, I guess there really are people who just hate whatever America does.

[el_gato]

47. so now if you disagree with this war you must

"hate whatever america does" according to you Sand?

By the way, America and the corrupt people who abuse positions of power are two different things.

[sandnsea]

59. Never said that

I said with some people you just can't win. They protest the U.S. no matter what the U.S. does. And when the U.S. doesn't do something, like in Rwanda, that gets protested too. The exact same people who criticize the war vote say sanctions and containment were working. But this thead is proof that those same sanctions and containment were protested as well. There are people who just like to protest and that's the truth of it.

[Terwilliger]

49. you're kidding, right?

The UN voted the US off the human rights council becuase the US SUCKS at "human rights" We've completely fallen off the map in terms of being a world leader in protecting people. Hell, we had a state murderer like Bush overtake the WH, and they're supposed to think we're special?

Dragging its feet on Bosnia and Kosovo...or Clinton dragged his feet?

Dragging its feet on Rwanda? Democrats didnt give two shits about Rwanda.

There are people that like to claim that countries and the UN just hate the US. That sounds like the words of George W. Bush.

[David__77]

19. I was against the sanctions and against Clinton's wars.

I marched against the bombardment of Yugoslavia, and YES, I absolutely will oppose future Democratic presidents' decisions to launch wars of aggression.

[eissa]

21. Wrong

I for one WAS critical of the bombing of Iraq under Clinton and especially of the cruel sanctions. I hate, and still deplore, Albright; I think she has to be one of the worst diplomats we've ever had. She would be a good fit for this administration though -- she's an incredibly arrogant warmonger. Her statement on 60 Minutes regarding the loss of over 500,000 Iraqi children as a direct result of the sanctions will live in my memory forever ("It's a high price, but we think it's worth it.") So yes, I have been critical of wars under dem presidents; the reason that I am more so now is that at least under democratic leadership we had international support, our attacks were not preemptive, there was minimal loss of life, and no imperialistic undertones, as with this administration.

[HFishbine]

25. Clinton's actions

supported a policy of containment sanctioned by the UN.

Bush launched an invasion under false pretenses, against world opinion and international law that cost tens of thousands of human lives.

If the democratic party should officially try to blur the distinctions as an excuse for those who caved to Bush, as the original post does, then I am certainly NOT voting for the dem nominee no matter who he is. We can have differences on the wisdom of this war, but if "Bush only continued what Clinton did" becomes the official line, such a gross misrepresentation of the facts would be enough for me to give a big FU to the dems.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

32. the only gross misrepresentation of the facts

is that Clinton's foreign policy was much different than Bush's - with the exception that Clinton was able to get the other major powers - i.e., NATO and the UN Security Council - on board.

Before Dems start hiding behind NATO and the UN, I'd like to point out that we pretty much control NATO and the UN, and have for years.

[Liberal Veteran]

41. Well, that was true until the Bush regime took charge...

Apparently our influence in both organizations has waned a bit since the idiot in chief and his band of heavy handed "diplomats" took charge.

[MadHound]

33. Begging you pardon, but do you actually know me?

I don't think so, so let me fill you in. I started protesting wars with Vietnam and I was nine years old. I protested the first Iraq war, and stood in solidarity with my Muslim brothers and sisters against the ongoing sanctions and bombings during the Clinton years. The US move in ratcheting up the Iraqi conflict into a "hot" war has led me into protesting it also. I find ANYBODY who was stupid, gullible, cowardly, or evil enough to vote for the IWR to be beneath notice, and I will not vote for them, no matter what. There is no excuse in existence to explain away rubberstamping a proposal to send thousands of innocents to death.

Therefore the three pro war Dems out there will not get my vote, either in the primaries or the general election. When both sides of the fence are advocating war, then a third way must be found. And yes, if a Dem does manage to get elected, they'd damn well be pulling the troops out of Iraq. Otherwise I and many people I know will be in their face for continuing this illegal and immoral war of empire. I am under no illusions that having a D behind one's name automatically makes you anti war. I remember LBJ and the Gulf of Tonkin all too well.

[Uzybone]

35. You've hit the nail on the head.

If the IWR is your number one issue that completely overshadows all others, the only candidates you should support are Kucinich or Sharpton, no one else. This whole "I wont vote for Dem so and so because of the IWR" is such phony bullshit.

Apart from those 2 they all supported the same legislation as IWR and they all kept silent while Clinton strafed the Iraqis almost at will.

[welshTerrier2]

38. Yikes ..

i won't speak for other DU'ers but i really disagree with this ...

Clinton was wrong to put sanctions on Iraq and bomb civilian, or any, targets ... his entire policy against Saddam was misguided ... the sanctions, whether you blame Saddam or the U.S., resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq and a whole lot of suffering ...

and in the end, what did they accomplish ... absolutely nothing ...

we should have been able to "bribe" Saddam to keep him under control ... a billion here and a billion there and perhaps he could have been an ally ... instead, he runs an oppressive regime, we kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis by imposing sanctions, we kill another 50,000 or so with bush's invasion and we totally destabilize Iraq after spending $150 billion on the invasion ...

the policy has never been right ... it was wrong under Clinton and it's still wrong ...

[Cleita]

39. Many of us didn't like the way this was handled by

the Clinton administration and we openly let our representatives know this to no avail.

[MariaS]

42. The Utter Hypocricy

was over 3,000 innocent victim killed on 9/11 and our president declaring 'We Will Get those who did this' and then turning around and attacking a Country who had absolutely nothing to do with our tragedy and using what happened on 9/11 to futher promote his war for oil. If Clinton had done the same I sure as hell wouldn't have backed him for it.

[edzontar]

46. Damn straight!!!!

You go, Maria....

[edzontar]

43. The utter amorality of "Pro-War" people

How many will die today, tomorrow, and for months and years to come, in the BUSHCO-Hallibutron war that too many Dems cast their votes and dedicated their campaigns to defending?

[goodhue]

50. yes there is a lot of hypocrisy and posturing on this issue

The war was unjust, imprudent and illegal, as is the continued occupation, which is not consistent with promoting stability and security in the region, nor with security here at home. We must bring our troops home now! Of course the coalition is responsible for the damage caused including reparations to the families of the innocent civilians we killed. But the UN must be put in charge pronto. Otherwise there will likely be a mass uprising against an undemocratic regime propped up by the coalition authority.

http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/

[mkultra]

52. lol

Well, lets see, The real problem is not that Saddam needed an ass kickin. Its that Bush lied to EVERYONE in order to do it. AND that he pissed all over every nation that said he was lying. AND that he doesnt care about his lies post fact. A UN resultion to war would have been much more widley accepted. Now its gonna be his ass.

[styersc]

54. "If Clinton had invaded Iraq - like he wanted to..."

This is not an accurate premise. More then 10 UN resolutions were passed during ther Clinton administration condemening Saddam Hussein and encouraging his removal through economic pressure and isolation. Every one of those resolutions was worded to specifically forbid military invasion.

After the massacre of Iraqis who were encouraged to revolt during the Bush (I) admin., we developed no fly zones to stop Hussein from killing his own people en masse. Still no arrangements for an invasion.

When the IWR was written, those who supported it did so in this historic context and no one expected Bush to make such a mess of things. The problem was that many Dems were fooled in to believing that Bush was a smart and honorable man- they were indeed, fooled as it turned out he had no intention of doing the smart thing, he was in it for bllod and oil.

[HFishbine]

55. Just remember, Edwards wasn't fooled.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about-Since you did support the resolution and you did support that ultimate solution to go into combat and to take over that government and occupy that country. Do you think that you, as a United States Senator, got the straight story from the Bush administration on this war? On the need for the war? Did you get the straight story?

EDWARDS: Well, the first thing I should say is I take responsibility for my vote. Period. And I did what I did based upon a belief, Chris, that Saddam Hussein’s potential for getting nuclear capability was what created the threat. That was always the focus of my concern. Still is the focus of my concern.

So did I get misled? No. I didn’t get misled.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295/

[markses]

57. I marched against Clinton and Albright's murderous Iraq policy in 1998

and henceforth.

I will vote for whoever gets Bush out of power, since Bush is a retrograde feudalist of first order. But Clinton wasn't all smiles and sunshine, despite the deification he receives on these boards by all and sundry. Between a noxious capitalist and a dangerous feudalist, I'll go with the capitalist everytime - but that doesn't make the mutherfucker any less noxious (though it does make him less dangerous).

[Tinoire]

63. Haven't seen you in a while. Good to see you again!

:hi:

[Hippo_Tron]

60. How about Clinton's security plan was a hell of a lot better...

Than Bush's unecessary full scale invasion. You have to remember that not everybody who is against the war is against it for pacifist reasons.

[MoonRiver]

65. HEY! I was up in arms about a lot of things Clinton did, Monica excluded.

I wrote in Ralph Nader during Cliinton's second term election. I was outraged about Clinton not entering Bosnia early on while all the genocide and mass rape was going on. I also was incredibly incensed about the Elian Gonzalez fiasco. That child should have been returned to his father long before he finally was (who knows how much trauma little Elian had to endure with his 'Miami relatives'?). Despite all this, Clinton was obviously a wonderful president, probably one of the best in our history.

[KoKo]

66. WHOOHOOO! You really are Totally Misinformed on This one! ROFL!

for your post.....amazing.....spin doctor dujour.

[Melinda]

69. You couldn't be more wrong. I'll never understand broad-brush assertions

I've been involved with the Peace and Social Justice movement since I was a very young girl (1968). It's funny that you assume that because I'm a registered Democrat, I automatically support social injustice (WAR) as long as it occurs under a Democratic president. You just couldn't be more wrong - and it seems as if you honestly have no understanding of those like me. :shrug:

[angka]

70. YES. And we were.

Numerous anti-war protests occured during the Clinton administration. Many of us knew the score, many more couldn't say so due to party loyalty issues.

Don't you try to work me, pal. The truth is the truth, even when it makes your own look bad. And that was the case in 1998, too.

[jonnyblitz]

71. geezuz what is with all these rig.....errr...'moderate" threads today?

this is getting creeeeepy as shit. perhaps I need to find a progressive discussion board somewhere to post on.