Monstruous
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
The Barack Obama campaign is about to pay a very high price for the inopportune words of one of its most distinguished foreign policy advisors. The dazzlingly brilliant journalist, Pulitzer-prize winning author, and Harvard professor, Samantha Power, has been forced to resign from the campaign after she recklessly told a reporter that Hillary Clinton is a "monster."
In the pungently hypocritical game of American politics, this is just something outside the rules. Whether it's true, or not, matters little. Nor does it matter that the object of Power's derision has just finished spending millions on TV ads implying that Obama would be responsible for the countless deaths of millions of American children sleeping at 3 a.m. Tut, tut. Nothing monstrous about that.
Power was rightfully awarded the Pulitzer for her finely written and downright horrifying book "A Problem From Hell" which, in macabre detail, describes the calculated indifference of the Clinton administration when 800,000 Rwandans were being systematically butchered. The red phone rang and rang and rang again. I don't know where Hillary was then. But her husband and his entire experienced foreign policy team - from the brass in the Pentagon to the congenitally feckless Secretary of State Warren Christopher - just let it ring.
And as more than one researcher has amply documented the case, the bloody paralysis of the Clinton administration in the face of the Rwandan genocide owed not at all to a lack of information, but rather to a lack of will. A reviewer of Power's book for The New York Times, perhaps summed it up best, saying that the picture of Clinton that emerges from this reading is that of an "amoral narcissist."
Former Canadian General Romeo Dallaire, who commanded the UN forces in Rwanda at the time of the genocide, tells us a similar story in his own memoir. General Dallaire recounts how, at the height of the Rwandan holocaust, he got a phone call from a Clinton administration staffer who wanted to know how many Rwandans had already died, how many were refugees and how many were internally displaced. Writes Dallaire: "He told me that his estimates indicated that it would take the deaths of 85,000 Rwandans to justify the risking of the life of one American soldier." Eventually, ten times that many would die. And our response? A handful of years later, at a photo-op stopover in Kigali airport, Bill Clinton bit his lip and said he was sorry.
Therein resides the richest and saddest irony of all. Samantha Power has actually lived the sort of life that Hillary Clinton's campaign staff has, for public consumption, invented for its candidate. Though not quite 40 years old, Power has spent no time on any Wal-Mart boards but has rather dedicated her entire adult life rather tirelessly to championing humanitarian causes. She has spoken up when others were silent. She took great personal risks during the Balkan wars to witness and record and denounce the carnage (She reported that Bill Clinton intervened against the Serbs only when he felt he was losing personal credibility as a result of his inaction. "I'm getting creamed," Power quoted the then-President saying as he fretted over global consternation over his own hesitation to act).
We gave Power the Pulitzer for exposing the, well, monstrous indifference of the Clinton administration as it stared unblinkingly and immobile into the face of massive horror. But we give her a kick in the backside and throw her out the door when she has the temerity to publicly restate all that in one impolite word. Monstrous, indeed.
March 7th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Bravo.
What amazes me most is that a Democrat in my office who is an Obama supporter and is “horrified” by Clinton’s behavior got in a tizzy when I told her that I would NEVER vote for Clinton. After this week, I honestly will either not vote or vote for Nader or hell, even McCain.
I asked her why she was not offended by the fact that Clinton appeared in 3 interviews, passively endorsing McCain, basically throwing Obama, a member of her own party, under the bus. WHY on earth does Clinton deserve my vote? I just can’t understand how the Democrats have this minority that criticizes the authoritarian nature of the fanatical Bush supporters yet cannot see the same behavior in themselves.
Clinton is so toxic, so harmful to America, why can’t we just get her out? Why do we insist on keeping these people around?
March 7th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
See Hillary - The Movie Monster or not? I particularly liked Trailer II. As I listened to the end of it with her rantings, I cringed and actually had sympathy for her husband.
March 8th, 2008 at 12:13 am
http://dennisperrin.blogspot.com/2008/03/monster-mash.html
March 8th, 2008 at 12:37 am
I know what you mean, Josh, though I think that Clinton will get thrown under the bus at the convention.
Hopefully they will back it up and run over a few extra times while they’re at it, but I’ve been disappointed by the Democrats in the past.
March 8th, 2008 at 4:10 am
Agree 100%, Marc.
Your post is as annoyed as I am.
March 8th, 2008 at 5:41 am
Josh, I too will not vote for Clinton under any circumstances, so just hoping that Kevin is right and I won’t be forced to make that decision. The Democratic Party needs to know that there are many, many of us who will act similarly.
March 8th, 2008 at 6:53 am
I’m sure Power will continue to write and speak and give interviews, so whether or not she’s formally on Obama’s staff means next to nothing.
Wouldn’t it be great if presidential elections didn’t have to steamroll real politics. It’s a real shame that all anyone wants to talk about anymore is the horse race and/or who deserves to win.
Whatever energy activists might be putting into their causes, like ending the war, or starting national health care, now gets siphoned into what is more like a cross between a football game and beauty contest than a battle of ideas.
What a great irony it would be if the worst thing for progressive, idea-driven politics is the presidential election every four years.
March 8th, 2008 at 7:01 am
And, I’d vote for Hillary in a flash against John McCain. I don’t think Hillary can beat McCain, but you can bet the farm I’ll vote for her if it comes to that.
Remember, presidents dance with the ones who brought them. If McCain wins, it’s a mandate for more moral blank-check chauvinism, fiscal blank-check corporate welfare and anti-intellectual culture wars.
If Hillary wins, true enough, we won’t be getting the kind of progressive leader we’d want, but she, and the GOP will now that Americans were not satisfied with more of exactly the same.
We’d have a president who would at least have to CONSIDER the progressive point of view, rather than one whose main political goal would be to demonstrate his ability to crush progressive movements.
Unless, of course, Hillary is elected without the support of progressives. Should that happen, it’s only logical to assume she’d govern without considering them.
This is part of how progressives dealt themselves out of the first Clinton administration and there’s no reason to believe it wouldn’t happen again.
There is reason, however, to believe that Hillary will respond to real political pressure by progressives. If and when they can bring it. If they can’t it won’t matter much who’s in the White House.
March 8th, 2008 at 7:15 am
I hope Obama doesn’t let his commitment to decorum and fair-play wound him too much. It’s one of his great selling points, but Ohio is a reality check. If you let too many negative attacks go unanswered they start to have an effect.
Throwing Samantha Power overboard is a product of our schizophrenic politics. The public punishes those without sufficient decorum, but it’s entirely on the surface. It’s the language that matters, it seems, and not the content. Hillary is immolating the Democratic party, but Power has to go over a single word.
A friend of mine is fond of pointing out that once the Nixon tapes came out people were aghast at the language he used and not at the grotesque racism on display. So you can express any vile idea or policy you like as long as you use pretty language.
March 8th, 2008 at 7:24 am
bunker: “will now that Americans were not satisfied with more of exactly the same.”
You’re exactly wrong. A vote for Hillary is a vote for exactly the same.
Bush is such a bizarre outlier that to measure “change” relative to him is pointless. He is historically unpopular. “Change” measured by more realistic standards puts Hillary firmly in the status quo category. Relative to Bush, McCain and Hillary represent exactly the same amount of change. McCain may have the advantage of being slightly more ethical.
And how, exactly, did progressive deal themselves out of the Clinton administration? You can’t be serious. They were dealt out by Bill as he maneuvered to the right of the Republicans.
Jesus Christ. Hillary makes Dems lose their minds. Your analysis is positively Orwellian.
Nothing, and I mean absolutely, exactly nothing is beneath their pursuit of power. Have you not been watching?
March 8th, 2008 at 7:30 am
Ask Ricky Ray Rector how he was dealt out by progressives…
Stop apologizing for these monsters. Yeah, I said it.
OK I’ll stop reg-posting now.
March 8th, 2008 at 8:25 am
Hillary Clinton had trouble settling on a campaign theme song. How about “The Monster Mash?”
I just read where Hillary’s red phone ad used footage of a girl who will be voting age next month. That girl is a fierce Obama supporter. Also, Nobel Prize winner and a former First Minister in Northern Irleland said that HRC is a “wee bit silly” for exaggerating her role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland and that “being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player.” With the balls she has, how can Hillary Clinton run as a woman?
March 8th, 2008 at 9:00 am
I’d still vote for Hillary in the general over McCain if I were in any state with a close race - mostly for the usual “appointment” reasons and having someone who appears to want to extend health care options in some fashion - but beyond that I really don’t give a fuck and if she manages to snatch the nomination I’ll probably leave my Blue California top-of-the-ballot-line blank. So while I’m not a convert to the jcummings “trash the Democrats” shool - not even close - and I’ll give at least whatever financial and moral support I can to down-ticket Dems like Patrick Murphy, Darcy Burner and Donna Edwards who will bring progressive voices to the Beltway, I’ll give this to Michael Balter regarding Hillary: “You told me so.” The real tragedy, IMHO, isn’t that Hillary is even a more unattractive - and destructive - choice than I had already assumed but that she’s probably destined to lose if it’s a McCain/Clinton matchup. The type of people who are susceptible to stuff like her “3am” ad and her for-all-intents-and-purposes endorsement of McCain as “certainly” Commander-in-Chief material will go for the real John McCain over “John McCain-in-a-pantsuit”, who’s never actually bombed the shit out of anybody while our children sleep safely in their beds. She only voted for it.
March 8th, 2008 at 9:20 am
“Bush is such a bizarre outlier that to measure “change†relative to him is pointless.”
Bush is bizarre only in that he can’t form full sentences and lacks curiousity. As a political phenomenon, he’s what’s been running the country for most of our adult lives. 9/11 changed his fortunes in ways that haven’t happened to other conservatives, but you take that away, and he starts to look extremely run of the mill, except for the stupidity part.
As a senator, McCain could afford to buck the chauvinist right now and then, when it suited him. As president, he’ll have no such luxury. He’ll govern very much like Bush. He’ll have vowed to appoint anti-abortion Supreme Court justices–and remember, as many as 3 seats are likely to come open in his turn, and that alone could leave the judicial wing of government lead EXCLUSIVELY BY CONSERVATIVES.
McCain has a reputation for standing up to military contactors. But as president, that won’t matter and it will be utterly beyond him to do so. He’ll feed them well, just like all Republicans have, and they’ll reciprocate.
You have to be living in a cave if you think McCain would govern anything like Hillary.
Sure, they share similar levels of ethics, demogoguery, etc, but they simply come from a different political tradition and, more important, need to appeal to very different constituencies to maintain power.
And it’s no “apology” for Hillary to say she’s a saner, safer alternative to McCain.
I have no taste for her style of campaigning and, more important, for her position or lack thereof on the war in Iraq. I find her vote for the war and her unwillingness to apologize for it far, far more despicable than any of the tactics she’s used against Obama.
Still, that doesn’t make her somehow equivalent to McCain when it comes to presiding over the government.
I was never a fan of John Kerry, either, but I never gave a moment’s thought to voting for Bush. Kerry’s “reporting for duty” act made me want to vomit. But does anyone doubt that he’d have done a better job than Bush at handling the war in Iraq?
March 8th, 2008 at 9:27 am
“Ask Ricky Ray Rector how he was dealt out by progressives…”
Yes, Bill Clinton knows how to read polls. Support for the death penalty in the U.S. is what, 80 percent?
Progressives have their work cut out for them on that issue. If we can’t persuade more than 20 percent of Americans to agree that the death penalty is wrong, we really have no right to demand any president to agree on that issue.
Anyone know where Hillary and Obama stand on the death penalty? Bet they’re both for it, but won’t talk about it unless they absolutely have to.
March 8th, 2008 at 9:42 am
I don’t demand that a presidential candidate take on the death penalty as an issue, but I’d like them to stop short of show-boating an execution to assure voters they’re “tough on crime”, particularly one as dubious as Rector’s.
As for current polls on this - 58% of Americans support a moratorium on the death penalty as the process is reviewed. Obama has shown leadership on criminal justice issues by getting the taped interrogations legislation in Illinois which the police had opposed, but eventually supported.
March 8th, 2008 at 9:53 am
“Anyone know where Hillary and Obama stand on the death penalty? Bet they’re both for it, but won’t talk about it unless they absolutely have to.”
Both for.
Obama supports it in some cases. He did however pass a bill in Chicago to prevent police torturing confessions out of defendents.
Such a platform of death penalty reform may be the best course for abolitionists right now (though ultimately it absolutely should be abolished forever).
Public opinion has been shifting on this issue, but only slowly.
March 8th, 2008 at 10:04 am
As for refusing to vote for Hillary Clinton if she becomes the nominee, I don’t see how that can work as a strategy for the left.
As disgraceful as the Clinton campaign is behaving, it will be the case that the Democratic nominee has measurably better policies on global warming, healthcare, workers’ rights, Supreme Court nominees etc.
The opportunity to defeat Clinton is now, this primary season, and you should take it. But if the opportunity is missed, then the general election is not a good time to try to change the Democratic Party.
A spoiler strategy probably won’t help the left, even if it is successful in hurting Clinton badly. The Democratic Party leadership will shrug it off and if it hurts them, many Democrats will focus their anger on you as they did with Nader’s supporters.
You have to pick your fights!
Reg has it about right.
The American left needs to find a way of challenging the Democratic Party leadership in ways that don’t aid Republicans even by default. The Donna Edwards campaign is an example of what we need to see more of.
March 8th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Bunker:
Your comment at 9:20 is why I characterized your position as Orwellian. That is, you seem to be rewriting history. Bush, as has been noted by lots of people, is a radical about how he thinks American government works, and is not governing like everyone else during our adult lives. Take signing statements as one representative example. Sure, there has been a constant push in the imperial presidency direction as Schlesinger noted a couple of decades ago, but Bush takes it to a level that changes it entirely. I honestly don’t see how you think Bush is just more of the same.
And unfortunately your observation that McCain may just be posturing now and will show his true colors later, cuts both ways and could well apply to Hillary too. And to be fair, we could ask the same of Obama. But given Hillary’s unrelenting mendacity I know where I’m putting my money.
March 8th, 2008 at 10:16 am
reg, Mazel Tov. You finaly sound rational. I too would - for “choice” court reasons etc. hold my nose and vote for HRC in a swing state. Were I in a safe state, like you, I’d be campaigning for a Left candidate….unfortunately America doesn’t have a real Left party. Perhaps now is the time, if HRC loses it?
March 8th, 2008 at 10:17 am
The Nader spoiler strategy, in the long run, disempowered the DLC.
March 8th, 2008 at 10:18 am
BB is disgusting on the poll/death penalty question. 80 percent of Americans, I think, believe in UFOs. Pace my man Dennis, should Hillary go to a MUFON conference and commiserate with abductees? lol
March 8th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Anyone else here remember the context for the Rwandan decision? I do and its time to put things in context, as one of the writers above urged. Ruwanda occured after the debacles at Somalia and Haiti. Following on with the “Humanitarian” mission in Somalia we allowed our policy to change from one of feeding the people to restoring “order”. That meant declaring the largest waar-lord there - Gen ayaid - our “enemy”. Why? Becaause then UN Sec Gen Boutrous Boutros-Galli had been the Egyptian foriegn minsiter when Nasser was playing games in the horn of Africa and guess who his big rival was? So BBG didn’t like Ayid. And when his men ambushed some Indian troops BBG went ballistic. His representative there - April Glasbie (!) urged the military to go after the war lord. They did and as a result gave us the book and Film “BlackHawk” Down.
At the same time Haiti was exploding and the question became shoulf we restore Aristide to power. Remember all the talk in right wing circles that the former Jesuit was a mad dictator (not quite Hitler, I guess, that would be hard even for these clowns to claim).
So here’s my question Marc. How did you feel about Somalia? About Haiti? Were you a “Liberal Interventionist?” Or did you side with the other lefties that opposed any US involvement on the ground that we were hopelessly corrupt?
I know you were ambivalent at best on involvement in Bosni-Hersogovenia and you and Arianna were outright opposed to any action in Kosova (or Kosovo if you’re a Serb). And speaking of Serbs I remember a memorable meeting in LA where the majority of “progressive” speakers defended poor mister Milosovich and his “martyrd” Serbs in B-H. When Ian Williams tried to set them straight he was booed down. Even came on your show to say the same.
Was our Ruwandan policy “monstrous/” You bet. So was our blind eye toward the massacre of 500,000 (at least) Chinese Nationals in Indonesia in 1965. The indifference toward the “Killing Fields” of Cambodia. East Timor, Central Africa, and now Darfur. Clinton was wrong but he joins a long and “distinguished” line of American Presidents and Foreign leaders - and not a few lefties - in making “never again” a sour joke.
March 8th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Now, it seems that HRC , who threatened to sue Texas over the delegate selection process and then retracted that threat (before the vote), has now retracted the retraction and is threatening to sue again because she won the popular vote but Obama received the most delegates from the state. Who would have guessed that Hillary Clinton would not keep her word?
I liked the suggestion of a commenter:
“Why doesn’t Howard Dean and the DNC just name another five hundred superdelegates, then eliminate Democratic primary voting by the public altogether?”
The Clinton lies and dirty tricks pile up so fast that no one can focus on any one issue to see the total dishonesty of that political couple.
I’m beginning to think that maybe I shouldn’t vote for HRC.
March 8th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Absolutely an excellent column, Marc.
Reading through the links and comments here, I find myself basically in the same camp as Josh & Michael (Although I also have to acknowledge reg’s point about whom would come with a McCain administration).
But dear Richard, I think you’ve ‘contextually’ argued yourself into a pretzel. You did the same thing when you defended Clinton’s chicken-shit position on gays in the military: berating those who failed to remember how Sam Nunn would have irrationally embarrassed a president of his own party for a having an enlightened position on gays (think about how many gay Arab speakers we’ve lost and try to tell us how some spine from Clinton then would not have helped us now). Context? Please. History, and historians like Power laid bare the lie of Clinton’s indifference to the Rwandans. Still wondering? For those who read Power’s book, I’d like to ask you to remember Sen. McGovern. The Democrat who wanted us to immediately end our involvement in Viet Nam wanted to do what when confronted with the killing fields of Cambodia?
March 8th, 2008 at 11:38 am
I guess I missed McGovern’s Presidency. Can you remind me who his Secretary of State was?
March 8th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Personally, i think either Democractic candidate can win unless the Democrats decide to commit suicide as they did in Chicago in 1968 when the party elites forced Humphrey on the party who didn’t want him. So the interesting question to me is if the Demcorat elites (Clinton’s friends) are going to force this to a bitter fight down to the convention and commit suicide again?
What I think about McCain is his positions is the ultimate Republican fantasy. When he says he’s serious about being in Iraq for 100 years–you ask what he’s smoking. The U.S. is going to get pushed out of Iraq in less than 5 years no matter who is president. We”re in a reccsion already. McCain can lead us into a Depression–we’ll run out of money to fight the iraq war. McCain can lead us right into Depression and sit and fiddle like Herbert Hoover while much of the country can’t eat. That’s my worst case scenario.
I really have no illusions about either obama or Clinton–they areboth centrist Democrats riding on a populist wave. I also just saw on UTube interview with Samatha Powers where she said that Obama’s promises as a candidate to bring the troops hone in 16 (was it it 18?) months doesn’t mean anything. Power says after Obama is elected that he’ll, after talking to generals, decide what to do via Iraq. Sorry, Marc, Idon’t think she was humanitarian. She did talk the truth about Obama’s foreigh policy, though.
March 8th, 2008 at 11:48 am
“I guess I missed McGovern’s Presidency. Can you remind me who his Secretary of State was?”–rlo
Eldridge Cleaver.
March 8th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Perhaps my sins of previously snarky and light-hearted commentary do not merit a serious response from the ’smart set’…So be it.
I did however, indeed to ask a pointed and very serious question of Richard. No, there was no McGovern Presidency one might have missed. But McGovern did come to the conclusion that the US had a moral obligation to intervene in Cambodia to try to stop the slaughter. It is ironic that it ended up being the North Vietnamese communists that threw out Pol Pot.
March 8th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Wouldn’t it be wonderful, if instead of Bill Clinton’s mea cupla for inaction on Rwanda, that history could have written that he had the leadership ability to have found the will to have positioned, what 5,000 or so troops, and stopped the killing there?
But he had no such leadership. Instead, Clinton was operating within the ‘context’ of his previous failings. I guess that’s what we’re forced to know.
March 8th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
As a true-blue Anti-Americann anti-imperialist, I’d have been first on board to attempt to save Rwanda - from a Canadian standpoint. I happen to have met General Dallaire a few times - and what Marc doesn’t mention is that he became suicidal over the inaction. The real reason, as Power ellides, but not Dallaire is that France was backing the genocidaires, and the US didn’t want to upset that apple cart.
Besides, the US and France are beacking genocidaires right now in Congo.
March 8th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
What a ridiculous post. Samantha Power described Bosnia as a “genocide”. This kind of inflated rhetoric was preparatory to the war in Iraq when Saddam was elevated to the new Hitler. Power is a drooling, lying, warmongering imbecile. The real perpetrators of genocide are based in Washington, DC but you’d never know that from reading Power’s drivel.
March 8th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Mehmet, you are right. But there are genocides that are not directly commited by the USA, but often connected. 5 million dead in the Congo b US/Israeli proxies, for example.
March 8th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
And who backed Pol Pot after the heroic liberation of Kampuchea/Cambodia by Vietnamese internationalists?
USA! USA!
March 8th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Important to note that the kind of intervention suggested by George McGovern in Cambodia was of a different order to the merciless carpet-bombing of the country conducted by Nixon and Kissinger previously, which he rightly condemned.
As for the context of Rwanda… The Clinton administration might have had good reason after the debacle of Somalia to avoid sending troops into Africa on a mission that would have had little support from the Republican Congress.
That doesn’t explain, however, why they played word games to insist a genocide wasn’t taking place. Or why they did not try to provide the logistical support an African intervention force would have needed. Or why US technology was not used to shut down the Rwandan radio system that was used to direct the genocide - as requested at the time by human rights groups. Or why no effort was made to expel the Rwandan government from the UN, or even from UN debates on the subject.
Or why Washington supported French intervention, against Tutsi rebels, on the side of the murderers (yes there was a military intervention in Rwanda - Paris’ profoundly ugly Operation Turquoise). A friend of mine has spoken to French veterans still traumatised by the experience of handing over Tutsis who sought protection from them over to their Hutu Power allies.
It’s not as if criticising the French government is beyond American capabilities. And this time, Washington would have been in the right.
None of these measures would have required a single American soldier. They would have required giving a damn when it mattered.
_____________________________________
One of the major problems advocates of humanitarian military intervention have is the lack of any mechanisms or institutions to conduct the kinds of interventions they hope for. Individual states intervene and conduct themselves out of self-interest. International institutions that might do the job depend on the commitment of those same states.
That the US foreign policy establishment has been fundamentally indifferent even to the genocides committed by enemy forces is the dismal fact documented at great length in Power’s book.
March 8th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Dallaire’s view is that it wasn’t about “criticizing” France, but it was about France and America’s 90s intelligence sharing relationship.
March 8th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
On itnernational institutions, Phyllis Bennsi had a good monograph at IPS about a rapid reaction force.
March 8th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
“Dallaire’s view is that it wasn’t about “criticizing†France, but it was about France and America’s 90s intelligence sharing relationship.”
Interestingly, that relationship did not prevent the Clinton administration bulldozing French differences over the expanison of NATO.
And the French foreign policy establishment denounced US influence in Africa often in hysterical and conspiratorial terms, regarding the fall of their mutual friend Mobutu as a CIA plot to undermine French hegemony in the Congo, for instance.
They can all get worked up over the things that really matter to them.
March 8th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
You would probably need a Joseph Conrad to go over the characters there but the last ten or so years has seen a rolling genocide in Sub-Saharan Africa (from Darfur to the Tutsis) that has been the real heart of darkness. I’ve seen figures of five million innocents dead and stories of children drafted into the fight, plus rapes, plus mutilations and “Leaders” that make Idi Amin Dada look like a jovial comic opera dictator. And thru all of this the reaction of the west has been to avert its eyes and allow the French (raison d’etat), the British (old colonial ties), and the Americans (Don’t bother us unless there’s oil) pretty much wringing their hands and saying “well what did you expect from the natives?”
The theatre over “Genocide” is just that - theatre. Today, as far as this country is concerned, its another reason to give uncritical support to Israel - that’s what “never again” means - never again will we let the the jews be slaughtered (and its such good business selling them advanced weapons.0
Meanwhile, anyone here think the so-called left gives a damn. I assure you that if Clinton sent the Marines to Ruwanda (or Timor) people like Amy Goodman would have exclusive reports on the “Imperialism”. And A.N.S.W.E.R. would organize demos that Marc could denounce as unfirt because of ex US AGs while being dubious of such action himself (see Kosova). And the GOP? They wouldn’t pass a reolution supporting the US military action then agains Milosovich. So give me a break.
Should Clinton have intervened? Sure. Should Bush do the same in Darfur? OfCourse. Will that happen in future? What do you think?
March 8th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
By the Way if you want to get on Hillary - I’m far more pissed at her suggestion that only she and John “bomb-bomb” Mccain are ready for that three AM call. Maybe she should just pick Lieberman and be done with it.
March 8th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
And if Barack Obama can’t stand up to this and allows, as Josh Marshall of TPM writes, the Clintonistas to get in his head like this - letting the “Karl Rove/Ken Starr” accusations go out cause he asks for their tax returns - then he has no business running for President
Wait till he sees what the REAL Rove has planned for him!
March 8th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Just a momentary pause to recognize the political fairness of The NY Times….
No Party for NY Dem Who Stole From Little League, Bought Mistress Car, Killed Rats Carry on with your self-delusions about that rag.
March 8th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
The fall of Mobutu precisely was piggy-backed by the CIA to increase influence at the expense of Paris. The best framework to look at interi-imperial rivalry in Africa is that the main playersaer all aware of, and depend on the smooth functioning of global capital, so they will all collaborate against any forces that even minutely affect capital’s fortunes. That being said, there are plenty of wars in which different sides - Israel, US, france - are all backing diffferent sides in Congo, Israel and US are backing different rebel groups in Sudan, US protects Sudanese regime in order to offset China. Zimbabwe gives preferential treatment to France so US bitches, etc. etc.
March 8th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
I’m not sure you’re right about the Left making a fuss baout international forces deployed in Africa. The Left supported, for example, the intervention inLiberia.
March 8th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Poor Samntha. If you’re are going to run with the Big Dogs, baby, you need to stand up and lie like a man. Read your briefing books. Internalize them. You are suppose to say that Barack Obama intends to withdraw Our Boys from Iraq starting on Day One, even if you know it to be untrue.
March 8th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
“If you’re are going to run with the Big Dogs, baby…”
In the immortal words of Madison Avenue, she’s not your baby.
March 8th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
I think I may have maybe just been accused of sexism or something.
March 8th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
“With the balls she has, how can Hillary Clinton run as a woman?”
Woody is the only one here with any sense of humor. Thanks Woody for a brief respite from the goddamn mini-rants by the mini-minded self important world organizers.
Now for some common sense to help untwist the panties. Hill and Bill is offering the Vice Presidency to Barack and his response is “it is ‘premature’”, which is a yes. This means he has just pushed Hillary into the lead, either by mistake or on purpose. This is not good news for Republicans.
If per chance Barack still wins, he will not pick Hillary for VP for sure, but more likely someone more to the left. This is good news for Republicans. He looses the women, the men, the latinos, and the middle. GoBama
March 8th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
That would be …looses the unemotional men…..”
March 8th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Jim R. Clearly you think Obama is a stupid rube. Look for him to go for someone with serious national security credibility to defend himself on that front. Wesley Clark, maybe?
March 9th, 2008 at 12:22 am
RLC: You ask, I answer. I absolutey did support the intervention in Somalia and Clinton showed enormous cowardice in folding the operation because of the blackhawk down. Just as in Rwanda, Clinton decided that a few hundred thousand wogs werent the lives of any fewer Americans.
The intervention in Haiti was not comparable. There was no genocide nor any threat. It was a farcical event that as you know lacked any follow through from the Clinton admin. We put Aristide back in and then got the hell out not giving a damn about the Haitians. A truly narcissistic foreign policy from a truly narcissistic president.
I really do hope Hillary gets elected. It will be rich amusement to watch your sort spend 8 years aplogizing for the status quo/
March 9th, 2008 at 12:46 am
Alex Higgins, writing of the Clinton administration’s non-response to Rwanda:
“That doesn’t explain, however, why they played word games to insist a genocide wasn’t taking place.”
You mean that wishy-washy-sounding “acts of genocide” rather than flat-out “genocide”?
The problem is, if you assume they had intelligence, it was likely that they *were* confirming acts of genocide — as distinguished (painstakingly) from ongoing acts of fratricide, ongoing acts of generic civil war and ongoing acts of class war (the less landed, less employed, less fed against those with more).
Acts of genocide (alone) would have been something they might have been able to act on, effectively. But what about all the rest, which was not so easily separated? Do you go in with a mandate to end acts of genocide, but to not interfere with the ongoing RPF invasion? To not interfere with Hutu-on-Hutu civil violence? At some point, how do you even tell the difference between one kind of act and another, before or during the fact, in real time? (Especially if your troops don’t know the language, and have to rely on interpreters who might have their own leanings?) You could go in being cheered for intervening in genocide, and end up being jeered for “getting us involved in somebody else’s civil war.”
Jared Diamond’s Collapse (Ch. 10 - Malthus in Africa: Rwanda’s Genocide) doesn’t slight the Hutu-Tutsi ethnic axis of the conflict (except insofar as the Hutu-Tutsi difference was less ethnic than class-based — a neglected point in many debates). Indeed, in one paragraph of that chapter, Diamond lists more contemporary and historical reasons for Hutu-Tutsi tension than most of us could think of. At the same time however, the chapter recounts how one region in Rwanda with only ONE known Tutsi citizen nevertheless had a death rate of over 5% during the period of conflict — and that’s arguably an underestimate; it might have approached the 11% seen in the rest of the country. And the Twa people (pygmies) were slaughtered, too. Why? Because, under the cover of so much violence, you could pull it off — and however little the Twa had, you could take it. Get it while the getting’s good — from whomever you can get it from.
Before you can answer the question “Should we have intervened militarily?” you have to ask, “Can intervention do much good? Might it do more harm than good on balance? Could we get stuck in a situation that’s just Mogadishu times 10 in terms of population, and therefore times 10 (or more) in terms of troop commitments?”
If you have relatively conventional forces moving against a clearly disinguished, relatively unarmed civilian population, conventional forces supplied by foreign powers can provide some civilian protection. But when a society is going through a general deadly paroxysm, such as Rwanda went through, you’d have to saturate the country with ground troops who would still, for the most part, be unable able to distinguish Tutsi from Hutu, or a land-dispute grudge killing from an “act of genocide”, or a group of refugees fleeing genocidal violence from a group of militia members and their families running from retribution for their genocidal crimes. Dropping enough armed force on Rwanda to contain the violence effectively might have required hundreds of thousands of troops, mobilized much faster than such numbers had ever been mobilized before — and with little certainty of getting in place in time to make much of a difference.
It’s 3AM. Something’s happening in the world. The president’s phone is ringing. And on the other end of the line, there’s someone who will explain a true Problem from Hell: one that you can’t really do much about, militarily, politically, even logistically. So you hang it up and do what politicians do in such no-win situations: take the tack of appearing ill-informed and confused later on, rather than reveal what you’re really doing in the moment: making a god-awful forced decision between the lesser of two evils.
Do I *know* that this is how the Clinton administration handled Rwanda? No, of course not. But it is an explanation that covers their inaction if you assume reasonably good intelligence (in both sense of the word “intelligence”).
March 9th, 2008 at 3:47 am
“… a brief respite from the goddamn mini-rants by the mini-minded self important world organizers. Now for some common sense to help untwist the panties…”
Yeah, yeah, yeah… Everyone else on this thread, indeed on the Internet, is a self-important and egotistical no-account apart from me. Here are my thoughts…
March 9th, 2008 at 5:22 am
“and that alone could leave the judicial wing of government lead EXCLUSIVELY BY CONSERVATIVES.”
And this is different from the progressives wanting the judicial wing of government led “EXCLUSIVELY BY PROGRESSIVES” how?
March 9th, 2008 at 5:23 am
Alex, maybe your “thoughts…” are …
March 9th, 2008 at 6:02 am
Last night on SNL, I thought that they were slamming Obama at first when they had him as President calling HRC at 3:00 AM for advice, showed him cursing and smoking, and mentioned his appointing Al Sharpton as Secretary of State–until it turned out that was a Clinton docu-drama commercial–which fits with the latest Clinton program to win including undermining Obama’s credibility. At least she isn’t planning an assassination, “as far as we know.”
March 9th, 2008 at 8:06 am
Touche’ Alex.
Ok, I’ll add you to the humor list if you’ll add me to the un-important and ego-less list.
March 9th, 2008 at 8:07 am
I think a prominent Political Editor of the Huffington Post, ie the host here, has a moral obligation to focus on this story…Israel planning ethnic cleansing:
ome reports in English have noted that the Israeli Security Cabinet yesterday decided against any more attempted “partial stoppages” of the rocket attacks, in favor of a “complete stoppage”, but they don’t explain what that means. Al-Quds Al-Arabi this morning has this:
A journalist monitoring Israeli television from Nazareth in the West Bank reports:
Channel Two of Israeli Television disclosed yesterday, Wednesday, that the Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak has gotten the green light from the Security and Political Council of Ministers, which met yesterday to decide how to end the problem of the Qassam rockets, to initiate implementation of the new plan aimed an ending the problem of the Palestinian Qassam rockets aimed at southern Israel.
The televised report cited high-level security sources as saying Barak intends to plan for the removal of tens of thousands of Palestinians from the northern Gaza Strip, namely from the region that the resistance uses for the launch of these rockets, and to move them toward Gaza City and to confine them there. The Israeli reporter added that Barak is turning to legal advisers in the Defence Ministry, in order to obtain legal authorization for the removal of the Palestinian civilians. Barak is also asking Professor David Friedmann, minister of Israeli Affairs [Justice Minister], who supports toughening of penalties on Gaza to end the launching of rockets, in order to obtain his authorization to begin execution of the plan.
The reporter said that once [or if] the plan becomes operational, it would start immediately: In the first stage there would be a drop of leaflets advising residents to leave their homes, in addition to special radio announcements in Arabic directed to the residents, and in the event residents didn’t obey the warnings, the occupation army would begin bombing the inhabited areas, in order to compel them to leave their homes and go to Gaza City.
The Council [of Ministers], which met yesterday after the departure of the American Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, stressed that they did not agree with previous army planning for [only] a partial end to the Qassam rockets. And the Council decided to target the leaders of Hamas, political and military alike, and to desroy every symbol of Hamas authority in the Gaza Strip.
March 9th, 2008 at 8:08 am
As I say, Marc Cooper has the ability - and skill - to make this story a focus on the liberal readership of HuffPo. Ask the Zionists to defend the above policy. Most don’t. This story needs attention.
March 9th, 2008 at 8:12 am
To sweeten the deal, I will then disclose my “un-intentionally humorous’ list.
March 9th, 2008 at 9:12 am
Okay Cooper: You heard cummings. You are morally obligated to use your Huffpo perch covering the campaign to cover something else.
March 9th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Just saw the actual footage of Hillary (flanked by military men) complimenting herself and McCain for having crossed the CIC threshold and then dissing Obama. Chilling, vomit-inducing example of sheer human cruddiness. A few weeks ago I was prepared to vote for her with nose unheld in the general election. Now, like reg, I’d only pull that lever if my state is in play (which is improbable).
March 9th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Yes…
My point was in relation to the talk of war crimes…Cooper should either be covering this issue or encouraging its coverage. I mean, Christ, the Israelis are planning war crimes, and have been comitting them, and not a peep at Huffpo.
March 9th, 2008 at 9:34 am
http://dennisperrin.blogspot.com/2008/03/will-to-power.html
March 9th, 2008 at 10:11 am
[...] UPDATE: For those who haven’t already found it, pal and blogfather, Marc Cooper, has an excellent and informative take on the Power situation. Bookmark [...]
March 9th, 2008 at 11:47 am
I listened to the Sunday morning talk shows, and the Democrats have pulled out a unanimous chorus of chants that their problem with Florida is all the fault of the Republican legislature–which must have had incredible foresight to know that the Democrats would not seat the Florida delegates and end up with a mess on their hands. There was no mention as to how the Republicans were behind their problems in Michigan, but I’m sure that they were. My teenager takes more responsibility for his actions than do these Democratic adults.
March 9th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
OK Marc, I’m glad you were foursquare for intervention in Somalia (although I question the need there to side with April Glasbie and Bhhoutros Bhouros Galli and go after Aydeed as the master blaster behind all the terror) and would have sent troops or something to Ruwanda.
I guess the reason for my doubts were your ambivalence over intervention in Bosnia-Herzagovina or Kosova - and on the latter I know you were opposed, as was Arianna (Now the proprietrer of the “World’s most powerful Blog” according to the GUARDIAN of London)And I was unsure about Haiti but I know that plenty of lefties (Amy , Ramsey, Tom) opposed action there and questioned action in Timor as well. The GOP wouldn’t even pass a “Support the Troops” Resolution over Kosova so there it is.
Clinton was shameful in not intervening in Ruwanda. So was FDR in not allowing refugee jews in the US in 1939. Or bombing the rail heads to Treblinka, Auschwitz, etc.
Again, what does “Never Again” mean? Hell we won’t even recognize the Armenian Genocide of 75 - 80 years ago because the modern Turks might be offended.
Hillary is not the only “Monster” here.
Give me a break!
March 9th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
But I’ve got a new reason for going with Obama - other than revulsion at the campaign of Mark Penn/Hillary Clinton. And that is the result in the IL-14 where Foster - the Dem - beat a republican in Denny Hastart’s district. Obama cut commercials for Foster. The turnout was big in Wyoming. Will we win ther in the fall? No, but last time the Dem running there nearly won the at-large seat. Same in Texas where Noriega has a shot at best Corynyn in the Senate.
I think Barack or Hillary can win. But Obama can win in a blowout and with coattails and I’m tired of the typical Dem strategy of filling inside straights rather than a fifty state approach. Naturally the DC crowd hates this.
March 9th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
What does never again mean?
Making the US public aware of ethnic cleansing commited with their tax dollars in Gaza, Congo, etc.
March 9th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Israel’s destruction of Palestine is the third-rail of America’s mediocre media. Untouchable.
I’ve noticed none of the “progressive” candidates for president will utter a word about it, either, except to say they “support” Israel.
March 9th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
BB It doesn’t have to be a third-rail. Most mainstream Jews oppose Israel’s behaviour right now. It won’t offend anyone. If liberal/left media like Huffpo and the liberal blogosphere took this issue on, you can bet it would get play.
March 9th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
And who backed Pol Pot after the heroic liberation of Kampuchea/Cambodia by Vietnamese internationalists?
USA! USA!
A point that Power brought up in her book.
March 9th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
I don’t doubt that Ms. Power means well. I just think that it is the height of both naivete, moral imperialism and moral muddledness that leads her to a “liberal internationalist” (ie “moral” hawk) perspective.
The central contradiction, as it were, to an implementation of human rights on a glbal scale, is the power of the Untied States. Even if any activity undertaken by the US temporarily enhances human rights of certain groups, it tramples others. One could easily say that life for Sudeten Germans genuinely improved under the Reich…does that mean Hitler was good? What about Japan’s help to Nehru?
Imperialism is imperialism. Yugoslavia had horrifying folsk on all sides, as I’m sure Power would attest, yet I think it is the height of moral muddledness for her to think that a power that backs human rights abusers has the right to, let alone can, stop human rights abuses. In teh rare cases that this does take place, it is not without cost, such as the strengthening of NATO at the expense of the UN, the destabilization of East Europe etc.
The dismantlement of Yugoslavia was encouraged from the beginning. Then ex-fascists were ignored, while others like Milosevic were fought, which only mad ethe situation worse, made Serb oppositionists close ranks with Milosevic, etc.
Do I have the answer to global human rights abuses? No. I do like the idea of a UN sanctioned rapid reaction force with rotating generals, but a specifically transnational or supranational chain of command. It is the US and other powers who stop this from taking place, since at heart, while they may do a better job stopping the human rights abuses of the bad guy of teh week, they’ll also look at US allies in Israel, Congo, Turkey, etc.
So my position is Anti-Imperialist, thus far more legitimately opposed to human rights abuses than Ms. Power.
March 9th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Jim R. - We have a deal.
March 9th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
I’ve noticed none of the “progressive†candidates for president will utter a word about it, either, except to say they “support†Israel. (Bunker buster)
Actually Obama has pointed out that the Palestinians are experiencing the worst suffering - and said it at the conference of the notoriously reactionary AIPAC where he had every reason not to.
He has also commented on the openness of discussion within Israel and contrasted it with the rigid pro-Likud line that masquerades as the pro-Israel position in the US.
That said, at crunch moments like the invasion of Lebanon in the summer of 2006, he returns to the usual platitudes. He also recently pledged not to encourage negotiations with Hamas.
Not that impressive - but Obama is the only candidate to have even flirted with a liberal approach to the Middle East conflict.
March 9th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Michael Turner - good comments about the complications of intervention in Rwanda.
But I certainly think the fact that a variety of options available to the Clinton administration short of military intervention were not even attempted indicates a fundamental indifference on their part.
An indifference which is of course, hardly unique to that administration.
March 9th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Jcummings:
Glad u linked to Dennis Perrin’s pathetic post. I was going to but decided there was no good reason to further display this guy’s really perverse political neuroses. But you’ve gone ahead and done it.
In the past, Perrin has rankled and irritated me. But on this one, as I said, I just find him to be pathetic, bitter and irrelevant. I find his remarks about Power to be frankly disgusting and reeking of a juvenile sexism.
If he had half the moral depth of Samantha he’d be worth taking seriously. Instead, he becomes one more exhibit in the pathological decline of the marginal left.
I know u disagree. But that’s ur job as our in house rep of the Marginal Canadian Left.
Thanks also for defining my professional/moral duties regarding the Palestinians. I am happy to stand by my public record on that issue.
March 9th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
With respect, what is your professional moral duty in that regard, if not to write something right now? Your torture post is great, but what about something about the ethnic cleansing being carried out?
Left…I don’t know how you’d define it. I know that people of my political sympathy basicalyl control my local municipal government, and are quite influential here, partially because we actually build parties beyond the mushy liberal. I think you probably agree there.
I like Perrin as a writer a hell of a lot. His book should be good. And since when is it sexist to call someone on hypocrisy? If you use that logic, thena lot of what you write is sexist.
March 9th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Sadly but predictably, with the way that presidential politics has always worked, Samantha Power and Austan Goolsbee (Ohio is now called by some insider wags, the Goolsbee Primary) managed to get in the way of emerging stories debunking Hillary’s claims to national security crisis management experience.
Important point: Never contradict what your principal is saying publicly. Especially dealing with folks you don’t know in the middle of a hotly contested political campaign.
March 9th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Bill. hello and ur right of course.
Cummings: I think lots of things about Samantha but not that she’s a hypocrite. You may very well disagree with her but her writing shows an enormous compassion and humanity. You seem to have a very narrow ideological window through which your approvzl must always fit/ That’s quite a silly way to evaluate people and quite naive as well.
I repeat: Perrin’s post reeks with petty envy, peevishness and bitterness/
His bit about chewing on Power’s panties tells us everything we need to know about him. Pathetic.
Would u like to compare Perrin’s boks to Power’s? Not so much apples to oranges than sirloin to dog food.
March 9th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Speaking of ethics JC, would it not be right for you to disclose your ‘journalistic’ biases regarding Israel?
As an anti-Zionist, do you not agree with Abedinejad the State of Israel should be wiped off the map? This would be honest and go a long way helping the casual reader understand your over-the-top comparison of a State under attack(for 50 years btw), removing terrorist and their supporters from withing bombing distance, as ‘ethnic cleansing’.
As an anti-capitalist communist, do you not agree Israel, being a thriving and successful capitalist Nation, is on your hate list for this reason alone?
As a far out leftist, is it not your religious duty to defend the perceived less powerfull in a society? No matter how vile, vicious, hateful, dangerous, and wrong their behavior is to civilized human beings they cannot assimilate with.
Since Israel is a Jewish Nation, are not the Jews regarded as too greedy. too successful. too powerful and too white to receive any equal consideration from far out leftist to begin with?
Btw, yes I know you claim to be Jewish yourself. in order to add some ‘validity’ to your warped anti-Israel leftist droppings……..I guess.
March 10th, 2008 at 2:20 am
Higgins writes, again: “… I certainly think the fact that a variety of options available to the Clinton administration short of military intervention were not even attempted indicates a fundamental indifference on their part.”
Maybe. But more likely, they looked at proposed options and at possible (maybe even probable) consequences of taking them, and concluded that the chances of doing more harm than good were far too high.
Take the idea of disabling Rwandan radio stations. Radio propaganda was used to fan the violence, and even direct it to some extent. OK, so you disable radio stations. What’s the reaction? The fact that the U.S. attacked one of the few means of general long-distance communication in Rwanda (as radio is, in Africa generally) would mean what, exactly, to your average Hutu? They tune in one day, and — chillingly — they just get radio static. After a few days, they get word through other channels: America is weighing in on the side of the RPF! (An American that had hosted the leader of the RPF, Paul Kagame, for military training.) And of course, local Tutsis would inevitably get wind of this too, and as a Hutu, you’d naturally fear that the news of U.S. support for the RPF would embolden those Tutsis. So what would have been the best course of action for Hutus to protect themselves, in that event? Obviously: slaughter more Tutsis, faster. Hutus who, until then, might have held back, would probably have responded to the radio black-out (and inevitably exaggerated reports for the reason for it) by becoming even more susceptible to mass panic and bloodletting.
No, I think Rwanda might have been one of those situations where the U.S. either had to go all in, with everything we could throw at the problem, or do nothing. After Somalia — well, for that matter, after *Vietnam* — going all in was a probably a non-starter.
You can’t conclude automatically from somebody’s inaction that they simply didn’t care. Sometimes there’s not a lot they can do that won’t simply make things worse.
One of my major objections to invading Iraq as some kind of “humanitarian” intervention was that we neither knew as much as we should have about how bad things were or had been in Iraq, nor could we be sure we wouldn’t be making things worse. As it turned out, mass graves in Iraq seem to have only about 1/10th as many bodies in them as rumored, and our invasion led to a general (and quite lethal) social breakdown. I wasn’t “indifferent” to the suffering of Iraqis under Saddam; I just didn’t pretend to know exactly how bad things were, and what sort of action would make things better. And the more I look at Rwanda, the history, the context, the more I think: maybe the Clinton administration, in doing nothing, simply chose the least shitty of some bad options, under considerable uncertainty.
March 10th, 2008 at 6:56 am
Just as I suspected after listening to Democrats blaming Republicans for the problem in Florida….
“It was a Democrat Florida State Senator, not a Republican, who introduced the bill calling for the early primary. Not only that, but every single Democrat in the Florida Senate voted in favor of moving the primaries. The Democrats put the legislation on the table – and the Democrats hammered it through.”
How is it that I knew they were lying?
March 10th, 2008 at 7:24 am
As an Anti-Zionist, I agree that the existence of a “Jewish state” should eventually - and I stress the word eventually - be in the dustbin of history. Just as I feel the same way about an Islamic state.
Funny to see the right wing - who were AntiSemites until 20 years ago think they’re philo-semitic. Most Jews have historically opposed Israel. Today, only 17 percent of American Jews identify as Zionists. Over 67 percent identify as left-of-centre.
March 10th, 2008 at 7:25 am
On Power and Perrin: Funny journalism to flawed - but I stressed this - well meaning - theoretical/”bare witness” work. I admire Power. I read most of her book. I just find her perspective naive.
March 10th, 2008 at 7:27 am
Jim R. Israel is (military run) socialist
March 10th, 2008 at 7:39 am
Regarding humorous opinion, it doesn’t get much better than Steyn. Here is his his take on the Powers firing:
http://tinyurl.com/2ujzku
Here’s a sample:
“Well, we will have Hillary Clinton to kick around some more, at least for another few weeks. The Mummy kicked open the sarcophagus door and, despite the rotting bandages dating back to Iowa, began staggering around terrorizing folks all over again. “She is a monster,†Obama adviser Samantha Power told a reporter from the Scotsman — and not a monster in a cute Loch Ness blurry long-distance kind of way but something far more repulsive and in your face. “You just look at her and think, ‘Ergh,’†continued Ms. Power, warming to her theme perhaps more than is advisable even in an interview with an overseas newspaper.”
Now that’s entertainment.
March 10th, 2008 at 8:22 am
At first, I thought Steyn’s ‘Mummy” reference to Hill was of the Mommy kind. He has an English accent and ‘mummy’ is how mommy is pronounced.
In any case, I believe both definitions work for his description of what is likely to happen in America if either Democratic Candidate is elected. A Mommy mentality staggering around terrorizing our self-reliance, our risk-taking, our individual responsibilities, our individual ‘rights’ to make our own decisions and accept the rewards and consequences.
In other words our ‘freedoms’ to succeed or fail will be replaced ever more rapidly by a huge, grotesque, interfering, in your face………Nurse Ratchet Mummy Monster.
March 10th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Here’s the problem I have with the Hiullary bashing here. I cannot and will not support her ads (three AM or three PM what is the diff?) and her slurs that only she and McCain are ready for Command - fact is neither of them probably are ready. But, just as I get ready to condemn her along come the “Hillary Hater’s Club” to make it personal.
For any number of reasons when the Clintons come up any sense of proportion goes out the window and we get the complete loss of any sense of proportion. How the Right can see this couple as the epitome of all that is corrupt and venial after the last 7 plus years is amazing. How the Left can find nothing good in the period 1993 -2001 shows just how infantile and, frankly, irrelevant they have become and only convinces me that I’m right in believing that for “Progressives” the Great Crime of Bill and Hil was that they “won.”
March 10th, 2008 at 11:47 am
93-2001 was good socially. To whatever limited degree, the Clintons in power opened up a more socially progressive space. Witness the types of music and film from the era- the optimism and the experimentation - to the Bush era. That said, I would only give the Clintons credit in so far as they were not (that) culturally reactionary.
March 10th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Great crimes:
Waco
Iraq sanctions (500,000-one million dead)
Bombign radio stations and bridges in Belgrade.
All sorts of international failures
Oslo was good in spirit but turned blind eye to Israel settlement expansion, thus precipitating current epoch.
Economically getting away with being to the right of the Republicans (triangulation) - if not for monica lewinski and the need for Dem support, Clinton would have privatized social security.
Effective Death Penalty act set stage for Patriot act.
These, among many are great crimes.
March 10th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
>not (that) culturally reactionary.
tipper gore
March 10th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Point taken. Great Ice T song about her in I think 90 or 91.
That said, I think she’s mellowed. I saw the Dead a few times in the DC area in the 90s and the Gores were always backstage, participating in the unique and arcane culture.
March 10th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
“Most Jews have historically opposed Israel. Today, only 17 percent of American Jews identify as Zionists. Over 67 percent identify as left-of-centre. ”
The poll I saw showed 28% identifying as Zionists, while 82% had pro-Israel attitudes. Obviously, people who choose not to live in Israel might not identify themselves as Zionists, that certainly doesn’t put them in your camp.
As to most Jews historically opposing Israel, well, this moonbat statement is hard to respond to. Probably you’re talking about attitudes one hundred years ago, before the Holocaust completely changed the equation.
March 11th, 2008 at 4:38 am
“As to most Jews historically opposing Israel, well, this moonbat statement is hard to respond to.”
Yeah, no kidding. But that’s jcummings for you.
From a 2007 AJC survey that pointed out how generally liberal/moderate (and anti-Bushadministration) American jews are, hopefully putting to rest the (arguably anti-semitic) stereotype of American jews as “neocons”, one can still find plenty of support for Israel among American jews.
http://www.ajc.org/site/c.ijITI2PHKoG/b.3642857/
61% feel that the UN treats Israel “unfairly”.
http://www.ajc.org/site/c.ijITI2PHKoG/b.3643395/
69% sign on to “… caring about Israel is a very important part to my being a jew.”
jcummings’ escape hatch is, of course, his qualifier, “historically”. What does it mean? What does it add? Probably not much more than his hilariously vacuous uses of the word “objectively”. After all, one could say, “Historically, most Jews weren’t bothered at all by the Holocaust”, and — ha ha, “objectively” — you’d be quite right, for the simple reason that, for 98+% of Jewish history, the Holocaust hadn’t happened yet.
If he wants to claim that a majority of Jews in the world, prior to the Holocaust, thought that Zionism was maybe a little crazy, or utopian, or simply unnecessary and not worth the bother, he might have a point. Who knows? I don’t. Is it a big deal now? I don’t think so. After all, at one point in the debate about where to site the Jewish Homeland, some Zionists were seriously proposing *Uganda*. (C’mon, could I make up something like that?)
However, what people might have thought at one time hardly matters now, unless perhaps you’re some connoisseur of incongruous dialectic. After all, at one time, to be an American feminist might have meant also being a Prohibitionist, or an anti-abortion activist, or both.
March 11th, 2008 at 5:28 am
Glad to hear both of you prefer talking about this then your lack of offense at Israel killing 120 Gazans in the last week, including many children.
A) “Historically” - before WW2 it was Zionists who were thought of as Moonbats. It was a minority position. Unitl 67 even.
B) My stats come fromhttp://www.counterpunch.org/brenner10242003.html among other places…but the specific state I refer to is in regards to Jews below the age of 30, the operative number.
Zionism will be looked at as historical folly, mark my words.
March 11th, 2008 at 5:29 am
And yes, the holocaust changed teh equation, but we’re 60 years past that now, and still you prefer quibbling as opposed to looking at the real issue…i.e. Israel’s ethnic cleansing policy.
March 11th, 2008 at 5:39 am
Oh but those rockets? Heaven forbid!
Last four years: 7 Israelis killed by rockets from Gaza. 1000 Gazans killed. Yup, pretty symmetrical.
March 11th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
‘But, just as I get ready to condemn her along come the “Hillary Hater’s Club†to make it personal.’
Until a few weeks ago, I wasn’t even a mild Hill-basher (though I didn’t support her). I may not yet be fully ‘Cooperized (or is it Balterized’) on this subject but I’m getting there. Her behavior has been that noxious. From what I read around the blogosphere, I’m far from alone.
March 11th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but WTF!!! Samantha Power has to resign but Hillary can somehow get off by “disagreeing” with Geraldine Ferraro’s racist attack against Obama?
Hopefully Hillary’s duplicitous and hypocritical hesitance will give her campaign a pounding.
BTW: I heard Geraldine on NPR’s Talk of the Nation about a week ago and she expressed absolutely no qualms about the undemocratic nature of the superdelegates. Extremely annoying to listen to her outrageousness and so it’s not really a surprise that she would say something totally lame like this.
March 11th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
In fact she already did say just this sort of stuff on a radio intvw I heard about a week ago. I assume that wasn’t the only time she’d said it before today’s blow-up. If the Clintonites had been smart they’d have seen this coming and told her to muzzle it. Unless of course they were hoping she’d keep on spouting, since they figured it could ultimately help her in PA. The fact that it will hurt her badly in the GE may not matter so much; the important thing is to deny Obama the win.
March 11th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
At worst it helps Hillary get onto the McCain ticket.
March 11th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
It would be as much fun watching her fight with Mitt for VP as it’s been watching her fight with Barack to accept it…….Nah!
March 11th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
I agree Hillary bashing is over the top, and I am not one of her haters. I posted Steyn’s Column only because it was an example of how political opinion can be made entertaining, and I didn’t go looking for something negative on Hillary I just read Steyn’s stuff on a regular basis.
If you read the link, only a small part is about Hillary, and even that was written in a tongue-in-cheek manner.
March 12th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Dennis Perrin responds to Cooper’s response:
http://dennisperrin.blogspot.com/2008/03/pleasure-of-pain.html
July 21st, 2008 at 11:08 pm
American History Aztec Gods American History X…
I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me…