Go Home

crossposted from Driftglass at the request of Crooks and Liars editors

“...they turned to prayer, beseeching

that the sin which had been committed

might be wholly blotted out.”

-- 2 Maccabees. 12:42

Once upon a time, there was a President named Bill Clinton, who was, by most historical standards, a typical Centrist Republican, although by a fluke of geography and circumstances he ran for public office with a "(D)" after his name.

Under his Administration, many Conservative ideas which had long gathered dust on the shelf -- ideas such as welfare reform, a balanced budget, debt reduction, a strict “Pay as You Go” fiscal regime, a boom in technology jobs, budget surpluses, NAFTA, GATT, official bans on gay marriage, etc. -- were finally realized.

And for all of his good work on behalf of their ideology, Conservatives spent eight, long years treating Bill Clinton -- a Southern, White, Christian man -- as if he were a case of flesh eating nuclear syphilis.

Because he did not run for office with an "(R)" after his name.

And because he did not run for office with an "(R)" after his name, according to the leading voices in the Republican Party and the Conservative Movement, Bill Clinton was, in no particular order, Hitler, a Socialist, a rapist, a warmonger, a serial murderer, and a drug dealer, whose Presidency was somehow vaguely illegitimate.

And counterpointing the 24/7 slime campaign, there were those endless, endless hearings. Whitewater. Travel office. Christmas Card lists. Lincoln bedroom. Etc ad nauseum.

Or don’t you remember?

He was “Not my President!” (Ollie North: War criminal, terrorist arms dealer, GOP Senate Candidate [1994] and FoxNews Contributor.)

He was warned “not to set foot in my state.” (Jesse Helms: Professional Bigot, Confederate Senator, 1820-2003)

His picture was used for target practice by G. Gordon Liddy. (Watergate felon, would-be assassin, radio 'personality' and Republican hero.)

From "The American Prospect":

...it's worth remembering just how virulent the opposition to Clinton's presidency was. Republicans began plotting to impeach Clinton long before anyone had ever heard the name "Lewinsky," and many on the right simply refused to accept that he legitimately occupied the office he held. Then-House Majority Leader Dick Armey, when talking to Democrats, used to refer to Clinton as "your president."

It was a warped, hysterical campaign funded by wealthy Right Wing thugs like Richard Mellon Scaife

and propagated by wealthy Right Wing thugs like Rupert Murdoch who made sure the lies were jack-hammered into the headlines day after day, year after year.

And judging by its objectives, it was also a very successful campaign: it legitimized and metastasized Hate Radio; killed the credibility of the "objective" media once and for all; made the overt mass-slander of political opposition by the Right acceptable; moved radicals, militia nuts, bigots, Creationists and Limbaugh zombies to the center of the Republican Party; accelerated the exodus of reasonable moderates the hell out of the Republican Party; destroyed the possibility of public discourse; and kicked the door open to the use of Congressional hearings as instruments of political vendetta.

But as successful as it was, it was also an incredibly high-risk strategy, because of a thing called the "public record".

The public record meant that each and every time a Republican stood up to, say, slam the Democrat Commander-in-Chief during a time of war (from The Poor Man Institute:)

“You can support the troops but not the president”

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

“President…is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation’s armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy.”

-Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)

“American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy.”

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

“If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy.”

-Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W. Bush

“I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning…I didn’t think we had done enough in the diplomatic area.”

-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

“Well, I just think it’s a bad idea. What’s going to happen is they’re going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years”

-Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

“I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today”

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

“Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?”

-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”

-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

“This is President Clinton’s war, and when he falls flat on his face, that’s his problem.”

-Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)

“Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly.”

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

they left a documentary trail wide and bright enough to be visible from space.

Or from the next election cycle.

The public record meant that every frivolous Republican witch hunt and every syllable of hate and demagoguery gleefully poured out through public megaphones and megachurch pulpits to malign and demonize the Left could potentially represent a thick bar on the cage of any future Republican president's imperial ambitions.

Because, after all, should the tables ever turn -- should there ever be a Republican President whose election really was suspect, or who really did lie to the American public and flagrantly abuse his office, and did it in ways that cost the nation trillions of dollars and thousands of lives -- after spending eight years establishing a public record in such clear and unambiguous language what the Hell could the Right possibly say?

After conspiring to bring about two of the most destructive events in modern American history -- the impeachment of a US President over trivia, and the probable theft of the subsequent Presidential election -- to what God could Republicans possibly pray that their eight years of insanity, venom and violence "might be wholly blotted out?”

On 09/11/01, their dark miracle came winging its way out of a clear, blue sky.

Eight years ago, this is what we all saw.

All of us, all together across all political, cultural and religious spectra watched the worst thing many of us had ever seen.

Together.

But in what now seems like less time than it took to wipe away our tears, the same depraved thugs who sponsored eight years of "Clinton Murdered Vince Foster!" hysteria began hijacking of our pain and patriotism to serve their partisan interests right before our eyes.

The minute the Bush Administration began trying to stretch the war they got into an excuse for the war they wanted, 9/11 stopped being merely a national tragedy and started being the Bush Administration's bottomless political ATM machine.

The minute the Party of Personal Responsibility began using the mantra "9/11 changed everything" as the political equivalent of the Blood of Christ -- as a means to absolve themselves of their personal responsibility for eight years of malice and derangement -- for them September 11, 2001 stopped being a moment of shared, national anguish and started being a suit of cultural body-armor which magically deflected any criticism of their lies and their and hypocrisy.

An impervious sniper's nest from which they could cynically escalate

their war on the Left.

Or don't you remember the day the Right robbed the graves of all those who perished on 9/11 to turn this

into their all-purpose

"Get Out of the 90s Free" card?

And the thing is, it worked.

By selling 9/11 for a mess of wingnut pottage, the Right bought itself an anti-Liberal free-fire zone and two Presidential terms-worth of blank checks. Two terms of an alternately supportive and supine media. Two terms of catastrophe, corruption and treason protected from scrutiny by an ablative shield made out of solid "Why do you hate America?", and a promise that they could go on barebacking diseased monsters in the alley all night long, every night, forever and wake up each morning miraculously clean, virginal and still beloved in the eyes of God.

But they forgot that tempus just keeps fugiting along. And as time passed, the Right got so accustomed to butt-scooting their depravity all over the public square and never being called on it they simply stopped noticing that they were amassing a whole new post-9/11 public record so despicable and overflowing with Conservative atrocities that it positively dwarfed their antics during the Clinton Years.

And that brutal, meth-addict level of dependence on never being brought to book for anything they say or do left the Right completely unprepared for the one thing their leaders promised would never happen again.

Losing.

And losing has driven them a special kind of crazy; that screaming-incoherently-and-lashing-out-in-every-direction kind of cold-turkey junkie withdrawal crazy.

In the few, short months since they lost, they have emptied out their entire store of raving invective and delusion.

Losing has left them insisting that that the legally elected President of the United States somehow isn't really the President. That he is a secret enemy. A Communist. A Hitler. A Muslim sleeper cell. A Chicago gangster.

Has left them swearing that "their country" has been stolen and that somewhere hidden in secret code in a 1,000 health care bill is a plan to murder senior citizens.

To understand how deep and relentless their addiction goes, you need only consider the recent example of Mrs. Katy Abram, who leaped into microcelebrity and the wingnut pantheon a month ago with her Clown Hall rant of “I don’t want my county to become Russia!” speech.

Mrs. Katy Abram wants the world to believe that, like a wingnut Sleeping Beauty, she somehow slept through 9/11.

Slept through two wars and the two trillion dollar bill they racked up.

Slept through tax cuts for the wealthy that added another few trillion to our debt.

Slept through Katrina.

Slept through Terri Schiavo.

Slept through the screams of the Constitution as Bush Administration fed it an inch at a time through the wood chipper (the same Constitution she is now so deeply concerned about that she has somehow become, virtually overnight, an “original intent” quote-spewing expert) only to be awakened in a sudden, patriotic fury by the sound of a Black Democrat taking the oath of office.

I’m sure in Mrs. Abram’s mind – and in the tiny little minds of tens of millions of Americans just like her – she sees absolutely no contradiction between explaining that she never paid any attention to a single news item prior to January of 2009....and saying that she started paying attention in 1991 "when we first went to the Gulf War" and that she has debated politics with friends at the opposite end of the political spectrum “a million times over”.

It is, in fact, a sign of the depth and effectiveness of their brainwashing that people like Mrs. Abram see no conflict between saying in one breath “I have never been interested in politics” and "I always seem to have faith in the government“ in the next.

Because during the Bush years, people like Mrs. Abram never saw their love of their Dear Leader and their fealty to his Administration as something "political". They saw it as normal. As the Universe being at its proper, wingnut default setting: White, male, fundamentalist Christian, Conservative, flight-suit clad and killing scary brown people. And as long as that remained true, all was right with the world and people like Mrs. Abram were absolved by their "Don't Worry, Go Shopping" leaders of any responsibility for paying attention to anything their government was actually doing.

And once the Dear Leader's reign ended, as far as people like Mrs. Abram were concerned, the natural order of mindless obedience in exchange for a smug and blissful ignorance collapsed. "Their country" was suddenly broke and screwed up for reasons that they dared not think about too much. "Their country" was suddenly awash in dirty effing hippies, who for some reason were no longer satisfied with being cultural punching bags. "Their country" suddenly had politicians and activists who said mean things about the Dear Leader and the Republican Party...and got away with it!

And worst of all, "their country" suddenly had a Scary Black Man living in their Dear Leader's pretty White House, probably having dirty, Muslim sex in the Dear Leader's sacred, Christian bed and putting his filthy, Kenyan hands all over "their county's" pure, white Constitution.

So, for example, when you hear the same people who fanatically supported President George W. Bush when he famously told Iraq war critics to go to hell--

"Well, we had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 election."

-- now insisting, less that a year after the 2008 elections, that President Barack Obama needs to:

"...scrap the current grandiose plans and to start over."

or when you see the mobs on the Right being whipped by talk of secession or revolution or spilling the "blood of tyrants" into a nearly-pornographic frenzy, understand that what you are witnessing are the echoes of political decisions made in the wake of September 11, 2001.

Political decisions that trained the Right to believe, on a visceral level, that a sufficiently bloody and horrifying disruption to the life of the country can -- if properly exploited -- wash away their eight otherwise-unforgivable years of sin and restore "their country" to its proper, wingnut default setting.

That if the right sacrifices are made to the right gods in just the right way, then they can be virgins again.

About driftglass
I post original writing and graphics (nearly) daily at my site: http://driftglass.blogspot.com/ I podcast weekly with Blue Gal at "The Professional Left": http://professionalleft.blogspot.com/ I am the 2008 Weblog Award Winner for Best Individual Blogger. And I live in Chicago, where I do my best to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.
Share This Post

Link To This Post


90 Comments

Read it at Driftglass - thanks for posting it here too.
Brilliant stuff!

The Last Word's picture

I realize its cache to bash Clinton, and I understand the point the author's trying to make, but trying to make it by characterizing Clinton as a Republican, and further characterizing ideas "such as welfare reform, a balanced budget, debt reduction, a strict 'Pay as You Go' fiscal regime, a boom in technology jobs, [and] budget surpluses" as "conservative" is simply silly.

Clinton made some mistakes -- both personal and policy-wise. NAFTA, for example, has significant issues. But his policies were generally good for the country, and to argue otherwise simply ignores the obvious in favor of the ideological.

Alice X - Chomsky Nader's picture

The Financial Modernization Act of 1999 repealed Glass Steagall.

The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 forbid State Gambling Law enforcement on Credit Default Swaps.

Two major components of the financial meltdown of 2007 we are still enjoying.

Those are two that come to mind for me. Clinton was bundle of laughs.


statusquObama, change you can only pretend in

The Last Word's picture

As I expressly observed, Clinton made mistakes policy-wise. But to argue that he wasn't attempting to make things better, as opposed to Bush who was intent on fleecing average Americans, ignores the evidence. Consider, for example:

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/09/closi...

Just what did the Clintons have to say that was worth one hundred million dollars? More like: "Payment for a job well done."


Corruption favors the wealthy.

Alice X - Chomsky Nader's picture

Out of the gate instead of health care reform we got NAFTA and GATT then WTO.

You can explain as you will how he failed at health care, much better ones before him also failed.

You will never explain NAFTA/GATT/WTO to me.

Globalization 101: the projection of the US Imperial Corporate regime over the entire globe.

We will be living with that for a long time.


statusquObama, change you can only pretend in

Hooker Jay's picture

... and he wasn't "conservative enough" for the GOP, evidenced by him not smoking and inhaling the Lewinsky cigar.

schultzbk's picture

Although this a thought-provoking piece, the claim that Clinton is somehow a repub in disguise is hard to swallow. Sure, there are things I would have wanted Clinton to do (International Criminal Court and landmine ban), but that doesn't make the man a repub. You also have to consider the repub takeover of the house and senate, ala Newt Gingrich.

You have to be careful not to frame everything you dislike as the "enemy"--that is precisely what these idiot neocons are doing now (e.g., every liberal is simultaneousely a fascist AND a communist).

As Clinton explained in "My Life," if you want to be a social liberal, you better also be a fiscal conservative because we have to figure out how to pay for the much-needed social programs. IMHO, true fiscal conservatism is spending LESS on defense and corporate welfare, and more on health care, student loans, etc.

in 2001? How other than that he is in league with him? Please don't say that by hugging the elder Bush he was restoring his credibility with the American people after the supposed "outrageous" pardons.

davidhilton's picture

clinton is educated and compassionate - he's definitely not a repub. im not even going to finish the article.

I disagree: Many of Clinton's worthwhile policies WERE conservative. Not capital C Conservative in the modern batshit-crazy Republican sense, but small c conservative in the "not way-liberal" sense.

There are legitimate arguments to be made for conservative systems of government, and while I might argue that more liberal alternatives are BETTER, they can certainly work.

And thus, I think it's completely reasonable to characterize Clinton as a centrist conservative president. It's just that most of the stuff we think of as liberal is really just to the left of center. REAL extreme left is Castro or Mao. It's just that the apparent center in the US is way over to the right, so our perception of conservative and liberal is completely screwed up.

Handypants's picture

All on point and spot on.

They are doing the same thing to Obama and many - MANY on the leftern side are willing to jump on board with the loons.

So sad.


"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that!
" ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )

ricky's picture

And one which every elected Democrat in Congress should be made aware of (since you cnanot force them to read it.)

While there is a now huge underpinning of racism aimed at Obama, these people would be doing the same thing if Hillary Clinton had gotten the nomination and been elected President. She would have had a "D" after her name as well.


"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter

surfjac's picture

..it doesn't matter who the President is. If there's a "D" next to his name, the republican'ts and all the rest of the right-wing miscreants have to delegitimize him; its seems as if its in their mission statement. Forget about intelligent discourse, that just can't happen.

BTW - “If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy.”
-Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W. Bush
I love that lie! It would be so funny if it didn't get so many brave and innocent souls killed!


Mickey: "It was an epiphany. Do you know what an epipany is?"
Keoni: "NOT NOW MICKEY!"

Deb T's picture

I wish you had not used the image of the plane crashing into the WTC. It's an incredibly upsetting image and overshadows and excellent column. What you have written is important and doesn't need the tragic WTC image to make its point.
I just fear that over-use of such images will lead the way to 9/11 becoming just a metaphor much like the Republicans are using the Holocaust, Hitler, Facism, Communism, Stalin, etc.


All hail Marx (Groucho) and Lennon (John)!

and using it it to organize a rally on that date to divide the country further?


"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter

Deb T's picture

Yes, I find it repugnant that Beck has done this and that there is not a hew and cry against his use of the emotions evoked by 9/11 for his own despicable needs.
But then what's to be expected from someone who calls Obama a socialist and a fascist???


All hail Marx (Groucho) and Lennon (John)!

Amitola's picture

that's exactly why Cheney and Bush implemented, enabled, allowed
(pick your fav) 9/11 in the first place!

To evoke FEAR in order to pursue their despicable plans to invade the ME for corporate ravaging, and to control and direct the populous in the US to give up our rights, freedom, wealth, future, etc. Duh.


"Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of Stupidity" - Frank Leahy

Karyn's picture

I am one of those LIHOP people, but as I have seen this morning with the introduction of the new bin Laden tape...no one in that gawd-awful 'librul' media is even talking about how, on March 13, 2002...on RECORD on whitehouse.gov page...
Bush answers a question about with something on the order of: 'have we found..or are we close to finding bin Laden....'...
with:(...)"I am not at all concerned about him at this time."(.....)
That from the rough-tough..."We will get him Dead or Alive" dude.

Shadowgm's picture

... this is basically a sermon about IOKIYAR, and how the GOP is morally, ethically, and intellectually bankrupt.

This, I already know.

katie's picture

This puts into words everything I think about the current attacks coming from the GOP. We've seen them before, we'll see them again. It's just our job to keep these crackpots in the minority, losing more and more elections until they're as impotent as Hannity's atrophied balls.

If we could rate posts, I would give yours five stars

It is not just about the GOP, as mentioned even Clinton advanced some conservative causes. From my experience, living at various times since the 70's overseas, America is viewed as a right wing country no matter who is elected; it is just a matter of degree and only the American people perceive the gov't as either left or right.

Evet's picture

ridiculous.

Best blog EVER...

Mrs. Katy Abram is the perfect example. The people like her, the people like the people who participated in the million 10,000 Goober March, the people who go to these town hall meetings and scream no government health care with one sign and leave my medicare alone with another sign and the people who think that one day, maybe, in the the not too distant future, they will be getting out of their $30,000 a year job and be making well over the $250,000 threshold that will increase their income taxes to the point they will not be able to afford to live in their brand new $1,000,000 house they will surely be able to afford with their new found wealth except for the projected income tax increase. Yes Mrs. Katy Abram is the perfect example of how simply idiotic and easily manipulated and used and punked these people are.

I sure wish people like Mrs. Katy Abram would have been taught to think critically because if they could they would surely realize they are plotting against themselves. Wouldn't they?

boocilla69's picture

too generous, Captain.
My husband has a sister that's a lot like Katy, only older. She's actually a sweet person and a pretty decent sister-in-law, but she
really eats up this FOX, right-wing bullshit. I told her to stop sending me emails unless she was prepared to receive mine. My husband says she's basically mentally weak, always has been. He still loves her, and actually feels sorry for her, but feels that her issues lie with emotional problems and a general lack of ability to reason soundly.

The situation makes me almost cry. Seriously!

sciguy's picture

Most of the time, I don't despair and just keep working for what I believe in, but sometimes the enormity of the stupidity, fear, ignorance and cowardice of the opposition is daunting.

Karyn's picture

Amen. I have a S-I-L that very seldom emails me except with these awful 'support the troops' chain things...and other extreme Right-wing stuff...and hates it when I answer back in a way she doesn't like. She is one of the sweetest people I have ever met, busy in her church, takes awesome care of her M-I-L who, even though is in a nursing home, she is there every evening, and even goes in during the night if the lady is having a bad 'spell'...and takes excellent care of her husband as well..(he's been really sick for many years)..but I just wish she could/would smarten-up....
So depressing to see such a lovely, giving person be so damn stupid.

The Sailor's picture

I know a few folks that I otherwise respect and I just can't quite get me head around how they could possibly believe some things. I used to try doing research and show them facts, but as it turns out, facts do have a liberal bias.

Good, even smart, people can have some peculiar ideas that have no basis in reality. I guess we just love them for who they are, not what they think.

Sheesh, I should write for Hallmark.

roooth's picture

that KKKaty was already caught in her lies, (not that the Right cares when they are caught lying, they just spout new lies).

But KKKaty was not a political novice when she spoke at that town hall meeting - that was just another of her lies.

She had been organizing Glenn Beck Meet-ups for over a year, before the health care issue got the Right frothing, before the fake birth certificate excuse for hate-spewing, before the town hall brownshirt rallies. In fact, before Obama was even in office.

In other words, KKKaty, who claimed she was never politically aware or active, woke up politically, not over reforming health care, but as soon as it looked like a non-white man might get elected.

Being a liar, she can never admit that it is her racism which woke her up, so, she lied and claimed it was health care which woke her.

In other words, she isn't what she claimed to be, which means she really is a great example of the "average" American turning up at the Right-Wing Fringe Festival's Hatefests.

Just another avaerage dishonest American racist.

This is just one more reason why these people should not be allowed anywhere near the legislation which will affect all of us. They have proven themselves to be unworthy of participation.

stringonastick's picture

The RW/rethugs took an act of unspeakable violence (9-11) and used it to grab unprescidented power. What this frenzy of crazy on their side is now designed to do is create the exact same thing, and the target (literally) is Barack Obama.

roooth's picture

"When there's blood in the streets, there's money to be made."

BigDaddyMalcontent's picture

gotten that from Rothschild.

taller ghost walt's picture

via the intertubes.

Bravo. Brava. Bravisimo.

curtilingus's picture

This is a great piece and I agree with it, but look at the beginning.

We had a "Democrat" that we elected actually do several things that really hurt this country. Sure you can argue Bush did worse in the same amount of time. But with that laundry list of dusty republican ideas being realized by a Democratic president, does anyone ever look back on his presidency objectively and say "This is not the kind of leader progressives want either."

Like Roger Waters said about American (and British) politics in 1981, "(We) have it built into our system to elect the worst possible person for the job."

Also, such a set up, such synergy, such cooperation doesn't happen by accident. There seem to be powers behind the scenes that unify Repub and Dem leaders to act in unison and cooperation where necessary, and stage "partisan battles" in other areas to maintain the appearance of a difference between two parties.

What I'm saying is the two party system is a farce. They are indistinguishable. The have become one.

Handypants's picture

You really think it would be the same if McCain/Palin won?

Really?


"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that!
" ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )

curtilingus's picture

That's where you're going to go with it huh? "He must be a republican!"

I'm saying there would be fewer differences than we think.

Under Palin/McCain we would surge in Afghanistan, continue bank bail outs with zero accountability, not investigate torture and try to stop it, continue to rattle the saber at Iran, pretend to discuss a public option with ultimately no public option being passed.

Is it getting clearer?

BigDaddyMalcontent's picture
Yep

I agree.

Handypants's picture

"He must be a republican!"

If I thought THAT I would have posted it.

Your argument is as clear as mud and your reasoning as accurate as your comment.


"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that!
" ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )

curtilingus's picture

Several people on this thread are in agreement so the argument is a little more cogent than what you think.

So instead of implying that I'm a Mccain supporter, what is your retort? What part of your progressive sensibilities did I offend?

fiver's picture

... continue to fund and strengthen corporate armies, shield war crimes from investigation, and continue on with the Bush tax cuts?

Why will 2010 still result the full implementation of Bush's swindle system even though it is almost universally condemned as irresponsible? Nancy Pelosi will pocket the extra cash on her own personal tax cut and blame it on Bush - even though it's been 4 years since she ascended to the Speakership.

No. We don't want these kinds of "leaders" either.


Corruption favors the wealthy.

MsJoanne's picture

With McCain/Palin in office (shudder!), there would be no discussion of healthcare at all. That entire line of discussion would have been driven off a cliff so fast that you would have had to search your memory hole to be reminded that it ever was discussed during the election cycle.

More war, including us having already bombed Iran.

Nothing to attempt to salvage the auto industry and the jobs it creates (including downstream jobs in parts suppliers, local establishments near plants, etc.)

No extension of unemployment benefits.

More foreclosures (Obama has only helped 5% or so of homeowners as it is now. McPalin would have done nothing!)

The cliff that Obama saved us from falling over would have become Victoria Falls had McPalin been elected.

While I appreciate your sentiment (and understand your frustration), McPalin would have roundly welcomed the worldwide Great Depression II had we had another four years of GOP rule.

jimbojames's picture

a mandate that I pay $4,000.00 to a private health insurance company that will deny my claim, pay only part or apply a lifetime maximum dollar in benefits. This is not reform. This is like when driftglass explains how Clinton was the person who enacted many of the rethuglican dream policies, no?

ronnie dobbs's picture

that's pretty fuckin good.

JohnnyThief's picture

...I knew all of this on 9/11. I was watching the towers burn & all I could think was "George Bush just pulled a Watchman. He'll be able to do anything now."

Too bad they couldn't have done a movie that actually said that, instead of prostituting it into just another escape so people don't have to think about things like how they've lost all their power.

Amitola's picture

that the CIA is pretty much wholly-owned by the Bush Crime Family and that Robert Gates, who Obama 'decided to keep on' as defense sec., was also in the CIA for more than a quarter century. We should all be afraid.


"Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of Stupidity" - Frank Leahy

shenanigans during the 80s.

curtilingus's picture
$p:

That goes to the comment I made above; that there are powers behind the two parties that are capable of forcing their hand in certain matters. If we spend too much time trying to differentiate between the two parties, we lose sight of the fact someone else is/may be pulling the strings, and therefor it doesn't matter how different the stated positions are between the two parties, the policy is the same.

Amitola's picture

I refer to those nefarious sorts as the Powers that Be or the corpora-fascists. Basically, the international cabal big money interests - you know the ones who own/control the Federal Reserve, World Bank, IMF, other central banks and all of the major global corporations. Our national 'elections' have been a farce for a very long time.....{sigh}....


"Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of Stupidity" - Frank Leahy

taller ghost walt's picture

for Ray McGovern. Or lone car rides on winding, mountain roads.

I always found it odd that the Republicans didn't embrace Clinton instead of impeaching him. Maybe they were just jealous of him. After the last few years they sure have tried to emulate him with all their sexcapades.

John F A's picture

are as old as our nation itself. In the the good old days the press was respectful enough to keep our all too human frailties out of the public record. That kind of stuff was left to the tabloids. But thanks to the GOP,all that is now fair game (thanks FOX)

Yeah and it has come back to bite them in the butt hasn't it.

Tyler Durden's picture

... so it is not a bad thing for them.

Was that on Inauguration Day Clinton Intell staffers tried heartily to school Ms. Rice and others about the threat of terrorism and that the Bush Administration put it on "a back burner"...perhaps because their NeoCon buddies actually were licking their "New World Order" chops for a "catalyzing event that would cause the American People to demand a backlash" etc. This is all in the PNAC (Project for a New American Century) mission statement written by Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz etc.

Well, "one way or the other", while the POTUS was reading "My Pet Goat", they got it.

So many Americans (probably including Van Jones, although he seems too cowardly to admit it) doubt "the official story". As a matter of fact, signature gatherers have finally gotten all the signatures they need in NYC in order to put the matter of a new independent investigation into the events of 9/11 on the ballot. They are being fought on this, as every signature is being gone over with microscopes to be thrown out and they are facing court challenges as well.

My point here is that although the Bush Administrations got away with murder since 2000, I'm not seeing Barack Obama questioning anything about the events of 9/11 himself, and Bush's policies are still, for all intents and purposes, intact. The mission, with the events of 9/11 as the foundation, are right on track. Obama even wants to create a "surge" in Afghanistan even though many are telling him not to.

Here's an article that should make many of us pause and say, "What is the TRUTH about the events of 9/11? Who truly WERE the perpetrators? Who stood to gain the most from it? "They" did it because they hate our freedoms, right? Well, we've lost many with the shredding of the Constitution, so....who won?

Here's the link:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12128...

Why doesn't Obama deal with the problem of "blowback" and change course on "the GWOT"?


"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn

Amitola's picture

steps out of line - i.e., does not continue to pursue the plans laid out by the Powers that Be (Bushistas led by Cheney) - they will scandalize (or eliminate him), and/or execute another "terrorist attack" in the US. Call me crazy....


"Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of Stupidity" - Frank Leahy

curtilingus's picture

Don't think you are crazy at all Amitola.

But do you think that Barak had no idea that he was getting into a situation where he would not be able to enforce his will, the law or the consensus of his constituency?

I think he had a pretty good idea how things would work once he got there.

Amitola's picture

and our historical records remain intact, I'm pretty sure anyone with a pea of a brain will be able to sort through and demonstrate that anyone who was 'elevated' to the office of the Presidency in the US during the latter half of the 20th Century was a pawn. You can't get past the first few primaries without the backing of the PtB (as in being vetted and approved).

It was pretty obvious to me that the republicans knew it was time for a "democrat" so they allowed Gramps McCain to 'finally' have his chance to run - and saddled him with Miss Sarah - to seal the deal for Obama. They didn't want to have to resort to rigging voting machines/computers or getting any courts involved this time. So, I'm pretty sure Obama had a
'petty good idea' how things work...as you say. Okay, maybe I'm not crazy, but pretty cynical....


"Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of Stupidity" - Frank Leahy

roooth's picture

We aren't supposed to question 9/11 anymore, but......

too many pieces just don't fit.

Did anyone else notice how wierd the whole anthrax scare was?

Anthrax got mailed, (largely to Congressional Dems), people actually died, there were several bad scares, the gov. swears they'll get the responsible person, and then....nothing?

Didn't it seem as if the Bush Admin. just wasn't too worried about it? Almost as if they knew there would be no more anthrax mailings?

Just like Osama. First, when it was needed as a rallying cry, Osama was the worst thing in the world and just had to be caught. But then, they seemed to just lose interest in the world's worst terrorist.

And, with both Osama and the anthrax killer, they just quit looking for them. Is that what you do with such serious continuing threats? Cause it sure seemed like they were very confident that there would be no more attacks from either Osama or the anthrax killer.

Almost as if they knew.

taller ghost walt's picture

Some in Bush Admin were already taking Cipro before antrax even hit the mail.

And let's not forget those within Bu$hCo who stopped flying commercial weeks before 9/11.

Turn the Bluegrass Blue's picture

The elephant in the room in the GOP is that if a terror attack happened today in New York City and/or Washington DC, most of its "patriots" would not care.

Oh, there may be the occasional dancing in the street scenes that we saw on 9-11, (think South Carolina, which has yet to officially declare shameful behavior as its top export), but more than likely, the average nutbag would just shrug.

After all, it's just New York City. Washington DC.
Might as well had been Taxachusetts.
Or one of those states where gays can marry.
It's not "real America."

By villifying our own citizens, the right wing has gone the route of Tim McVeigh, who could have been a "change candidate" for the GOP if the oppressive jack-booted thugs in the goverment hadn't unjustly prosecuted him. I know I'm being ridiculous now, but wait a year or so when either a new generation of Becks and Malkins spew this garbage, or the current Beck and Malkin resort to this in fear of not keeping up with the nuttiest of the GOP faithful.

Perhaps this is just a bit of that paranoia that has been spread across our country for some time now, but I doubt that we will ever have to worry about the day that the Taliban bombs a NASCAR event.

As of now, when it comes to wanting to destroy the American government and its people, Osama Bin Laden has nothing on the typical 9/12er.

BigDaddyMalcontent's picture

I think a lot of the Clinton smear campaign was intended to facilitate the appearance of enmity, and was not actual enmity.

John F A's picture

The biggest problem with tabloid journalism is that it feeds into people's worst "feelings" about the other guy, and sadly a lot of people (mostly stupid people)bought into it, and created a single minded Us vs. Them schism that will probably never go away.

ice9's picture

to spring on republicans--like this: (with the surprise answers in a box below) (I have it in a pdf too--can I post it here?

These are the people we want to lead the war on terror? Pop quiz: match the Iraq/Afghan war statement to the liberal leader who said it (on the record!) (one each)
Scoring:
1-5 History Needs Work!
6-8 Proud Right-Wing Novice
9-10 Ready for Prime Time!
11+ Blackbelt Tea Partier

Extra Credit:
Three of the speakers below apologized for their remarks. Name them.

A. fmr. Senator Paul Simon (D-IL) B. Sen. John Kerry (D-MA)
C. Sen Hilary Clinton (D-NY) D. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA)
E. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) F. Sen Robert Byrd (D-WVA)
G. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) H. Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE)
I. Rep Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL) J. Rep. Frank Kratovil (D-MD)
K. Future Sen. Al Franken (D-MN)
1. “You can support the troops but not the president.”
2. “(the) President…is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation’s armed forces about how long they will be away from home.”
3. “American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy.”
4. “If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy.”
5. “I had doubts about (this)… campaign from the beginning…I didn’t think we had done enough in the diplomatic area.”
6. “Well, I just think it’s a bad idea. What’s going to happen is they’re going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years”
7. “I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today.”
8. “Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?”
9. “Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”
10. “This is the president’s war, and when he falls flat on his face, that’s his problem.”
11. “The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly.”

Answers: Ooops—sorry. Wrong quiz. All of these quotes come from republicans reacting to the Kosovo campaign in 1999. My bad. The speakers were, in order, DeLay, Santorum, DeLay, Bush (via Hughes), Lott, Scarborough, DeLay, Hannity, Bush, Lugar, and DeLay. I feel really bad about that mistake. To make it up to you, extra credit: in 250 words, explain why such un-American behavior was fine when Clinton was president. Extra extra credit if you explain why it was not ok under Bush but is now again OK under Obama. PS—apologies? Are you freakin’ kiddin me? Republicans don’t apologize—they repeat!

The Sailor's picture

From Blazing Saddles: "The new sheriff is a nig [bong]."

kellygrrrl's picture

an excellent piece, Driftglass!

Truth_Critic's picture


Study the symptoms not the virus...

David762's picture

The really big (and thoroughly unanswered) question is, "By whom? The Islamist religious fundamentalist Wah'hibists whose military arm is al Queda? Or by the pro-Zionist Xtian religious fundamentalist C-Street Family whose military arm is the CIA?

We keep getting told that to understand history, we should (1) follow the money (eg. Who benefits the most ... ), as well as (2) rely on Occam's Razor (eg. The simpler solution is the answer ... ), but then repeatedly get told (3) that it's all Osama bin Laden, the crazy-for-God Saudi Arabians' fault. Both #1 AND #2 are in direct contradiction of #3.

WTF!


"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy

surfjac's picture

..could you possibly get that out into the mainstream media?
How much would it cost to buy a page in the NYT? or ..Newsweek? or some place where more people will actually see it, read it and understand it?
It was a great piece, one which will I'll refer to again for sure. But what about the vast majority of people in this country? We have to get this to them so they can make informed decisions.
Great work!


Mickey: "It was an epiphany. Do you know what an epipany is?"
Keoni: "NOT NOW MICKEY!"

Evet's picture

are slaving away trying pay the bills, debts, and keep their heads above water.

Augdir's picture

Many on the right need no more reason than this to hate Clinton.

fiver's picture

Nicely done.


Corruption favors the wealthy.

gtomkins's picture

Not to denigrate this well-thought out and eloquently expressed argument that the Republicans have discovered that fear and loathing of the other is their ticket to continued electoral success, but that insight really is the easy part of the task we face. In fact, the insight is old news, as using a war as a political ATM machine was basic to the Nixon game plan. Nixon didn't create the Vietnam War, any more than Dubya ordered the 9/11 attacks, but both sure as Hell recognized and ruthlessly exploited the political value of keeping the electorate terrorized with the ongoing threat of enemies of their continuing nurture, if not creation.

What do we do about it is the harder question. It's not enough to just recognize that the Right uses war and terrorism (oh, and blacks, and gays, and brown people too -- they're a big tent party when it comes to the acceptable objects of fear and loathing) to terrorize the electorate. They did it before, they were defeated for their excesses, but -- and this is key to survivors of the 70s like myself who just took for granted that their defeat meant that the very idea of using wars as political ATM machines had refuted itself, and the electorate had shown that they wouldn't fall for that again -- here's the ATM machine back in operation. The harder question is, how do we stop the cycle?

The hard answer is, we get rid of our standing armed forces in between wars. This is not some radical solution. It's what we did after every war in this nation's long history, right up until the aftermath of WWII. The presence of a standing army in peacetime is the necessary pre-condition for the use of war as an ATM machine to work. Had we not had, on 9/12, forces capable of anything beyond defending our own shores, we would have had to have an actual debate, a knee-jerk reaction would not have been practical even in the minds of the most chauvinist among us, about what sort of forces to raise to respond to 9/11. Maybe we wouldn't even have decided to invade even Afghanistan. Yes, al Qaeda had training camps there, but no, they weren't used to train the 9/11 hijackers. The training camps in Afghanistan trained in squad tactics, perfectly useless in terrorist operations against the US like 9/11, but just the thing to use against an occupying army, such as we ended up sending there on a knee-jerk basis, because we could, without even thinking it through. Maybe, had we been forced to actually have a public debate, the consensus at the end of it would not have included the circular reasoning occupation of Afghanistan we're stuck in now -- we can't leave, or al Qaeda would be free to reopen the training camps that would allow an even more effective insurgency against the troops we have in that country fighting the insurgency.

So now we reach the really hard part -- selling that solution to the electorate. This really hard part is why we rarely see an analysis of the situation as clear and cogent as this one by driftglass. It's true, but what are you going to do about it? Really, what are we going to do about it?

Nowwhat's picture
...

Nice piece, dude.

jjchicago's picture

republicans and right wingers still don't seem to understand that the internet acts as an archive in addition to a bullhorn.

i think it's cos the just don't want to believe it. they want to be able to say one thing and then, sometime only minutes later, claim they did not say that exact thing.

before it was kinda hard to argue with such stupidity/duplicity.

now there is a record.

you could see it happen this weekend in a comment thread at redstate -- a fellow conservative mentioned they shouldn't go with the ridiculous 2million crowd claim and was jumped on and then, minutes after people stridently supported the false numbers, a commenter claimed no one in the thread supported the false numbers.

before it seemed literally unbelievable that someone could have made such a patently false rhetorical move.

now it can be documented.

we have to through their lies and duplicity in their faces every chance we get -- and force the corporate media to do the same.

http://blahgblog.wordpress.com/2009/09/13/ele...

Tom Wood's picture

of this Abrams woman. She said the founding fathers thought that neighbors would help those who were too poor or sick to provide for themselves, so we should repeal all these program and go back to the founding fathers' vision. But aren't these programs like Medicare & Medicaid & social security & welfare just neighbors helping those too poor or sick to provide for themselves? It's just the entire country is the neighborhood & all those living in it are neighbors. It's a wonderful day in the neighborhood (or, at least, it could be if these fools would realize that social programs are neighbors helping neighbors on a national scale).

roooth's picture

is a liar.

She lied about not being politically involved until health care. She had been a Glenn Beck Meet-up organizer before the health care issue came up.

It seems she really "woke up" politically just in time to protest the first African American president.

How KKKonvienent.

in order to create a "tech boom" ... been considered a "conservative" ideal?

ysbaddaden's picture
)O(

Actually it sounds more Democratic, willing to take a chance on something new to fix an old problem.

Where as republicans are more likely to be concerned with the old gray mares on Wall Street rather than the S&P or Nasdeq.


Diabolus est Deus Inversus

Eris23's picture

I'm not sure why anyone here is surprised by anyone saying that Clinton was a centrist Republican. It was said about him at the time. It's always been a fair assessment. Unless you happen to think Republican is a dirty word in the same way that a Bush supporter considered Democrat a dirty word, I really don't see what the issue is. You might want to take Driftglass's point about people blotting out their past sins to heart as well. For as much as their were Republican boobs that were against Clinton's acts of aggression against Iraq who later became hypocritical about it when Bush was in power, Clinton's attacks were very much a violation of international law at the time in the same way Bush's were. Just something to keep in mind.

snitramc's picture

The republicant's are still agonizing over Watergate. They will not be happy until a Democratic President has been forced to leave the office. This is going to go on for another generation, until the folks alive to watch tricky dick resign have all died. Maybe, maybe, by then, there will be a bit more sanity on the part of these maniacs. Until then, don't forget to sit on your flak jacket.

Chopvac's picture

The rethugnicans have become the party of any excuse, any rationalization. They have shown themselves to be without limits to and without remorse in using any tactic that will hold or regain power, no matter how vile or fascist.

I still stand by my claim about 9/11 because I have yet to see any evidence that contradicts it: The Bu**sh** white house knew the attack was coming and let it happen. Considering the views of the neo-convicts and their "project for a new american century" (vis-a-vis, "reich of a thousand years") regarding the rationalization of US expansionism and hegemony, as well as the facts known from before 9/11 (the white house knew an attack was planned, they had intel from the CIA and FBI, etc.), I see no reason to dispense with the theory that they were willing to let people be killed for political and financial gain. They have become the party of war profiteering, of torture and death camps.

JHR1956's picture

....the hatred the right had for President Clinton. I think most were just afraid of his success. He is a smart man, and was a great President. I'd vote for him today!

In my opinion, there is no comparison to the hatred the left had for Bush. Whereas the right had to make up shit to go after President Clinton, GW's failures......lack of intelligence, judgment, and personal integrity is well documented. He couldn't carry Bill Clinton's briefcase!

Mike in Milwaukee's picture
Yes

Thank you for the post.

empy's picture

I find it very interesting that after reading that lengthy summary of why Driftglass thinks we are where we are (which I agress with), the first thought for some is to rally around Clinton and makes claims that many of his policies weren't conservative as claimed. Sorry to give you the vapors, but facts are facts. Progressives took it on the chin quite frequently, as they do now, during those years. The "sista soulja" moments were called signs of strength. What very little positive press Bill got at the time, usually came when kicking a liberal cause in the teeth. Pointing this out does not diminish the good that was done, it only highlights something that should be fairly obvious. Bill Clinton was not a liberal, he was a centrist. If exposure to this was so disconcerting that it caused you to stop reading right there, that's a shame. You missed one hell of an article.

armonster's picture

Clinton was a moderate but it is CLEAR that he believed in democratic principle of social justice. Unfortunately he took office in a time where reagan's agenda was the zeitgiest. However, he got quite a lot done, especially when you account for the fact that he had minorities in congress for most of his presidency.

IF democratic senators and congressmen hadn't been so GUTLESS in 93 the story might have been different. But he tried to get he ball rolling with health care reform when he had a majority--it was congress that dropped the ball.

Nathan Jr.'s picture

... what was the point of embedding three essentially identical photos of the burning WTC? Are we in some battle to define and own the meaning of this imagery? It felt like a sensationalist flourish on an otherwise thoughtful piece of writing.

Comments are closed on this entry