PDA

View Full Version : short memory


thistle
08-26-2007, 04:20 AM
You all remember the left's mantra. Bush lied and people died. Clinton lied and no one died. I came across this a couple of days ago and thought you might find it interesting. If this isn't in the right place, sorry. I was going to put it in "Off Topic" but then I read you wanted it for "fun and jovial" topics and as this is neither I put it in "History".

http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/huston/print/08242007.htm

Clinton Lied and People Did Die
The Fifth Column Warner Todd Huston, Senior Writer
August 21, 2007 URL: http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/huston/08242007.htm
How the Left lies to themselves as well as the rest of us.

Anyone who is politically aware in this country, anyone who has taken the time to keep up on the news, can't help but to have run across one of the left's favorite bromides; "Bush lied, People Died." Not quite as well known, but as an adjunct to this doggerel, the left has also indulged in a bit of backward Clinton praising with the phrase "No one died when Clinton lied." This, however, is a lie in and of itself, and it's a perfect example of how the left lies to themselves and everyone around them.

One word best describes how the claim that Clinton's lies never hurt anyone is a blatant untruth. That one word is Kosovo. As Thomas E. Woods, Jr. reveals, Kosovo is the best-kept secret of the worst most murderous failure of the Clinton Administration.

In his new book "33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask," Woods reveals some of the lies and destruction that was Clinton's decision to enter the civil war between the Serbs, Croats and Albanians in 1999.

Clinton's decision to enter the conflict was based on the lie that he was valiantly trying to stop the "genocide" of the Muslim population in Kosovo. There is no doubt that there was a lot of killing going on in that corner of the world at the time and that it was all a bad situation. But, genocide? Hardly.

In fact, Clinton purposefully ignored the proof against any substantiation of genocide and he allowed his Administration to wildly inflate the numbers of Albanians killed by warring Serbs to justify his ginning up of his war machine. To make matters worse, the slavishly pro-Clinton media failed to bother to investigate the Clinton Administration's claims and merely reported Clinton's lies as fact.

You are sure to remember that Clinton claimed in 1999 that the USA was on a humanitarian mission to stop the evil Serbs from ruthlessly killing hundreds of thousands of "innocent" Muslims. That is the story we all heard as Clinton blustered about his war plans. The number of Albanians killed that was bandied about prior to the intervention of US and NATO forces was something near 400,000 Albanians murdered by Serbian forces. Yet, it was revealed in 2006 that there were never any more than 7,000 people reported missing during the whole of the conflict. As Woods reports, "The lurid claims of war supporters typically proved unfounded." Since the action ended, we have seen proven false nearly every "fact" the Clinton Administration used to justify this war.

One such "lurid" claim was the supposed story of the Trepca mines being jammed to the rafters with Albanian bodies hidden there to prevent detection. The mines were claimed a veritable new age "Belsen, Auschwitz, and Treblinka," as the Brit paper Daily Mirror reported. It turns out later that there wasn't a single body discovered once western investigators were able to make it to the area. Another tale, that there were mass graves in the town of Ljubenic, later revealed 7 bodies instead of the supposed 350 that were supposed to be there.

Of the 400,000 Albanians Clinton claimed he went to Kosovo to avenge, even The Hague now only claims that only between 4,000 and 10,000 died during the troubles there. Yes, 10,000 is horrible, but it is far from any "genocide" and not much higher than many dozens of other conflicts world wide in the past 20 years. In the final analysis, the intervention of the US was unnecessary at the very least, disastrous at worst. The case the Clinton Administration made for war was filled with lies about why he went into Kosovo.

So where are the deaths we can attribute to Clinton's lies, then?

As we know, once Clinton announced his fraudulent campaign, he did, indeed bomb the area. This specious bombing killed over 2,000 people...and not just among the so-called enemy Serbs. People of all sides died. Worse, a humanitarian mess resulted from the bombing as hospitals, schools and the infrastructure was destroyed. Later, in contravention to Clinton's stated purpose, the Serbs redoubled their efforts to oust the Albanians proving that the bombing didn’t stop any "genocide” at all.

In fact, any so-called genocide was a result of Clinton's bombs as opposed to them having stopped such a crime against humanity. Far from helping the Albanians, Clinton's bombs made matters far worse for all parties -- including the US and the west.

Now, we all know that the Serbs eventually lost their battles due to Clinton's intervention and since then, radical Islamofascists have turned the tables on the Serbs. Far from ushering in an era of peace in Kosovo, Muslims have since killed and displaced far more Serbs and Croats than the Serbs ever hoped to kill of the Albanian population before 1999.

Also since then, the Islamofascists have discovered a place where they can raise recruits and find safe haven. So, far from helping innocent Muslims escape genocide, all Clinton did was give succor to our enemies in the various Islamofascist movements. Money for radical Madrassas has poured into the area from Saudi Arabia, spreading anti-western sentiment. Remember the Fort Dix Six? They were young Albanian Muslims radicalized by Clinton's failures.

In addition, the Muslims who have now taken power in the area have chased out hundreds of thousands of Gypsies, Christians, and other "undesirables" and have even gone so far as to obliterate centuries old Christian religious sites in the country.

Also, since the bombing stopped, the UN has taken control and that has been an even worse disaster on the infrastructure of the area than anything we have seen in Iraq. Many areas in Kosovo, Bosnia-Herzegovina still don’t have reliable water, electric or roads and the economy is still completely destroyed there. More abhorrently, the UN has been caught keeping local teenaged girls as sex slaves in brothels for their UN "peacekeeping" employees.

The Clinton lies resulted in many thousands of deaths, a country laid waste and our enemies, the Islamofascists, have been given an area from which to recruit and have safe harbor. And hundreds of young girls have been reduced to sexual slavery just to survive day to day. Far from stopping genocide, it looks far more like Clinton has caused one.

So, now tell me that when "Clinton lied, no one died."

At least Bush's actions have been for a real humanitarian effort. Clinton's murderous acts were for...what? Pure self-aggrandizement and little else.

Warner Todd Huston is a senior writer for The New Media Journal. He also serves as an NMJ Radio Headline News Roundtable Editor, a free lance writer, graphic designer and works in Desktop Publishing. Like every man when young, Mr. Huston was sure that Conservatives were inhumane, ignorant of history and greedy...then he grew up.

Waffletush
08-26-2007, 05:13 AM
For all the talk of 'blood on Dubya's hands', people sure tend to forget one of the largest eggs on the US' face in history that took place under Clinton's watch.

Somalia.

Guess when Hollywood profits off the loss of troops, 'forgetting' is OK?

ViolaLee
08-26-2007, 05:28 AM
Only amazing, blatant hypocrites and smear campaign extremists would call Bush's actions humanitarian and Clinton's actions murderous.

This is so outlandish that I can't even believe that you believe this propaganda.

If you do believe it, there's no hope for you. Seriously. This is very sad.

Clinton's actions ended a war that was being waged right then and there. Bush's actions were justified by something Saddam did 25 years earlier.

You righties are really stretching this time.

Lazarus
08-26-2007, 05:38 AM
Selective memory.

Milosovic was brought to The Hague to stand trial.
Hussein was used as an instrument of propaganda to supposedly bring credibility to Iraqs' new government, and more importantly, give George Jr. some credibility on the World stage.

And we all know how well that turned out, now don't we?

Waffletush
08-26-2007, 05:39 AM
Only amazing, blatant hypocrites and smear campaign extremists would call Bush's actions humanitarian and Clinton's actions murderous.

This is so outlandish that I can't even believe that you believe this propaganda.

If you do believe it, there's no hope for you. Seriously. This is very sad.

Clinton's actions ended a war that was being waged right then and there. Bush's actions were justified by something Saddam did 25 years earlier.

You righties are really stretching this time.


So are you saying Bush's actions ARE justified? :shock:

Or are you saying the statute of limitations on genocide is 25 years?

ViolaLee
08-26-2007, 06:35 AM
I'm saying that you are justifying Bush's actions today, by an event 25 years old.

Labrocca
08-26-2007, 06:37 AM
I remember a lot about that era and one thing that bothered me was that it wasn't reported very much in comparison to the Lewinsky stuff. I almost wonder if Bush took a page out of Clintons book in order to enter Iraq. I think he not only underestimated the Iraq situation but also the liberal media and how they would report every action.

ViolaLee
08-26-2007, 06:47 AM
I remember a lot about that era and one thing that bothered me was that it wasn't reported very much in comparison to the Lewinsky stuff. I almost wonder if Bush took a page out of Clintons book in order to enter Iraq. I think he not only underestimated the Iraq situation but also the liberal media and how they would report every action.
Because the media should not report every action?

Tell me something, did the media suddenly turn liberal the day Bush took office? Was the media conservative during the Clinton admin when the only thing they could report on was the Lewinsky stuff?

Labrocca
08-26-2007, 08:05 AM
The Lewinsky stuff was all crap and you know it. You know it today and we all knew it back then. The media is always happy to report on gossip and trash be it Britney Spears or Bill Clinton.


I think he not only underestimated the Iraq situation but also the liberal media and how they would report every action.


Because the media should not report every action?

Let me rephrase...

I think he not only underestimated the Iraq situation but also the liberal media and how they would report every negative action.

bobbylien
08-26-2007, 08:57 AM
The media is essentially here to to tell us what to think and then affirm our beliefs.

Stoner
08-26-2007, 10:33 AM
The media is essentially here to to tell us what to think

Negative. The media's job is to report the facts. It's up to the people to decide what to think.

AnnEsthesia
08-26-2007, 03:18 PM
Only amazing, blatant hypocrites and smear campaign extremists would call Bush's actions humanitarian and Clinton's actions murderous.

This is so outlandish that I can't even believe that you believe this propaganda.

If you do believe it, there's no hope for you. Seriously. This is very sad.

Clinton's actions ended a war that was being waged right then and there. Bush's actions were justified by something Saddam did 25 years earlier.

You righties are really stretching this time.


So are you saying Bush's actions ARE justified? :shock:

Or are you saying the statute of limitations on genocide is 25 years?


Funny how you are so concerned about genocide that occurred 25 years ago, but I have yet to hear you call for the US to do anything about Darfur, a genocide occurring now...

maineman
08-26-2007, 03:26 PM
For all the talk of 'blood on Dubya's hands', people sure tend to forget one of the largest eggs on the US' face in history that took place under Clinton's watch.

Somalia.

Guess when Hollywood profits off the loss of troops, 'forgetting' is OK?


Clinton leaving Somalia after the humanitarian mission entered into by George the First devolved into something having nothing to do with the delivery of UN supplies and a crowd of angry Somalis killed 19 GI's ....THAT PALES in comparison to Ronald Reagan running away from Beirut in the middle of the night like a total cowardly girlieman when terrorists plotted and planned and slaughtered 250 US marines.

If you want to know the genesis of OBL's idea that America would run from a fight, look no further than Ronnie Reagan, the B-grade movie actor turned right-wing demigod.

Waffletush
08-26-2007, 03:29 PM
Funny how you are so concerned about genocide that occurred 25 years ago, but I have yet to hear you call for the US to do anything about Darfur, a genocide occurring now...

Spiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin the STRAWMAN wheel AnnEsthesia.

Re-read my post. It was in direct reply to ViolaLee contending genocide is no big deal if it happened in the past, unless, of course, Bush can somehow be blamed.

AnnEsthesia
08-26-2007, 03:34 PM
Funny how you are so concerned about genocide that occurred 25 years ago, but I have yet to hear you call for the US to do anything about Darfur, a genocide occurring now...

Spiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin the STRAWMAN wheel AnnEsthesia.

Re-read my post. It was in direct reply to ViolaLee contending genocide is no big deal if it happened in the past, unless, of course, Bush can somehow be blamed.


Actually, that is not what she said. I believe what she said was that basing a war on what occurred 25 years ago was no excuse to go to war. But you clearly think it is. So, my question to you is that if genocide 26 years ago is a good excuse for war, why isn't current genocide a reason now?

ViolaLee
08-26-2007, 03:47 PM
Spiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin the STRAWMAN wheel AnnEsthesia.

Re-read my post. It was in direct reply to ViolaLee contending genocide is no big deal if it happened in the past, unless, of course, Bush can somehow be blamed.
Talk about spinning the wheel...that's not what I said.


Actually, that is not what she said. I believe what she said was that basing a war on what occurred 25 years ago was no excuse to go to war. But you clearly think it is. So, my question to you is that if genocide 26 years ago is a good excuse for war, why isn't current genocide a reason now?

Thank you, at least some of us can read and comprehend. ;)

Deadshot
08-26-2007, 04:35 PM
But if Bush is all about helping people then what happened with Katrina?

We could go into Darfur vs. Somalia, Cambodia and Vietnam vs. Iraq, if you want but what about OUR people? Clinton has had NOTHING to compare to the horrors that the Bush administration has had to deal with. So how do you compare that? Katrina was a total FUBAR and we can blame the people from the cities, counties, states and the Federal Government. But Bush mismanaged it greatly.

The Right has nothing to compare that too. There was no Clinton catastrophe. Bush failed, plain and simple. And I care a lot more about us then I do about them.

David Hume
08-26-2007, 04:55 PM
The OP's article actually implies strongly that there was no genocide occurring in the Balkans.

BWAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH!

(Tell that to my wife, who is a Croatian from Dubrovnik, which was nearly shelled into oblivion!)

Tell that to someone like me, who was actually IN the Balkans at the time.

BWAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH!

Some people will post ANYTHING that denigrates Clinton, no matter how much truth they have to eradicate in the process.

(But thanks for the great belly-laugh this morning!)

Short memory indeed.

BWAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH!