The Bush II Years - Aberration or the logical culmination of recent US history?

[JackRiddler]

TEXT FOR DEBATE:
http://counterpunch.org/stclair02212007.html

JEFFREY ST. CLAIR: (...)

The Clinton administration opened the doors for Bush Junior in ways that Junior's father never did. (...) Because in so many ways, Clinton provided the final transition between decaying old-style liberalism and the new neoliberalism and neoconservatism--which are kind of incestuous first cousins.

That goes for trade policy; for deregulation of major industries, from the utilities to communications companies to the banking industry to the insurance industry; all the way to continuing to wage war on Iraq. All of that is a living artifact of Clinton Time.

It goes for the USA PATRIOT Act. People say they rushed in the Patriot Act--this thousand-page bill that the person who wrote it probably didn't even have a chance to read. Well, the fact is that the Patriot Act had been sitting on the desk at the Department of Justice for the last two years of Clinton Time. They were all ready to update their horrendous and horrifying Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which was passed in 1996 after the Oklahoma City bombing.

For a lot of these things, the left has a case of political Alzheimer's disease. That's the most gracious way of putting it--how they could immediately wipe from their minds every betrayal of Clinton Time, and heap all of it on poor Bush...

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

[JackRiddler]

1. St. Clair misses out on the Bush-Clinton alliance

I don't agree with all that St. Clair says, but I find he misses a vital point that is even more damning of the Clinton years: Clinton's protection of the prior Bush administration, from 1993 forward.

If the Clinton administration had acted to release the relevant records and appoint determined justice-seekers to the law enforcement and justice departments, the key members of the Bush Sr. administration would have been imprisoned for their 1980s war crimes, protection of drug dealing, and naked plunder of US financial institutions. The lesson would have been delivered that crime does not pay. The awesome, shameless mass-criminal reprise of the Bush II administration would have been impossible.

Is it an anomaly that Clinton and Bush Sr. are such buddies?

No Bush II without Clinton.

Is it a surprise that HR Clinton has been one of the key enablers of Bush Jr.'s "war on terror" policies?

A Clinton II will serve as little more than a prelude to a Bush III (whatever the name of the front-man for the mob).

[Selatius]

14. It wouldn't have been politically expedient to dredge up BCCI and Iran-Contra goons.

The analysts and many middle-of-the-road types would've been opposed to a big internecine fight over crimes committed under Saint Reagan and Father Bush. It was considered "a bridge too far" and something the nation should "move on" from.

[Bucky]

2. I suggest splitting the difference. Bush is misapplying the Clinton precedents

Clinton's foreign policy was dubbed "expansion and enlargement"--referring to the realm of democracy in the world. Where democracies existed, Clinton's policy was to ensure that it was stablized, protected from military coups (think about Haiti), and expanded to include more groups within a given society. Where it did not exist, democracy was to be patiently pursued and encouraged---but in little steps with a combination of carrots and sticks.

The Bush policy has been to force democracies on societies at gun point, tossing in a few pro-US business contracts in the mix. Both approaches lead to nation building. The difference is huge, tho. Clinton's nation building actitivies were mostly effective, if still somewhat challenging to implement. Bush's two efforts have mostly failed because he was working against the political forces in Iraq and Afghanistan instead of with them, as Clinton's teams did. Actually Afghanistan very nearly became a success. It's really only been since Iraq that things started to deteriorate there.

There's nothing wrong with nation-building; it only needs to be done wisely and patiently. The next projects we'll end up needing to undertake are Somalia, Sudan, and probably Lebanon. In the medium term future we may end up needing to stablize North Korea, too. In all these cases, except Lebanon, China will end up being our partner--scary thought.

[Toots]

4. I tend to agree with you

Nation building can be very beneficial for man kind if done correctly. Republicans are smart enough to know it needs doing but not smart enough to do it in a manner that will endure...They believe with all their heart that force makes right... The world doesn't necessarily agree...

[Parisle]

5. "Democracies?"

---For Bush, the term "democracy" is just a euphemistic code word for American Client State Taking Orders From Washington.

[JackRiddler]

7. Was it that different for Clinton?

He was a multilateralist willing to work on equal terms with the other powerful states of Western Europe and Asia.

But Sudan got the bombs on their aspirin factory, and no apology for the mistake.

Yugoslavia was told they would allow a NATO occupation of the entire country (Annex 3 of the Rambouillet protocol), or be bombed. They were bombed.

[Selatius]

16. Clinton's major success was over the Balkans. He failed with two other significant examples.

Look at Haiti today. Look at Somalia today. Those ended up as spectacular failures, with the latter resulting in loss of American lives. The US was not established to be in the business of nation building.

[Bucky]

19. Haiti failed under Bush. Clinton was continuing to support Aristide and democracy.

Was it easy to do? Of course not. Reform in that nation will take a long time to bring about. The problem, however, was that Bush pretty much quit all efforts in Haiti, effectively greenlighting the coup. Somalia never was a nation building activity. Clinton inhereted a bum policy from Pops.

I won't goldplate Clinton's efforts, but at least he made efforts where they might do some good.

[papau]

25. I agree :-)

:-)

[Arugula Latte]

3. Nafta, The '96 Telecommunications Act, Welfare "Reform"

All under Clinton. All laid the Groundwork.

[bullimiami]

6. dont blame this on clinton. blame it on the republicans.

they grabbed power and crushed and twisted it and this is what they created.

clinton had his problems with going along with deregulation and free trade and the heinous welfare reform but it is not his fault by a long, long, long shot.

[Double T]

9. W.J. Clinton has a lot of responsibility for THIS state of affairs,...........

regretfully and unfortunately.

[KoKo]

10. It's hard to imagine Bill as part of the "Dark Side" of the BFEE isn't it...?

Took me awhile to comprehend it myself. Until I saw what happened with Selection 2000 and managed to find DU (which in the early days was a great learning tool) I had NO IDEA all the connections.

It's very sad in a way...to have knowledge of how sausage is made....One never wants to eat it again....:-(

[Double T]

15. Sadly agreed. It is a bitter pill to swallow.

[bullimiami]

11. THIS is which exactly.

He didnt start a war on Iraq, and the same people were pushing him to.
He didnt destroy the economy with the reverse robin hood.
He didnt torture. Where Bush 1 destroyed Haiti, Clinton made good and put Aristide back, Bush 2 stomped right back on that with the jackboots of hell.
Clinton set up a group to work for universal health care, Cheney set up a group to divvy up the spOILs of Iraq.

I just dont get it.

[Double T]

17. Please read the OP 'Text for Debate' Counterpunch article............

HERE: http://counterpunch.org/stclair02212007.html


It is what it is.

[Double T]

8. Something to consider BEFORE stepping into the voting booth.........

in November 2008. Politics without Conscience is getting 'US' nowhere.

[Selatius]

12. The country changed course when JFK, MLK, and RFK were wiped out.

They would've really jammed up the fascist parade if they were still alive.

[KoKo]

13. BTW...now reading the article...it's HARSH and in maybe a few ways unfair to Clintons

but it's worth a FULL READ...just to get another perspective...depressing as the read is...

One would hope that this article would have DLC and Clintonistas doing a rebuttal....I'd love to read it because what St. Clair says seems to "ring true" with what many "oldie DU'ers" (those who have been on this site awhile) have seen and why we learned not to trust the Clintons after praising and defending them for so long when they seemed NOT ABLE to defend themselves.

Harsh Article...worth the full read. Our Democracy is at STAKE HERE!

[KoKo]

20. I just finished reading the article...it's a MUST READ for DU'ers especially

the "Newbies" ...i was once a Newbie, myself...and while many will have some "points of difference" with St. Clair...it' well worth the read...it really is if you CARE about Politics and how we GOT TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY.

St. Clair is a bit "extrme" but unless we READ the "extreme" not relying on MSCorporate Media then WHY ARE WE HERE?

[Hardrada]

18. I read it and find it no more than what I had earlier thought of

the nefarious Clintons.

[KoKo]

21. but...for those less experienced in "what you know" wouldn't you agree it's a MUST READ?

If only for perspective? Not saying that EVERYTHING St. Clair says is Gospel Truth...but so much of it IS! :shrug:

[Hardrada]

22. That's true. I think it is a very worthwhile article

and it did refresh my memory on a few things.

[JackRiddler]

23. hmmm... 30 to 1 as of Thursday 10 pm EST

So

a) the poll is inherently skewed (although it's just a basic set-up of a statement and asking if one agrees/disagrees)

b) it's skewed in that those who disagree are discouraged from participating, or

c) 30 out of 31 DUers actually agree...

I have found that many people here avoid debate about the Holy Clintons. It's a staple of the local mythology that Clinton was the opposite of the "Bush Family Evil Empire" (BFEE - which to me means: the takeover of the US government by an organized crime milieu originating in the "clandestine services"). But in fact he played an essential role to its success.

[JackRiddler]

24. kick

[JackRiddler]

26. One more kick, vote early/vote often! n/t

[LeftishBrit]

27. If I had to single out ONE past influence, it would be Ronnie

While Clinton may not have done enough to reverse existing evils, I wouldn't fix on him as the key player. If I had to fix on one person who reversed the New Deal economic policies, and who exacerbated existing tendencies to imperialist foreign policies, it would be Ronald Reagan - no wonder the right think he's a saint.

Huge parallels with our Maggie, IMO.