On Sep 17, 12:23Â am, "Sean"
now.com.au> wrote:>
gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6244e7d1-2484-42c0-a93a-eb65ba5792d4@x16g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 16, 11:14 pm, "Sean" now.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>>
gmail.com> wrote in message>
>
>>> What would Ken Starr, say or do, if he was the Special Prosecutor
>>> in this now stalled investigation ?
>
>>> *No one died when Clinton lied*
>
>> Evidently, you didn't hear about Kosovo.
>
>> -------------------------------
>
>> That's an intersting comment.
>
>> What was the lie or mis-statement or misrepresentation even by Clinton
>> about
>> the former yugoslavia areas, or Kosovo in particular, that you are you
>> referring to here?
>
> Actually, I am referring to the bombing of Kosovo which
> Clinton okay-ed on the day the Lewinski affair became
> public. Â Now, that could be a huge coincidence. Â Of course
> it is. Â There was no way an American President would use
> his position as Commander in Chief as a means of distracting
> from an unpleasantness in the press, is there? Â I mean, those
> years of empty threats against the Serbs had to eventually
> add up to action, right? Â I mean, tails don't wag dogs do they?
>
> Now, at the time, Clinton was already familiar with the bump
> in the polls afforded him by the bombing of an aspirin factory.
> The lie, in this case, was to his wife, I suppose, and nobody's
> business. Â So why did Kosovo get bombed on that day?
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Aha, you're another Conspiracy Theorist! :-)
It's news to me that a single guy could be a
conspiracy. Anyway, not exactly. But it
does seem that Clinton was aware of the
bumps he got in the polls any time he
bombed foreigners. It has been true for
some time that bombing foreigners is
generally a pretty safe political bet. Support
for military action in the US only becomes
dicey when ground troops are involved.
> So ur suggesting the "link" in your thinking about *No one died when Clinton
> lied*
> is that Clinton lied to his wife about Lewinsky, and so he had to go bomb
> the crap out of Serbs in Kosovo? And you are genuinely comparing that to
> Iraq's missing WMD?
Actually, if Clinton was prone to bombings for the
narcissistic motive of keeping his polls up, isn't
that more disgusting?
It used to be popular in response to allegations
of WMD lies to post quotes of everyone outside
of the W administration who claimed Saddam
had WMDs, including Clinton. In fact, Clinton
made it clear and unequivocal, as late as 2005,
that he supported the invasion of Iraq. He had
some minor criticisms of the handling of the
diplomacy and so on.
In any case, I think the invasion of Iraq was
inevitable after 9-11. If 9-11 had happened
a few years earlier, Clinton would have done
it. The W administration says they focused
on WMDs because they thought everyone
agreed on that issue. But was the real point
that Saddam might have some WWI era
poison gas weapons still stockpiled?
Certainly the defiance of the regime in the
face of inspectors might make observers
think he was hiding something.
It turned out he was hiding (from his internal
and neighboring enemies) that he _didn't_
have WMDs. Given the weakness of his
state at that point, it was his last ace.
In any case, the number who died during
sanctions far exceeds the number who
died in the war. In America, the number of
foreigners who die isn't really a consideration,
though. It's okay to bomb a small country
back to the stone age from a safe distance,
but send ground troops... and you are taking
a political risk.
It was said by one of his associates that Saddam
did not expect the US to carry through on the threat
to invade -- the dangers of not having our threats
credible.
> Uh, okay. That's a rational comparison.
Actually, bombings for the sake of opinion polls
are disgusting. I think Noam Chomsky considered
the bombing of the aspirin WMD factory in Sudan
a war crime.
> You tell me why Kosovo got bombed that day, and add a few cites too, because
> you brought it up.
Clearly, Clinton felt that he needed a boost in
the polls, and with Lewinski breaking out in the
news, he caved to Repuglican pressure to
actually do something in the former Yugoslavia.
> And then explain to me "how" that covered up anything about "lewinsky".
> Because it sure didn't work now did it?
Temporarily. Sometimes you fight a battle just
to win some time. Besides, he new he was the
Comback Kid, the unparalleled Mr. Teflon. You
could also ask why he bothered to commit perjury
about the whole affair if he didn't expect it to go
away? And, actually, it did, finally, go away.
One thing that strikes me about Clintonistas, too,
is that they say the whole thing was just about
"a blowjob," when the reason Monica Lewinski
came up on Starr's radar at all was because of a
sexual harassment lawsuit to which she was
called as a witness. I thought sexual harassment
was important to Democrats. And, if the Lewinski
affair looks like a witch trial, they can only blame
themselves for creating the conditions under which
such witch trials can arise.
