portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

human & civil rights | imperialism & war

Even Bill Clinton got it right this time

Your least favorite troll here. Inviting the Portland IndyMedia readers with capacity to hear more than one side of an issue to read the following commentary that outlines the harm being done to the middle east by their activism.
You can disagree with Mr. Krauthammer's version of the facts. You can disagree with his conclusions. But at least you will understand better the thinking of your politacal opponents. Isn't that to your advantage?
If you will read the whole article I'll come back in a day or so and read your comments. The infantile name calling of the rest of you will be ignored.
July 24, 2003, 6:49PM
Even Bill Clinton got it right this time

Amid the general media and Democratic frenzy over Niger yellowcake, it is Bill Clinton who injected a note of sanity. "What happened, often happens," Clinton told Larry King. "There was a disagreement between British intelligence and American intelligence. The president said it was British intelligence that said it ... British intelligence still maintains that they think the nuclear story was true. I don't know what was true, what was false. I thought the White House did the right thing in just saying, `Well, we probably shouldn't have said that."'

Big deal. End of story. End of scandal.

The fact that the Democrats and the media can't seem to let go of it, however, is testimony to their need (and ability) to change the subject. From what? From the moral and strategic realities of Iraq. The moral reality finally burst through the yellowcake fog with the death of the Hussein Brothers, psychopathic torturers who would today be running Iraq if not for the policy enunciated by President Bush in that very same State of the Union address.

That moral reality is a little hard for the left to explain, given the fact that it parades as the guardian of human rights and all-around general decency, and rallied millions to try to prevent the very policy that liberated Iraq from Uday and Qusay's reign of terror.

Then there are the strategic realities. Consider what has happened in the Near East since Sept. 11, 2001:

(1) In Afghanistan, the Taliban have been overthrown and a decent government installed.

(2) In Iraq, the Saddam regime has been overthrown, the dynasty destroyed, and the possibility for a civilized form of governance exists for the first time in 30 years.

(3) In Iran, with dictatorships toppled to the east (Afghanistan) and the west (Iraq), popular resistance to the dictatorship of the mullahs has intensified.

(4) In Pakistan, once the sponsor and chief supporter of the Taliban, the government radically reversed course and became a leading American ally in the war on terror.

(5) In Saudi Arabia, where the presence of U.S. troops near the holy cities of Mecca and Medina deeply inflamed relations with many Muslims, the American military is leaving -- not in retreat or with apology, but because it is no longer needed to protect Saudi Arabia from Saddam.

(6) Yemen, totally unhelpful to the United States after the attack on the USS Cole, has started cooperating in the war on terror.

(7) In the small stable Persian Gulf states, new alliances with the United States have been established.

(8) Kuwait's future is secure, the threat from Saddam having been eliminated.

(9) Jordan is secure, no longer having Iraq's tank armies and radical nationalist influence at its back.

(10) Syria has gone quiet, closing terrorist offices in Damascus and downplaying its traditional anti-Americanism.

(11) Lebanon's southern frontier is quiet for the first time in years, as Hezbollah, reading the new strategic situation, has stopped cross-border attacks into Israel.

(12) Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations have been restarted, a truce declared, and a fledgling Palestinian leadership established that might actually be prepared to make a real peace with Israel.

That's every country from the Khyber Pass to the Mediterranean Sea. Everywhere you look, the forces of moderation have been strengthened. This is a huge strategic advance not just for the region but for the world, because this region in its decades-long stagnation has incubated the world's most virulent anti-American, anti-Western, anti-democratic and anti-modernist fanaticism.

This is not to say that the Near East has been forever transformed. It is only to say that because of American resolution and action, there is a historic possibility for such a transformation.

It all hinges, however, on success in Iraq. On America not being driven out of Iraq the way it was driven out of Lebanon and Somalia -- which is what every terrorist and every terrorist state wants to see happen. And with everything at stake, what is the left doing? Everything it can to undermine the enterprise. By implying both that it was launched fraudulently (see yellowcake, above) and, alternately, that it has ensnared us in a hopeless quagmire.

Yes, the cost is great. The number of soldiers killed is relatively very small, but every death is painful and every life uniquely valuable. But remember that just yesterday we lost 3,000 lives in one day. And if this region is not transformed, on some future day we will lose 300,000.

The lives of those as yet unknown 300,000 hinge now on success in Iraq. If we win the peace and leave behind a decent democratic society, enjoying, as it does today, the freest press and speech in the entire Arab world, it will revolutionize the region. And if we leave in failure, the region will fall back into chaos, and worse.

Krauthammer is a Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist based in Washington, D.C.
to 'troll'/Krauthammer RE: Clinton 27.Jul.2003 16:23


The only reason Clinton was allowed to take the office from daddy Bu$h is that Bu$h knew he would carry on the same criminal acts and he would keep his mouth shut about the Iran-Contra debacle. After all, Clinton was Governor of Arkansas when the planeloads of cocaine were brought into Mena, AK to finance the Contras.

If you think your vote will count in 2004, you're delusional. The mainstream media is finally coming around to reporting on the vulnerabilities in the new electronic voting systems we'll see in use in 2004.

United Liars of America
United Liars of America

dear charles... 27.Jul.2003 17:23

this thing here

>The lives of those as yet unknown 300,000 hinge now on success in Iraq. If we win the peace and leave behind a decent democratic society, enjoying, as it does today, the freest press and speech in the entire Arab world, it will revolutionize the region. And if we leave in failure, the region will fall back into chaos, and worse.<

don't tell this to the people who are NOT now in charge of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the u.s. government, and who are not in a position to give the orders to the u.s. military. don't tell this to the people who did not want this war to begin with.

don't try to say it's "not a big deal" if the president spouts bullshit in a state of the union speech. ESPECIALLY when he did NOT have to. if we went to war against iraq, and are now occupying iraq at the cost of a soldier a day and $4,000,000,000 a month, simply because we want iraq to be free and democratic, WHY DIDN'T THE PRESIDENT JUST SAY SO IN HIS SPEECH? WHY EVEN BRING UP BULLSHIT INTELLIGENCE THAT NOBODY WAS SURE OF?

charles, does the good you see happening in your crystal make up for lies and false threats in speeches that were the primary instrument for persuading americans that war was neccessary?


isn't liberation alone a good enough argument and reason for war? i'm sorry, what's that charles? we need more reasons to go to war than simply because we love freedom and want everybody to have some? so charles, if in fact a desire to "liberate" alone can't send men and machine thousands of miles to be killed and destroyed, why are you saying "so what" about the OTHER reasons for going to war, the very reasons (threats) that bush REPEATED AND REPEATED AND REPEATED in his speech.


My vote will count in 2004 27.Jul.2003 17:24


My vote will count in 2004, and they will count my vote in 2004..

I'm voting for for Bush....

some quick responses 27.Jul.2003 17:31


Frankly, I don't care what Clinton has said. It's just one lying, murdering politician defending another. Given Clinton's own legacy in Iraq he can hardly criticize Bush. But the "strategic realities" are as biased as they come. But let's examine:

1. The northern alliance a "decent government". Are you kidding me? The northern alliance has a history of rape and murder that exceeds that of the taliban. The current afghanistan situation is completely unstable, with the u.s. beginning negotiations for the return of the taliban to stabilize the area. Don't expect this to be on the evening news now that the administration has waged such a successful campaign of fear against the taliban. Now, I ask, where was this campaign when we were funding, training, and arming the taliban in the 80's? Of that's right, back then the taliban were our "freedom fighters" and allies. How could I forget? And how can everyone else?

2. The possibility for an improved government has always existed if 1) The u.s. hadn't installed and supported hussein for 25 years 2) been willing to accept a rule by the majority 3) if the u.s. had chosen policies to support those oppressed by Hussein, rather than policies that strengthened Hussein (like the sanctions). But will we see a democracy in Iraq, I would say absolutely not. The u.s. will never allow the shiites to take power (as we witnessed during their uprising and subsequent u.s. cease-fire with Hussein so that he could massacre them). Therefore, their can never be a democracy. I predict chaos followed by a new u.s. backed dictatorship, with the illusion of democracy, just like the Hussein regime, and the Karzai's government.

3. Well, although dictatorships have been toppled, they have been merely replaced with new dictatorships and military rule. Hardly an improvement, as far as I can tell. The situation in Iran is a complex one but there was a good thread discussing the issues here:  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/06/267249.shtml

4. Well, pakistan supported the taliban, but so did the u.s. so is this anything new? Pakistan has always had to play nice with the u.s. due to tensions with India. When the u.s. supported the taliban we encouraged others to do likewise. Now we've changed our mind, and told everyone else they had better change theirs.

5. Hussein was never a threat to saudi arabia. This is pure fiction, Hussein never had the ability nor the desire to invade saudi arabia. The claims made by the u.s. miltary to the contrary were quickly proven false. While I agree it is a good thing for the u.s. to be leaving saudi arabia, I would say that same sentiment would be true for any country.

6. Yemen, like syria, pakistan, Lebanon, and iran, are all worried about u.s. invasion and occupation. But the threat of force is only effective for a short period of time, and in the long run, causes more problems as it breeds resentment. The policies of the u.s. are causing new alliances to form between groups previously hostile to one another. Uniting these groups against the united states will only provide for more attacks, and less security, and less hope for peace.

7. I have no idea what this point is even referring to. Most countries are harboring more resentment than ever before (Kuwait, Oman, etc). They are cooperating, to be sure, but the blowback from this war could be pretty severe if we don't adopt better policies.

8. Kuwait's future would have been secure if the u.s. hadn't supported them in the theft of Iraqi oil causing the first gulf war. Hussein only resorted to invasion as a last resort for the illegal theft of Iraqi oil. And by supporting kuwait, the u.s. is also supporting yet another dictatorial regime. And kuwait isn't exactly happy with the actions of the u.s. at this point, just as they weren't after the first gulf war. They recognize their role as a pawn in these events and they are not too happy about it.

9. Again, what the hell is he talking about? I guess people really want to believe that Hussein was like Hitler, and had plans of invasion and conquest. But there is absolutely no evidence to support that Hussein was ever a threat to his neighbors. The invasion of kuwait was hardly unprovoked, and following the first gulf war the Iraqi military was in shambles. They couldn't even take control of their own country let alone another country.

10. See answer 6.

11. See answer 6.

12. Well, this, like the situation in iran is much more complicated than a simple statement can cover. But this administration can hardly take credit for any of this, certainly the war in iraq hasn't helped, and Sharon is still saying that he will not cooperate with the roadmap in dismantling the required settlements. But we can wait and see how this plays out.

So, conclusions based on such ill-researched and delusional statements are essentially worthless. Next time, try posting something from someone who actually has an understanding of the history of the region.

Personally, I would have titled this piece "Bill Clinton shows his true colors, yet again."

Whose reign of terror? 27.Jul.2003 18:38

tsalagi red

"...very policy that liberated Iraq from Uday and Qusay's reign of terror. "

Anyone else notice how it is now "Uday and Qusay's reign of terror." Whatever happened to Saddam? Well, I guess we got the real bad guys, huh?

Krauthammer's IRONY is MURDEROUS. 27.Jul.2003 18:48


"testimony to their need (and ability) to change the subject."

ah, cheer up 27.Jul.2003 23:02


"Your least favorite troll here"
All trolls are my favorite. You are all like children, none is better or worse than any other. But boy, it's so amusing so see how ego driven you all are.