or Powell's or me• • •
"Mike and Jon, Jon and Mike—I've known them both for years, and, clearly, one of them is very funny. As for the other: truly one of the great hangers-on of our time."—Steve Bodow, head writer, The Daily Show
•
"Who can really judge what's funny? If humor is a subjective medium, then can there be something that is really and truly hilarious? Me. This book."—Daniel Handler, author, Adverbs, and personal representative of Lemony Snicket
•
"The good news: I thought Our Kampf was consistently hilarious. The bad news: I’m the guy who wrote Monkeybone."—Sam Hamm, screenwriter, Batman, Batman Returns, and Homecoming
March 09, 2008
The Monster(s) Speak(s)
Until just now, I'd never bothered to read Hillary Clinton's Senate speech about her 2002 vote for war. (Thanks to Maezeppa for posting it.) As you'd expect, it's full of vulgar lies and shameless deception.
I've quoted some of it below. I'm not going to explain how exactly she was lying, because I don't have the energy. But perhaps someone will want to do so in comments.
In any case, the older I get, the less I blame people like Clinton for lying. Politicians will always lie as much as their society allows. The problem here isn't Clinton, but the layers of America underneath her. In particular I blame the upper middle professional class from whose loins I sprang. Their entire societal power derives from them—ie, doctors, scientists, managers—purportedly caring about reality. But it turns out they don't, as long as they themselves don't suffer.
Take it away, monster of our creation:
In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors...When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets...[Some] argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it...But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto, on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act. In Kosovo, the Russians did not approve NATO military action because of political, ethnic, and religious ties to the Serbs. The United States therefore could not obtain a Security Council resolution in favor of the action necessary to stop the dislocation and ethnic cleansing of more than a million Kosovar Albanians. However, most of the world was with us because there was a genuine emergency with thousands dead and a million driven from their homes. As soon as the American-led conflict was over, Russia joined the peacekeeping effort that is still underway.
—Jonathan Schwarz
Posted at March 9, 2008 03:51 PMInspired by your start, I did a lame job of dissecting it myself.
www.sizzlingizzards.blogspot.com
-steve
Posted by: steve at March 9, 2008 07:10 PMSome people say Senator Clinton's personal and professional standards render her unfit to sleep with the pigs, much less to reach the threshhold of US commander-in-chief. I, for one, do not believe the former proposition true nor, for that matter, exclusive of the latter. However, since imitating Karl Rove is not the way to win a Democratic primary election for president, Senator Clinton's apparent choice of Lee Atwater seems eminently shrewd.
There have been assertions Senator Clinton is a decades long, stealth republican mole intent on deceitfully perpetuating an alien, corporate parasitism on America's polity. At this point in time, there is nothing incontrovertibly conclusive to base that on. As far as I know.
Posted by: Pvt. Keepout at March 9, 2008 10:14 PMI'm assuming you left the references to Serbia in for a reason Jonathan, though I'm also assuming that most of us will only fully note the lies to do with Iraq.
Hillary-Clinton, time traveler! She's able to make the deaths and refugees that were a direct result of our bombing into the reason we had to do our bombing!
Posted by: Earth at March 10, 2008 05:37 AMoh, NATO had to bomb Serbia because somebody made the mistake of giving the Serbs an ultimatum to quit screwing around in Kosovo. Nice and well meaning thought, but when the Serbs said no, well, NATO had to give them a bloody nose. Eh, and the Kosovar Albanians now have an independent state. But how is Clinton lying here? It's true, the NATO campaign had broad international support but no SC mandate, and Europe was for it, not so much out of pity for the Albanians, but because Albanians were flooding out of Kosovo into the EU.
Anyway, I see that even in Iran the international professional services firms are working, notwithstanding the Iranian's silly death to America monkey-jabbering.
And Jon, if you can't make sense of world politics when you seemingly are deeply devoted to the subject, how do expect some busy working professional to do so. And at least they contribute something valuable to society.
Posted by: xyz at March 10, 2008 05:54 AMKrajina?
Posted by: Bob In Pacifica at March 10, 2008 09:06 AMI want to defend Hillary Clinton: she is so fit to sleep with the pigs. Thank you.
Posted by: Duncan at March 10, 2008 12:13 PMAnd when Security Council members use the veto, on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act.
Yes, quite a probleem, that. I wonder why the answer is to give the US the right to act without the consent of the security council, rather than simply eliminating the veto?
Posted by: SteveB at March 10, 2008 01:58 PM"the dislocation and ethnic cleansing of more than a million Kosovar Albanians...a million driven from their homes" A lie. There was nothing remotely approaching this level of refugees until bombing began.
Also, w/r/t "thousands dead" -- yes, that much is true. Thousands, not tens of thousands or more. Very true. And, according to NATO and according to the Blair at the time and a later British parliamentary enquiry, those thousands were about equally Albanians killed by Serbs and Serbs killed by Albanians. Not exactly what Clinton hoped to imply.
"most of the world was with us" -- perhaps not a lie by Clinton's standards. For her and hers, "most" means the US plus anyone that agrees with us. There was in fact widespread diplomatic and press condemnation of the resort to bombing. Neither the UN General or Security Councils could be coerced to support the use of force. "Europe" also was far from united in approving the NATO attack.
But what kind of idiot could believe that facts matter?
Posted by: at March 10, 2008 02:16 PM"unfit to sleep with the pigs"
She slept with one at least one time.
Posted by: An Outhouse at March 10, 2008 02:27 PM"The problem here isn't Clinton, but the layers of America underneath her. In particular I blame the upper middle professional class from whose loins I sprang. Their entire societal power derives from them—ie, doctors, scientists, managers—purportedly caring about reality."
Bears repeating. Here we are, smart, well-off (not so much in my case) and completely unable to see the Emperors New Clothes. For example--what exactly is this "War" on "Terror" that we are supposed to be in? I say it is a lie from start to finish--there is no there there--it is an old fashioned swindle and the marks still don't know what hit 'em. I am stunned at the stupidity of those who shared the same education as me. Leave Clinton alone, she's playing the game within the rules that have evolved--they all do. Let's build a better life maybe one not based on willful ignorance, cowardice and greed (however well-mannered and soft-spoken it is).
Posted by: Banger at March 10, 2008 10:24 PMSleep with the fishes, perhaps?
Posted by: MFB at March 11, 2008 05:25 AM
