[Peace-discuss] Neocons, theocons, Demcons, excons and future cons…

[n.dahlheim at mchsi.com]

Mort,
     William Blum is undoubtedly correct.  Let's not forget that her husband's administration employed a lot 
of liberal  rhetoric (albeit a soppy emotional kind) in order to conceal its reactionary agenda.  Her 
husband, the one that promised to save the middle class in 1992, passed NAFTA.  Her husband who 
promised not to turn his back on the American poor accomplished what Reagan only dreamed of doing---
flushing the welfare system down the toilet.  And let's not forget the whole sordid affair at Waco.  You 
should read Ashes of Waco by Dick Reavis and watch the documentary Rules of Engagement.  The imprint 
of the Clinton Justice Department is everywhere.  Oh, and I can't forget that splendid little war in Serbia 
and Kosovo...  I'm sure Hillary will do a bang up job helping the progressive cause.  Obviously, she 
observed her husband accomplish so much for ordinary Americans in that 1990s tech bubble economy...
                   Nick


----------------------  Original Message:  ---------------------
From:    "Morton K. Brussel" <brussel4 at insightbb.com>
To:      peace-discuss at anti-war.net
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Neocons, theocons, Demcons, excons and future cons…
Date:    Tue, 10 Jul 2007 02:31:44 +0000

> Words by Bill Blum:
> 
>                      The Anti-Empire Report
> Read this or George W. Bush will be president the rest of your life
>                                            July 9, 2007
>                                         by William Blum
>                                    www.killinghope.org
> 
> Neocons, theocons, Demcons, excons, and future cons
> Who do you think said this on June 20?   a)Rudy Giuliani; b)Hillary  
> Clinton; c)George Bush; d)Mitt Romney;
> or e)Barack Obama?
> 
>      "The American military has done its job. Look what they  
> accomplished. They got rid of Saddam Hussein. They gave the Iraqis a  
> chance for free and fair elections. They gave the Iraqi government  
> the chance to begin to demonstrate that it understood its  
> responsibilities to make the hard political decisions necessary to  
> give the people of Iraq a better future. So the American military has  
> succeeded. It is the Iraqi government which has failed to make the  
> tough decisions which are important for their own people."[1]
> 
> Right, it was the woman who wants to be president because ... because  
> she wants to be president ... because she thinks it would be nice to  
> be president ... no other reason, no burning cause, no heartfelt  
> desire for basic change in American society or to make a better  
> world ... she just thinks it would be nice, even great, to be  
> president. And keep the American Empire in business, its routine  
> generating of horror and misery being no problem; she wouldn't want  
> to be known as the president that hastened the decline of the empire.
> 
> And she spoke the above words at the "Take Back America" conference;  
> she was speaking to liberals, committed liberal Democrats. She didn't  
> have to cater to them with any flag-waving pro-war rhetoric; they  
> wanted to hear anti-war rhetoric (and she of course gave them a bit  
> of that as well out of the other side of her mouth), so we can assume  
> that this is how she really feels, if indeed the woman feels anything.
> 
> Think of why you are opposed to the war. Is it not largely because of  
> all the unspeakable suffering brought down upon the heads and souls  
> of the poor people of Iraq by the American military? Hillary Clinton  
> couldn't care less about that, literally. She thinks the American  
> military has "succeeded". Has she ever unequivocally labeled the war  
> "illegal" or "immoral"? I used to think that Tony Blair was a member  
> of the right wing or conservative wing of the British Labour Party. I  
> finally realized one day that that was an incorrect description of  
> his ideology. Blair is a conservative, a bloody Tory. How he wound up  
> in the Labour Party is a matter I haven't studied. Hillary Clinton,  
> however, I've long known is a conservative; going back to at least  
> the 1980s, while the wife of the Arkansas governor, she strongly  
> supported the death squad torturers known as the Contras, who were  
> the empire's proxy army in Nicaragua.[2]
> 
> Now we hear from America's venerable conservative magazine, William  
> Buckley's "National Review", an editorial by Bruce Bartlett, policy  
> adviser to President Ronald Reagan; treasury official under President  
> George H.W. Bush; a fellow at two of the leading conservative think- 
> tanks, the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute; you get the  
> picture. Bartlett tells his readers that it's almost certain that the  
> Democrats will win the White House in 2008. So what to do? Support  
> the most conservative Democrat. He writes: "To right-wingers willing  
> to look beneath what probably sounds to them like the same identical  
> views of the Democratic candidates, it is pretty clear that Hillary  
> Clinton is the most conservative."[3]
> 
> We also hear from America's premier magazine for the corporate  
> wealthy, "Fortune", whose recent cover features a picture of Clinton  
> and the headline: "Business Loves Hillary".[4]
> 
> Do those in love with the idea of a woman president care about such  
> things? Have they never heard of Margaret Thatcher, who tried her  
> best to cripple the UK's marvelous National Health Service, amongst a  
> hundred other reactionary policies? Most of Clinton's supporters  
> would love to see the end of the Iraqi daily horror and so they  
> presumably will also ignore Ted Koppel, the newsman of impeccable  
> establishment credentials, who reported recently that he was told by  
> someone who had held a senior position at the Pentagon and  
> occasionally briefs Hillary Clinton on Gulf area matters, that she  
> expects US troops to still be in Iraq at the end of her first term  
> and even at the end of her second term.[5]
> 
Continued at http://killinghope.org/aer47.htm> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss