Twotterwrench From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (12 years 10 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1121 times:
From the Washington Times... must read...
Paying a price for liberalism
Jeffrey T. Kuhner
He's back. Just when we thought that former President Bill Clinton was out of the public spotlight, he delivered a speech at Georgetown University last week on the state of "our world since September 11." His remarks caused public outrage, and rightly so.
Mr. Clinton stated that the United States is now "paying a price" for its previous practice of slavery and for looking "the other way when a significant number of native Americans were dispossessed and killed."
Essentially, he drew a parallel between the terrorists who slammed jet airliners into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the Pennsylvania countryside, and the "terror" that has existed in America for hundreds of years.
The remarks were not only offensive, but false. The United States is not "paying a price today" for the evils of slavery; rather, it paid a heavy price in blood and treasure nearly 150 years ago when the Civil War that ended the abomination of slavery resulted in 500,000 dead and deep social antagonisms.
Also, most of the Indian tribes that were wiped out following the arrival of Europeans in the New World were not murdered over "land or mineral rights," as Mr. Clinton suggested. Instead, more than 90 percent of native American deaths were caused by contact with deadly foreign diseases such as smallpox. This was an inadvertent consequence of European settlement.
However, even more outrageous is that Mr. Clinton is suggesting a moral equivalence between America's founding fathers and Osama bin Laden's army of hate. Mr. Clinton believes that America is a flawed nation that is despised by many people around the world, especially in the Middle East. Rather than being arrogant and self-righteous in its current campaign against terrorism, he wants the United States to be "more understanding" of the reasons for the anti-Americanism in the region and to "engage the Muslim world in a dialogue."
Mr. Clinton's speech reveals the instinctive America-bashing and intense hostility to moral absolutes at the heart of modern liberalism. Mr. Clinton and many other liberals are uncomfortable with the notion of the existence of evil in the world. They cringe at the fact that the United States has no choice but to lead an international coalition in defense of civilized values against mass murderers such as the Taliban and al Qaeda.
In his desire to blame America, he is blinded to the reasons for the terrorist attacks. Slavery and the mistreatment of Indians has nothing to do with the events of September 11. Bin Laden admitted that the atrocities were committed in response to recent U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East: American troops based in Saudi Arabia, continued sanctions on Iraq and Washington's support of Israel in the conflict with the Palestinians.
Furthermore, bin Laden's terrorist network is not interested in achieving rational foreign policy goals. Contrary to the claims of Mr. Clinton and many on the left, Islamic extremists cannot be appeased by dialogue or compromise: They are motivated by hate. Ultimately, bin Laden and his supporters seek the destruction of Western civilization by targeting two of its pillars — the United States, the symbol of the West's power and cultural influence in the world; and Israel, the West's sole outpost in the Middle East.
Mr. Clinton's comments are offensive because they suggest that there is some kind of moral equivalence between the United States and its "racist," slavery-ridden past, and today's Muslim extremists who kill innocent civilians. There isn't. Thomas Jefferson — for all of his flaws — was no Osama bin Laden.
Moreover, to suggest that America is partially responsible for the terrorist attacks is not only an insult to the families of the victims, but undermines America's moral authority to conduct its current military campaign. How can the world's leaders be expected to fully cooperate with America's war on terrorism when one of its former presidents portrays the United States as a nation whose history was dominated by "terror" against blacks and Indians?
Instead of bashing America, Mr. Clinton should focus on his administration's failure to stem the tide of global terrorism. Under his presidency, the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center was treated as a criminal matter, rather than for what it was: an act of war. There also was no military retaliation for the 1996 terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia, or the bombing of the USS Cole.
Moreover, following the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa, Mr. Clinton launched a series of feeble surgical missile strikes against terrorist training camps in Afghanistan that did nothing to dismember bin Laden's network. In fact, Mr. Clinton's weak and ineffective response only emboldened bin Laden into believing that he could murder innocent American civilians and get away with it. The result was the heinous atrocities of September 11.
Yet, Mr. Clinton refuses to accept his share of responsibility for the terrorist attacks. Rather than blame America, he should start by blaming himself.
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (12 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1026 times:
I don't understand this constant fixation by the right with this man.
It's easy to lop all the blame on Clinton. But it didn't happen on his watch, did it? Blame can go back 25 years on this one, guys, if blame we must put. It's not one man, one administrations fault. It was a national shortcoming that this happened, not that of one man.
727LOVER From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 6439 posts, RR: 17
Reply 6, posted (12 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 989 times:
Before 9/11, all of the Osama attacks were "over there". Therefore, they did not affect Americans directly or get us overly concerned. If Clinton had started dropping bombs, what would the twotterwrenchs of this country said? They would have screamed WAG THE DOG!!! American support would not have been with him, and no Prez can be effective in launching a war without the support of American people!!! He could have never pleased you conservative fuckers!!!!!!! Why twatter, you never post an article from Wash Post, Newsweek or TIME???
Listen Betty, don't start up with your 'White Zone' s*** again.
Heavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (12 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 974 times:
Knew this was coming. So much for national unity.
Right wingers suck. I mean that. They're an embarassment to patriotism and Americanism. Why don't we just give you guys Utah or something and you can stay there and build a million monuments to Ronald Reagan (who, I honestly believe if he had his wits still ,would be embarrassed by the whole friggin lot of ya, like Goldwater was). And you can have a thousand radio stations on all day blame everything from the Trade Center to impotence on everyone who doesn't agree with you.
And the Washington Times in NOT a must read. It's a must WIPE. Owned by Moonie cultists who hate America.
Lehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 11, posted (12 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 963 times:
***I didn't have time to read all of it, later I'll respond more clearly***
Twotter: By now I figure you must have a confederate flag waving with the American flag, how unfortunate.
`The United States is not "paying a price today" for the evils of slavery; rather, it paid a heavy price in blood and treasure nearly 150 years ago when the Civil War that ended the abomination of slavery resulted in 500,000 dead and deep social antagonisms.
Those that died deserved it, they supported the enslavement of other people and weren't willing to work themselves to the bone, rather use someone elses blood and sweat. Your response to this sounds like you're for slavery!
Though, I agree that what Clinton said, "paying a price today" might seem offbeat. Consider that the Civil War and all the trimmings are way past living memory, it's like preaching a history lesson rather than looking back at ourselves -- no connection is made.
`Mr. Clinton's comments are offensive because they suggest that there is some kind of moral equivalence between the United States and its "racist," slavery-ridden past, and today's Muslim extremists who kill innocent civilians. There isn't.
How can you not see atleast some kind of contrast here, unless you're blinded by hatred of Clinton, I can understand. Being offended is simply your opinion, therefore I cannot bother you about it. I do wish you could attempt to see ALL sides of the equation before picking up your pitch fork and going after the world for not being up to your standards.
Bare in mind, even though Clinton/Gore we're part of the democratic party, the senate was controlled by the republicans. They are to blame for many laws that were (or were not) passed to "protect us." They are the ones to make the laws, not the President/Vice president.
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
Whistler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (12 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 955 times:
"Those that died deserved it, they supported the enslavement of other people and weren't willing to work themselves to the bone, rather use someone elses blood and sweat. Your response to this sounds like you're for slavery!"
The article isn't reffering to Confederate soldiers dimwit, its talking about the Union troops who payed to ultimate price freeing other men.
"By now I figure you must have a confederate flag waving with the American flag, how unfortunate."
Pendrilsaint From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 685 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (12 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 932 times:
Lephron...do you know what percentage of southerners owned slaves before or during the civil war?...less than 40%.....I hate to start another civil war debate like we had a few months ago *glances around for alpha1*=P...
Metwrench From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 750 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (12 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 917 times:
The South didn't try to succeed from the Union because of the slavery issue. Abraham Lincoln made it an issue in his "Emancipation Declaration" speech after the war had been in progress. The Confederate flag has nothing to about slavery.
Jsf119 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 196 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (12 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 890 times:
well first off that pearl harbor comment was just plain stupid but you want my reasons here they are 1. clinton always got in the middle east thing made it his pet project and ALWAYS sided with israel. 2. bin laden was behind the 93 world trade center bombing and should have gone after him then. 3. The 98 embassy bombing need i say more about that one. 4. in dec of 98 he told un inspectors to make up iraqi infractions so we could bomb them bcause you can not impeach a president during war time that pissed off arabs even more. in october of 2000 bin laden bombs a navy ship killing 17 of our sailors AN ACT OF WAR!!!!!!!!! and clinton doesnt do a damn thing. he does a half ass job by sending in cruise missles. now those comments he made just show what a flag burning disgusting person he really is and now bush is made to clean up after his mess. face it liberals clinton was a horrible president benefitting off a republican congress and senate and i gurantee if that was a republican leader who made those comments the liberal press would have smeared it all over the airwaves.
Soren-a From Denmark, joined Sep 2001, 235 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (12 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 864 times:
With the risk of being beaten sensles by some of you, I'll have a go at this "How's to blame" thing.
Im my opinion the 9/11 attacks and the embasy bombings can not be blamed on any one president. In my opinion the bad relationship between the USA and parts of the middle east began after WW 2 with the creation of the state of Isreal, and the fact that the US has by large supported Isreal ever since, both finacially and military.
The problem with Isreal is that it is placed in a very unfortunate place. It has Jerusalem as one of the major citys and this is very holly land for both jews and muslems which is bound to cause trouble since pretty much the hole middle east is muslem eccept Israel. So "naturaly" the countrys around Isreal is not very pleased with their neighbour and as we all know they have tried to wipe them of the map several times. But each time they have failed - and why? Because Isreal were, and still is, suplied with large quantaties of US made arms, so if not for the US Isreal would most likely have been defeated at some point.
I think that this massive US support to Isreal is one of the main reasons for the hate many muslims have towards america. And unlike most people in the rest of the world, they have been taught that if holy war is decleared, it is a first class ticket to heaven if they die in combat. They have also learned that if it is ok to kill a non-muslim. This means that they are willing to do thing that most people in the rest of the world would never dream of doing, like the 9/11 attacks.
Therefore I don't think that the hate towards the US that many in the middle east have, can be blamed on any one person - american or any other nationality - it is something that have grown in the last 40-50 years.
Finally I would like to make the following "disclaimer" (hopefully to avoid some of the flak):
1. Im not an american, I live in Denmark (yes it IS a country, not the capital of Sweden )
2. Im not religious, and Im not trying to put any religion down
3. I do not support terrorisem of any form
4. I support the US lead War on terror
5. I have not served in the armed forces due to a bad back
6. Any spelling errors in this text are made on purpose to reduce readability
Twotterwrench From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (12 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 842 times:
I left this post alone for two days......on purpose...to see how people would respond to it without my jumping in to defend myself as I usually do. I find it remarkable that many of you attacked me personally, or called me names... but not one of you who did so could accurately and logically argue with what I have posted. You accuse me of flaming and being a troublemaker, but every time I post a well written and well argued post (most of the time it isn't even my own writing) you can do nothing but call me names and attack me personally. Who exactly is the troublemaker then? The truth hurts when you stare it in the face doesn't it...
25 We're Nuts
: My God! There are medicines for people like this. MOVE ON!
: People still think the US civil war was about slavery? Was the gulf war also about revenge for the killings of innocent people in Southern Iraq and Ku
: NUAir, you are going on my Respected Users List! You sumed it up! Twot, get some help quick!
: I seem to be having problems with my server. Oh well, you are still repected from me.
: Never realised the Washington Times was such a tabloid... I read another article on that Clinton speech (can´t remember where right now) and I must s
: Typical tactic... A highly partisan, self-interested righty posts an incendiary (and NOT well argued by the way) divisive piece, then plays the pity c
: Sometimes I'm glad I don't live in the US .
32 We're Nuts
: NUAir, welcome to my list as well. People need to realize, you simply can't blame all your problems on someone else. We got into this as the United St