Wallace v. Clinton

[owl]

But yeah, the Republicans couldn't get Clinton on anything else, so they busted him on something that they knew every man would lie about- even if he was under oath- an extramarital affair.

 

There oughta be a law against swearing someone under oath for something so unimportant.

 

And I like Hillary and all, but even as her husband, I think I'd rather lie under oath about an affair than piss her off.

[MattZ]

But yeah, the Republicans couldn't get Clinton on anything else, so they busted him on something that they knew every man would lie about- even if he was under oath- an extramarital affair.

 

And I like Hillary and all, but even as her husband, I think I'd rather lie under oath than piss her off.

 

For what its worth, a very interesting profile in the New Yorker last week (?) about Bill by David Remnick. Not sure if its mentioned elsewhere, but its worth a read. No matter which side of the aisle you fall on. Its not for the feint of heart though. In typical NY'er style it is long as shit.

[John Smith]

I guess my point about how this administration has fostered and cultivated an atmosphere of warfare against the press, and any political opponents such that they could all be rounded up and put away and the country would yawn in response, has been missed or lost. The press is simply one piece of the equation. How many times have we heard the fox propaganda network (and the rest of the right wing echo chamber) scream about that treasonous NY Times to the point where if the NY times was shut down the 35% on the right would not bat an eyelash? Of course no charges have ever been brought against the times for any thing they have published. I happen to feel that their most heinous act has been to hire a neocon propagandist (Judith Miller) who relentlessly beat the war drum and fueled that beat with misinformation straight from the white house. Anyhow now the president has the tools to declare whomever he wants an enemy combatant and imprison them indefinitely without trial. Heck he could order me taken away for not agreeing with his policies. There is, once again, no oversight as to who gets declared an enemy combatant and why, and now they can do it to anyone anywhere, including US citizens. This is the most dangerous law ever written in my lifetime. Two week ago the guy was asking for clarity in defining the Geneva convention, which he never really wanted if you actually too the time to read the very vague and subjective proposal, and now what does he get? A very broad law that has so much grey in it that it is a threat to every person who is not a Bush apologist/supporter.

 

For example you could go to a concert and give money to Greenpeace at one of their booths. If the government declares Greenpeace a terrorist organization (Cheany has called it this in the past) then you could be locked up as an enemy combatant for giving aid to the enemy. That is an extreme example, but one I have read elsewhere.

[owl]

Sure, this is from the Huffington Post, but it's still pretty important to remember:

 

The most vicious terrorist attack on America before 9/11 came in 1995--a huge blast that killed 168 Americans, injured 800 others, and damaged 300 buildings. It slaughtered and maimed more American children than 9/11. Yet it didn't produce a "war" on terrorism. No little nation was invaded and virtually destroyed. No religion or ethnic group was demonized.

Our Constitution was not jettisoned.

 

The reason is simple. The perpetrator was a white, Catholic, Republican, American NRA member. None of his allegiances could be demonized. There was no pretext for going to war, or for throwing the Bill of Rights out the window. No white supremacists were rounded up and held for years without cause, without being charged, without a trial or access to a lawyer. No NRA members were sent to Syria to be tortured. No Catholics were automatically called terrorists. No Republicans were strip-searched at airports. Our American freedoms remained intact. Clinton did not become a dictator.

 

So what happened instead? The perpetrator, a white supremacist, neo-Nazi, gun fanatic, was discovered through conventional police work, arrested, tried--with all the rights denied to even the most unlikely and implausible Arab suspects--convicted by a jury and executed. End of case...

 

Link

[MrRain422]

It is interesting, though, how people like the NRA decry gun control based largely on preservation our constitutional rights, yet could obviously give a shit about something like freedom of the press.

 

In fairness, the Second Amendment is a lot more ambiguous about how protected that right is than the First Amendment is, especially when you consider the historical circumstances surrounding the creation of the Second Amendment.

[owl]

That's true. I might add, though, that "well-regulated" and NRA don't really mesh that well.

[WilcoFan]

But has the press previousle ever been under assault the way it is with this administration? Has any adminsitration ever had the tools that this administration now has? Has this administration earned our trust enough for us (we the people...) to grant them these powers? No, no and no.

 

 

I'm with you on this. But has the press ever been so willing to roll over and play dead? Let's face it, 98% of what the press covers is friendly PR "news" designed to sell you something/anything. As for the other 2% of news, most people in this country don't pay attention. So what do they care if the Bush Administration is trying it's best to clear a path for complete totalitarian state?

 

Unfortunately the free press has been out to lunch (wined and dined by corporations) for a long time and if anyone could shine a light on what is truly happening, they could. But they don't because the people running the news companies are richer than ever and are as interested in free press about as much as Bush is.

[owl]

Amen to that.

[Tweedling]

I enjoy reading this board.

[MrRain422]

It's true. The press reports what the government spokespeople say. They never comment on how truthful it is. That's not news.

[owl]

I totally agree.

 

And any retractions are made quietly and go unnoticed.

[Edie]

Interesting interview with Oliver Stone. I agree with basically 100% of what he says. I am contemplating taking a trip to Europe in the spring with my husband and son and for the first time, I will feel ashamed to say we are Americans.

 

Stone: Bush has set U.S. back 10 years

 

By CIARAN GILES, Associated Press Writer

Thu Sep 28, 10:12 PM ET

 

Filmmaker Oliver Stone blasted President Bush Thursday, saying he has "set America back 10 years." Stone added that he is "ashamed for my country" over the war in Iraq and the U.S. policies in response to the attacks of Sept. 11.

 

"We have destroyed the world in the name of security," Stone told journalists at the San Sebastian International Film Festival prior to a screening of his latest movie, "World Trade Center." The film tells the true story of the survival and rescue of two policemen who were trapped in the rubble of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, after they went to help people escape.

 

"From Sept. 12 on, the incident (the attacks) was politicized and it has polarized the entire world," said Stone. "It is a shame because it is a waste of energy to see that the entire world five years later is still convulsed in the grip of 9/11.

 

"It's a waste of energy away from things that do matter which is poverty, death, disease, the planet itself and fixing things in our own homes rather than fighting wars with others. Mr. Bush has set America back 10 years, maybe more."

 

The director of blockbusters such as "Platoon," and "JFK" said the U.S. reaction to the attacks was out of proportion.

 

"If there had been a better sense of preparation, if we had a leadership that was more mature," he said. "We did not fight back in the same way that the British fought the IRA or the Spanish government fought the Basques here. Terrorism is a manageable action. It can be lived with," said Stone.

 

Stone rejected allegations that U.S. authorities may have known about the attacks in advance and said the real conspiracy came after.

 

"I think that conspiracy-mongering on 9/11 is a waste of time," he said. "The far greater conspiracy occurred after 9/11 when basically a neo-cabal inside our government hijacked policy and went to war. That was as broad a conspiracy as we can get and it was about 20, 30 people. That's all, they took over and all these books are coming out and they are pointing it out," said Stone.

 

"This war on Iraq is a disaster. I'm disgraced. I'm ashamed for my country," he said. "I'm also ashamed that America has attacked itself with its constitutional breakdowns. I'm deeply ashamed."

 

In the United States' favor, Stone posited that it's not responsible for all the world's problems.

 

"You can't see that the United States is responsible for all the evil in the world because you can see so many dictators and so many bestial acts all over the world now. .... There is something in the human heart, the international human heart, that is evil," said Stone.

 

"That's the evil that turns its mind and ears on humanity and is able to say `I can kill a person in the name of God or religion.' This is not a human being, this a fanatic. And I fear that fanaticism is the result of our overreaction to 9/11," said Stone.

[EL the Famous]

I will feel ashamed to say we are Americans.

 

I think that's ridiculous. Being ashamed of our current administration is one thing, being ashamed to be an American is another.

[plasticeyeball]

how about embarrassed. i'm more embarrassed than ashamed.

[owl]

I think that's ridiculous. Being ashamed of our current administration is one thing, being ashamed to be an American is another.

 

I'm definitely ashamed that President Bush is our representative. I'm ashamed to be an American of the image that he portrays.

[Edie]

I think that's ridiculous. Being ashamed of our current administration is one thing, being ashamed to be an American is another.

 

Sadly, we are all lumped together as "Americans", just as we lump people together ("Iraquis", "French" etc).

[owl]

It is still important to love America as a country- like a sibling or parent- even if you disagree with how it's run.

 

We're not at a point where disagreement is legally traitorous- even if our elected leaders prefer to believe otherwise.

 

We disagree because we love.

[gogo]

Sadly, we are all lumped together as "Americans", just as we lump people together ("Iraquis", "French" etc).

Isn't that one of the things that travel can do for us, allow us to meet people and let them know that we're individuals with our own political viewpoints, as well as getting a chance to see them as individuals?

[MrRain422]

What does Olver Stone mean that we have been set back 10 years? I thought things were comparitively pretty good 10 years ago. Being set back 10 years would be an improvement.

[owl]

Celebrities crack me up sometimes.

 

I know people who would categorically reject anything a celebrity says.

 

I'm not that extreme, but I certainly respect other sources of information much more.

 

Personally, I'd much rather hear about a celebrity donating some of his/her millions to a cause vs. opining about politics.

[jakobnicholas]

Oliver's quotes will look great on Bin Laden's websites.

 

I truly believe quotes like his are used against us. Bin Laden must laugh his ass off reading crap like this.

 

Stone and others simply want Americans to think they're so smart and so caring an so worldly. Hey Oliver, MOST Americans are confused and troubled about our exection of the war. You're not the only genius. You may be right that Bush screwed up, but c'mon, don't make a public rant that you're "embarrassed" to be American. What an idiotic thing to say! I think the world knows it's Bush, Cheney and Rice calling the shots.

 

About all we can do is hope and pray that it gets better the next couple years. If not, we hope and pray that the next administration can guide us better. And an election's coming up in November....we can show are disapproval then. But Bush ain't going anywhere for awhile.

 

Oliver....I'd rather you shut up and go make a movie about it.

[Edie]

Isn't that one of the things that travel can do for us, allow us to meet people and let them know that we're individuals with our own political viewpoints, as well as getting a chance to see them as individuals?

 

Of course -- but sadly you don't "meet" everyone you see. This is where pidgeon-holing comes in, and frankly, my shame. Once people know people, usually there is common ground and understanding.

 

My sister is hosting an exchange student from Lebanon this year. I can't tell you how wonderful it was seeing her and my son who is half-Jewish sitting across from each other at the table and chattering away. They weren't children of advesaries, they were just.... children.

[gogo]

I don't think it's even necessarily a question of having to get to know people before you can see them as individuals. You are who you are, and if people who see you on your travels, but don't get a chance to meet you, are judging who they think you are, that's to their shame.

[Buford T. Justice]

I'm not particularly concerned about what Oliver Stone has to say on anything.

 

However, the fact that Jimmy Carter -- insert bias comment here -- has gone on the record stating that Bush has brought U.S. "international disgrace." I respect Carter's opinion, regardless of claimed bias, more than I do Stone's.

 

http://www.kesq.com/Global/story.asp?S=5473638

[owl]

Carter was not a great President, but his best work was done later. For this, he should be respected by members of both parties.