Message from Europe - Page 2 - Political Forum

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 04-05-2008, 04:47 PM

Hillary is now attempting to disenfranchise American voters: Hillary attempts to disenfranchise voters

To quote the poster secrecy, we should "try not to make the same mistake twice" (referring to Bush) by voting for someone who:

Tries to disenfranchise voters
Voted to go into Iraq
Lied about NAFTA, Bosnia, her income tax returns, the illegal immigration issue and the Northern Ireland peace process

That sounds like deliberately trying to "make the same mistake twice" by secrecy's logic. It's pathetic how you failed to even be consistent with your own words "try not to make the same mistake twice." If you are going to try to advise people in different countries what to do, maybe you should try not lying while you do it.

prrriiide · 04-05-2008, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

Tries to disenfranchise voters
Voted to go into Iraq
Lied about NAFTA, Bosnia, her income tax returns, the illegal immigration issue and the Northern Ireland peace process

There's much worse than that lurking around out there. I wonder how long before this starts getting more play. I heard it on Russert's show this morning on MSNBC when the author was one of the guests. Not surprisingly, he is a European (Brit), hence the non-American viewpoint:

Quote:

The Tall Tale of Tuzla
Hillary Clinton's Bosnian misadventure should disqualify her from the presidency, but the airport landing is the least of it.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, March 31, 2008, at 11:26 AM ET

The punishment visited on Sen. Hillary Clinton for her flagrant, hysterical, repetitive, pathological lying about her visit to Bosnia should be much heavier than it has yet been and should be exacted for much more than just the lying itself. There are two kinds of deliberate and premeditated deceit, commonly known as suggestio falsi and suppressio veri. (Neither of them is covered by the additionally lying claim of having "misspoken.") The first involves what seems to be most obvious in the present case: the putting forward of a bogus or misleading account of events. But the second, and often the more serious, means that the liar in question has also attempted to bury or to obscure something that actually is true. Let us examine how Sen. Clinton has managed to commit both of these offenses to veracity and decency and how in doing so she has rivaled, if not indeed surpassed, the disbarred and perjured hack who is her husband and tutor.

I remember disembarking at the Sarajevo airport in the summer of 1992 after an agonizing flight on a U.N. relief plane that had had to "corkscrew" its downward approach in order to avoid Serbian flak and ground fire. As I hunched over to scuttle the distance to the terminal, a mortar shell fell as close to me as I ever want any mortar shell to fall. The vicious noise it made is with me still. And so is the shock I felt at seeing a civilized and multicultural European city bombarded round the clock by an ethno-religious militia under the command of fascistic barbarians. I didn't like the Clinton candidacy even then, but I have to report that many Bosnians were enthused by Bill Clinton's pledge, during that ghastly summer, to abandon the hypocritical and sordid neutrality of the George H.W. Bush/James Baker regime and to come to the defense of the victims of ethnic cleansing.

I am recalling these two things for a reason. First, and even though I admit that I did once later misidentify a building in Sarajevo from a set of photographs, I can tell you for an absolute certainty that it would be quite impossible to imagine that one had undergone that experience at the airport if one actually had not. Yet Sen. Clinton, given repeated chances to modify her absurd claim to have operated under fire while in the company of her then-16-year-old daughter and a USO entertainment troupe, kept up a stone-faced and self-loving insistence that, yes, she had exposed herself to sniper fire in the cause of gaining moral credit and, perhaps to be banked for the future, national-security "experience." This must mean either a) that she lies without conscience or reflection; or b) that she is subject to fantasies of an illusory past; or c) both of the above. Any of the foregoing would constitute a disqualification for the presidency of the United States.

Yet this is only to underline the YouTube version of events and the farcical or stupid or Howard Wolfson (take your pick) aspects of the story. But here is the historical rather than personal aspect, which is what you should keep your eye on. Note the date of Sen. Clinton's visit to Tuzla. She went there in March 1996. By that time, the critical and tragic phase of the Bosnia war was effectively over, as was the greater part of her husband's first term. What had happened in the interim? In particular, what had happened to the 1992 promise, four years earlier, that genocide in Bosnia would be opposed by a Clinton administration?

In the event, President Bill Clinton had not found it convenient to keep this promise. Let me quote from Sally Bedell Smith's admirable book on the happy couple, For Love of Politics:

Taking the advice of Al Gore and National Security Advisor Tony Lake, Bill agreed to a proposal to bomb Serbian military positions while helping the Muslims acquire weapons to defend themselves—the fulfillment of a pledge he had made during the 1992 campaign. But instead of pushing European leaders, he directed Secretary of State Warren Christopher merely to consult with them. When they balked at the plan, Bill quickly retreated, creating a "perception of drift." The key factor in Bill's policy reversal was Hillary, who was said to have "deep misgivings" and viewed the situation as "a Vietnam that would compromise health-care reform." The United States took no further action in Bosnia, and the "ethnic cleansing" by the Serbs was to continue for four more years, resulting in the deaths of more than 250,000 people.

I can personally witness to the truth of this, too. I can remember, first, one of the Clintons' closest personal advisers—Sidney Blumenthal—referring with acid contempt to Warren Christopher as "a blend of Pontius Pilate with Ichabod Crane." I can remember, second, a meeting with Clinton's then-Secretary of Defense Les Aspin at the British Embassy. When I challenged him on the sellout of the Bosnians, he drew me aside and told me that he had asked the White House for permission to land his own plane at Sarajevo airport, if only as a gesture of reassurance that the United States had not forgotten its commitments. The response from the happy couple was unambiguous: He was to do no such thing, lest it distract attention from the first lady's health care "initiative."

It's hardly necessary for me to point out that the United States did not receive national health care in return for its acquiescence in the murder of tens of thousands of European civilians. But perhaps that is the least of it. Were I to be asked if Sen. Clinton has ever lost any sleep over those heaps of casualties, I have the distinct feeling that I could guess the answer. She has no tears for anyone but herself. In the end, and over her strenuous objections, the United States and its allies did rescue our honor and did put an end to Slobodan Milosevic and his state-supported terrorism. Yet instead of preserving a polite reticence about this, or at least an appropriate reserve, Sen. Clinton now has the obscene urge to claim the raped and slaughtered people of Bosnia as if their misery and death were somehow to be credited to her account! Words begin to fail one at this point. Is there no such thing as shame? Is there no decency at last? Let the memory of the truth, and the exposure of the lie, at least make us resolve that no Clinton ever sees the inside of the White House again.

secrecy_ie · 04-07-2008, 05:28 AM

I NEVER said she was responsible for the peace process in N. Ireland. I said she united women there - stop twisting my words.

The problem with a lot of people is that they see only what they choose to see. Americans are (and it is proven) not the most intelligent people in the world so sometimes you just have to tell them to cop the hell on! (Irish expression for 'get a grip') DuBois, I'm sure your vids show Hillary in a bad light and you want me to see it and so on but I can't watch them as my computer has no flash and no speakers, but if I get a chance to go on another computer I will have a look.

Also, I did not say I was speaking for the whole of Europe. I do not know everyone in Europe (obviously), but I have followed this campaign and I think Hillary would make the best President. I have nothing against Obama but I haven't seen sufficient proof from him yet that he is actually going to do very much. Spouting on about change all the time does not mean that it is actually going to happen.

I know ye don't know me, and you're all thinking 'stupid Irish girl, calling us dumb, what does she know...' and so on, but I'll just end with this. When it comes to matters like this, I have never been wrong. Recently in Ireland, the Irish people chose to re-elect Bertie Ahern as our Taoiseach (Prime Minister) he has since put forward his resignation as it was revealed that he has been involved in a large scandal (not going to go into huge details but it involves money - and lots of it!) and I always knew that he was not the best person for the job. I believe the man who will take over from him, Brian Cowen will be a very good Taoiseach so fingers crossed I am proven right for the good this time.

mairead · 04-07-2008, 07:17 AM

secrecy ie,
I am sure no-one on this forum is thinking you are a stupid Irish girl or calling you dumb. You are as entitled to your views and opinions just like everyone else.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 04-07-2008, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by secrecy_ie

The problem with a lot of people is that they see only what they choose to see. Americans are (and it is proven) not the most intelligent people in the world so sometimes you just have to tell them to cop the hell on! (Irish expression for 'get a grip')

lol What SHEER BIGOTRY and ARROGANCE. Everything you say is completely hypocritical. Everything you say disgusts me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by secrecy_ie

DuBois, I'm sure your vids show Hillary in a bad light and you want me to see it and so on but I can't watch them as my computer has no flash and no speakers, but if I get a chance to go on another computer I will have a look.

My videos mainly consist of Hillary talking. The videos are mostly not even commenting on Hillary, they are just Hillary talking and contradicting herself. Your argument here is so hypocritical and so biased that you are even trying to defend a person who contradicts themself in their own words.

Quote:

Originally Posted by secrecy_ie

Also, I did not say I was speaking for the whole of Europe. I do not know everyone in Europe (obviously), but I have followed this campaign and I think Hillary would make the best President. I have nothing against Obama but I haven't seen sufficient proof from him yet that he is actually going to do very much. Spouting on about change all the time does not mean that it is actually going to happen.

You sure as hell don't speak for Europe. Most Europeans on this forum prefer Obama. Also, what I've seen in the news indicate most Europeans as a whole support Obama. Your statements to the contrary seemed very untruthful (to put it nicely).

Barack Obama's popularity soars - in Germany - International Herald Tribune

Quote:

Barack Obama's popularity soars - in Germany
By Nicholas Kulish
Published: January 6, 2008

BERLIN: Barack Obama's popularity extends far beyond Iowa and into the heart of Central Europe. Germany has swiftly developed a serious case of Obama-mania.

Obama's high standing goes beyond his opposition to the Iraq War, which has always been unpopular here. The sudden crush is intimately bound up with the near constant comparisons here between the young senator from Illinois and President John F. Kennedy - still admired in Germany and particularly in Berlin - which have stuck fast as his identity in the German press.

The Berliner Morgenpost over the weekend ran with the headline, "The New Kennedy." The tabloid Bild went with, "This Black American Has Become the New Kennedy!"

An editorial in the Frankfurter Rundschau went one historic president better with a headline that read simply: "Lincoln, Kennedy, Obama," adding that "hope and optimism" are "the source of the nation's strength."

Obama's newfound popularity among Germans underscores not only the breadth of his appeal but also the opportunity he might have as president - though he is still far from the White House, much less his party's nomination - to mend fences abroad as well as at home.

....

Quote:

Originally Posted by secrecy_ie

I know ye don't know me, and you're all thinking 'stupid Irish girl, calling us dumb, what does she know...' and so on, but I'll just end with this. When it comes to matters like this, I have never been wrong. Recently in Ireland, the Irish people chose to re-elect Bertie Ahern as our Taoiseach (Prime Minister) he has since put forward his resignation as it was revealed that he has been involved in a large scandal (not going to go into huge details but it involves money - and lots of it!) and I always knew that he was not the best person for the job. I believe the man who will take over from him, Brian Cowen will be a very good Taoiseach so fingers crossed I am proven right for the good this time.

You sorely tempt me to say what I really do think about you. I exercise all my will power to refrain.

AzTeK · 04-07-2008, 12:23 PM

After reading and following these campaigns closely I can tell without doubt that Europeans are certainly more supportive of Obama than of Clinton.

What really surprised me though is that Europeans also seem very supportive of Ron Paul - eventhough obviously he never really stood a chance. It's interesting how some Americans like to stamp off Europeans as evil socialists when in fact there's a very considerable support for the most libertarian candidate in the race.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 04-07-2008, 12:29 PM

Europeans like Ron Paul because he says two things Europeans LOVE TO HEAR:

(1) Iraq was a huge failure.
(2) Keep the government out of people's private lives.

Europeans HATE BUSH. They hate his foreign policy and his blending of religion with government. Ron Paul is totally opposed to this and that is why Europeans like him.

AzTeK · 04-07-2008, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

Europeans like Ron Paul because he says two things Europeans LOVE TO HEAR:

(1) Iraq was a huge failure.
(2) Keep the government out of people's private lives.

Europeans HATE BUSH. They hate his foreign policy and his blending of religion with government. Ron Paul is totally opposed to this and that is why Europeans like him.

You'r dead on #1 and #3, but not on number 2. It is generally more of an American trait to constantly bash the, like they like to call it, "nanny state" that many European countries have. Generally of course, Europeans care about their privacy, but honestly I do not get the feeling that they care more than Americans. A "nanny state" per definition in some way restricts the freedoms of the people. Just take gun control for example. Most Europeans will gladly turn over some of their rights to self-defense over to the government for they feel it makes sense under circumstances, while Americans would rather "put it right between their eyes" instead of handing their guns over to the government.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 04-07-2008, 12:54 PM

Well, maybe I was being a bit too general there. I think that Europeans do not like the merging of Christianity with government. They don't like Bush's cultural conservatism. You all favor abortion rights, gay rights, and I'm sure you really don't like to hear talk about how Bush prayed to God to get guidance on whether to invade Iraq or not.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 04-07-2008, 12:55 PM

I'm also fairly confident you don't like creationism which monkey-boy also favors.