Bill Clinton: Serial Apologizer
Society
| June 7, 2005
| Tim
I like Bill Clinton's public persona. Sometimes, it's hard not to: when he's not saying or doing things I disagree with, he frequently comes off as affable, intelligent, compassionate, funny, and self-deprecating. He is, after all, an excellent communicator, far above average. He knows how to make people feel that he understands their pain.
One of the more amusing things President Clinton does is to apologize. He's quite fond of it, and seems to have a prodigous talent in that area. For example, he apologized to Hawaiians (the natives seem angry and restless, nonetheless), Iran (though I doubt it melted the Ayatollah's heart), for the Japanese internment, for the Tuskegee Experiment, to Nelson Mandala for his being imprisoned for 27 years, to the people of Okanawa for sexual abuse of their girls by American soldiers, to the Italians because a hot-dogging jet pilot killed 10 people on a ski tram, to the Brazilians for an unflattering Commerce Department report, to the Chinese, for bombing their embassy in Kosovo, to Uganda for American involvement in the slave trade, and to Guatemala for war crimes.
And it's not just other people's sins which Bill is capable of professing contrition for -- sometimes it's even his own: he apologized to Monica for you-know-what, to the American people for "misleading them" (a polite term for lying), to his staff because the scandal made their jobs harder, to high-ranking Democrats for damage to the party, to Juanita Broderick for raping her (she alleges, to keep her quiet), to Bush for not catching OBL (resulting in thousands of American deaths), and to Rwanda for doing worse than nothing while the massacre raged on for over three months, killing 800,000 men, women, and children.
If apologies were art, Bill Clinton would be Andy Warhol: We're not so sure about the quality, but we admit he's unrivalled in quantity.
In the late 1990's, Clinton's apologies were so prolific that George Will predicted this:
SOUTH POLE, Jan. 19, 2001—President Clinton today apologized to Antarctica.
Speaking to an audience composed of the traveling press, Clinton said he repented of America's "sin" of neglecting this continent except when America paid a kind of improper attention to it. He regretted that during the Cold War, U.S. policy "subordinated the true interests of Antarctica to geopolitical calculations arising from the conflict with the former Soviet Union." ....
In words barely audible here over polar winds, Mr. Clinton expressed regret for the "insensitivity of American stereotyping." He said that "for too long American ethnocentrism and cultural chauvinism have caused us to think of Antarctica only as a cold and icy place." ....
Aides say that Mr. Clinton, who has spoken often of his "legacy," believes that history will remember him not for pioneering new dimensions in executive privilege, but for his "foreign policy of creative contrition."
And others, like this fellow felt obligated to give Clinton some company by apologizing right back, perhaps just as sincerely:
I apologize to Bill Clinton for identifying over 40 lies that he has told publicly while at the same time accepting salary paid by American taxpayers.... I apologize to Bill Clinton for the discovery of DNA testing.
So what of all this? Perhaps Clinton is sincere about some of the apologies above -- perhaps not. But I find this phenomenon interesting -- apologizing for someone else's behavior -- and talking about it without at least mentioning Bill Clinton would be a bit like discussing software millionaires without mentioning Microsoft.
So can you truly apologize for someone else's actions?
Imagine A does something stupid and B apologizes. Well, if B is, say, A's wife or son, that seems acceptable, no? Nearly as much so if B is A's best friend. Such apologies are generally held sincere if there's some commonality, affinity, or reponsibility from B to A. The president of a company may apologize for the actions of her employees, but not for those of another company.
But what if B is not related to A and dislikes A? Then the apology is hardly sincere: it's a way for B to put his enemy down, while appearing to show what a great guy he is. The guy who apologizes for his enemy's bad behavior at a party is actually levelling a self-promoting insult.
So did Bill Clinton think he was on the same team as the people who perpetrated the slave trade? Or does he dislike them? Does his role as US President in 1993 or 1997 actually make him somehow responsible for the actions of a slave trader in 1793? Or even US policy in the 1950's?
In Jesus's time, the Pharisees were involved in a similar sort of apologizing-for-history: They professed how felt it was rather awful that their forefathers had treated God's prophets so shabbily, and killed them, often not even granting them a decent burial, and were apparently trying to make up for all that:
"You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, 'If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.'" (Matthew 23:29b-30)
Was Jesus impresed with this kind of apology? Apparently not:
"Woe to you, because you build tombs for the prophets, and it was your forefathers who killed them. So you testify that you approve of what your forefathers did; they killed the prophets, and you build their tombs." (Luke 11:47-48)
Hey, wait a minute! Here they are, publicly testifying that they are sorry for what their long-dead forefathers did, and saying they certainly don't approve, and here's Jesus, apparently just trying to say they mean the opposite: that they're the kind who perpetrate such acts! Isn't that just a bit unfair?
Maybe not.
One of the things I've noticed, when discussing Jesus with other believers, is that sometimes they'll say: "I wonder what I would have done if I'd lived at that time. Would I have been a follower? Or yelling 'Kill him! Kill him!'" I've heard this many times, and have seen the same question come up in discussions about slavery or racism.
But, you see, the Pharisees apparently weren't like that. They were sure they would have listened to the prophets and honored them. Why? Because good people don't do that, and they were absolutely sure they were one of the good guys. But, of course, that's unlikely: The prophets were widely rejected. The mere statistical odds of the Pharisees being on the right side were incredibly low. But they were so sure of their righteousness that this consideration didn't occur to them, or make them pause to reconsider.
As psychiatrist M. Scott Peck, MD put it:
The poor in spirit do not commit evil. Evil is not committed by people who feel uncertain about their righteousness, who question their own motives, who worry about betraying themselves. The evil of this world is committed by the spiritual fat cats, by the Pharisee's of our own day, the self-righteous who think they are without sin because they are unwilling to suffer the discomfort of significant self-examination. It is out of their failure to put themselves on trial that their evil arises. They are, in my experience remarkably greedy people." (People of the Lie, p. 72)
And of course, the Pharisees were wrong about all that anyway -- as we know, they then turned around and put Jesus to death. It was their inability to consider whether they might be on the wrong side of the former which led directly to bad action in the latter. By saying they absolutely sure they were not the kind of people who did such things, they showed, in fact, they were.
Another interesting thing about such apologies-for-the-past is that by making them, you admit you believe in the principle of blame transfer -- that someone can be held accountable for someone else's past actions.
Recall Jesus taught we would be judged as we judge others. In other words, if we professed belief in some moral criteria, by using it to judge another, then it would ultimately be applied to us and used to judge our behavior.
By building the tombs for each of the prophets, the Pharisees implied they could be held righteous because of the right stance they surely would have taken in the death of each and every prophet. They were so good, the would have been in each mob, saying: "No, don't stone him!" or at least would have buried his body, ashamed of what all those other bad people did.
Of course, if they feel they deserve credit for having been on the right side of each murdered prophet, they could equally be held responsible for being on the wrong side of each, too. And Jesus says just that: "Woe to you, because you build tombs for the prophets... Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world." (Luke 11:47a,50)
Bringing this back to the present, many of those I know who oppose affirmative action do so because they are opposed to treating people on the basis of their skin color, period. As Thomas Sowell observed:
White people object to being discriminated against for the same reason that black people object to being discriminated against. What some other white people did to some other black people before they were born is not the issue -- unless, of course, you buy the Hitler notion of guilt inherited by blood.
Ask yourself: If some stranger walked up and punched you in the nose because someone who looked like you once punched him in the nose, would it be "curious" if you objected? Should people be puzzled if you made "a big deal" about it?
Interesting observation: those who testify loudly about rightness affirmative action admit they agree with Hitler and the KKK; they agree with the the Hitlerean notion of blood-guilt, and the KKK's idea that people should be treated primarily on the basis of their skin color.
Likewise with reparations: If we argue we are righteous for supporting such, perhaps we are also admitting we might be guilty for slavery. In fact, if we do support reparations in order to show how moral we are, we show we are the kind of person who is willing to personally profit from slavery: that is precisely what we are doing.
So, getting back to Clinton: what of him? Well, that's kind of is the point: that we should be more concerned about ourselves than him. We should inspect ourselves first, to make sure we're not doing the same thing, or something much worse, before trying to worry about or "help" another.
This isn't a call to be completely non-judgemental, just to make sure that we look at our own lives and self-judgement very carefully before embarking on our crusades to fix all evil in the world.
One of the more amusing things President Clinton does is to apologize. He's quite fond of it, and seems to have a prodigous talent in that area. For example, he apologized to Hawaiians (the natives seem angry and restless, nonetheless), Iran (though I doubt it melted the Ayatollah's heart),
Yeah it is funny. US appologizing and melting Ayatollah's and other people's heart :) US is a super power and does what it please. (read 'need'). Be it aiding or step-bombing. Other countries need to melt US heart. One who fails suffer. Suffer real bad.
I remember when some Pakistani president visit US. On which side they drive? of course with the traffic laws of US. I remember a US president clinton visiting Pakistan. On which side his drivers drove? Opposite to the traffic direction there. They are the super power and control a lot in Pakistan. So who is melting who? And that's just one example.
Imran, honestly: who "suffers real bad" for displeasing the US? The only sticks we've got here, except in extreme circumstances like Iraq and Afghanistan, are trade agreements and the tons of money the US taxpayer coughs out each year to give away in foreign aid. And, as you've noticed, we'll trade with just about anyone. And if withholding foreign aid is so awful, then ask yourself why that country is doing so badly without it.
Do you think the US loves France? Didn't France basicly completely undercut the US position regarding Iraq? So what's the horrible retribution there? Look at Germany after WWII, and how awful the US was to that country after trying to take over Europe. Poured money into it. Did the same thing with Afghanistan after 9/11, and am doing the same thing now with Iraq -- and these were countries which attacked others.
Look at Venezuela. Hugo Chavez is sure not doing what the US likes. Seen any coups lately? Yes -- one he staged in Columbia. (Oh, sorry, not worth noticing since the US didn't do it.) Look at Spain and Germany -- often totally against US policy these days. And the oh-so-awful punishment being visited on them? ... ???
So you give Clinton's "driving on the wrong side of the road" as an example of a horrible US thing??? From what I can see, it seems to have been a security precaution, perhaps against bombs planted ahead of time underneath the road.
Here in the US, a president's visit will block off the entire segment of Interstate highway, both sides, end-to-end, for a good part of a day, to everyone's annoyance. And yes, they drive on the wrong side of the road here, too, sometimes.
(See this photo, for example, or this one -- note the white stripe and the signs facing toward us.) So if that's some kind of horrible evil punishment it's happened in Missouri many, many times.
You want to see suffering? Look at the Sudan. Care to figure out where that suffering is coming from? How about the millions who starved in Ethiopia? And the estimated two million starving in North Korea. Who's doing that? Look at Chechnia -- a total disaster. How is the US involved? And let's see how the people of Myanmar are doing lately. Ivory Coast? Yes, ask how they're enjoying the French military takeover of their country -- when Ivory Coast hadn't done anything to anyone. Oh, but that's not worth mentioning either, I guess.
(The only example I can think of is Cuba, where you'd have a valid point. Though, with Castro imprisioning more people than the Russians did, as a percentage of the population, it's hard to argue that's the main source of their suffering either.)
Does the US literally pour money into Africa because it "needs" that, Imran? What about the huge aid after the tsunami? Where's the the nefarious plot there? What's the sneaky plan behind the recent Blair/Bush debt relief effort? For that matter, why was the money loaned, at artificially low interest rates, out of US taxpayer pockets, in the first place? Why has the US sponsored Peace Corps volunteers to build infrastructure in some of the most backward places on earth? Because of the booming high-tech industry there? Gold? Oil???
And finally you seem to have bought into zero-sum game thinking: you seem to make the assumption that if someone does something in their own interest -- even in the cases where that's true -- it proves they're doing something wrong. Look at trade: it's a win/win situation. You voluntarily give me something I want, I voluntarily give you something you want. You try to do this every day in your line of work. Does that make you a horrible, oppressive person?
What's good for one is usually what's good for another. Why do you think we tried to rebuild Germany -- or Iraq, or Afghanistan? Because we believe -- foolish people we are -- that if countries are stable, democratic, and involved in trade, that they won't attempt to attack others. So under the US's malevolent influence, West Germany gained one of the highest living standards in the world, while East Germans nearly starved to death, and covered their phones with coats, whispering, in fear of the Stasi.
Our basic foreign policy goal is (a) trade, and (b) to prevent our people, and those of our allies, from being killed. And the two are really interlinked. Is that really so awful?
Me, I'd rather we didn't get involved in the rest of the world. Our government takes our money and gives it to everyone else, and all they do is spit on us and blame us for every trouble they can think of (because they don't care to think about where the real problem lies). Yeah, thanks, I needed that.
But we tried that before WWII, and the world basicly tried to rip itself to shreds. Imran, the entire world nearly went totalitarian. Or did you miss that part?
And look back in history: How many countries have ever poured money into an enemy they just defeated in warfare? Rome collected taxes for the emporer. The US collects money from it's own people to give to other countries, attempting to bribe crazy, tin-pot dictators not to do stupid things like developing atomic weapons or touching off WWIII.
Look: Someday, perhaps sooner than you think, you won't have the US as a superpower anymore. Nothing is forever. When you see what replaces us, assuming you survive it, you'll understand.
Imran, honestly: who "suffers real bad" for displeasing the US? The only sticks we've got here, except in extreme circumstances like Iraq and Afghanistan,
Current examples. Would you disagree that CIA is involved in many coups, even assassinations? (yeah, many other services like KGB and Mosaad are as well. Services who does these things but US don’t like them are labeled as terrorists)
are trade agreements and the tons of money the US taxpayer coughs out each year to give away in foreign aid. And, as you've noticed, we'll trade with just about anyone. And if withholding foreign aid is so awful, then ask yourself why that country is doing so badly without it.
You are assuming that I’m not asking. Many Pakistani are extremely critical of Pakistan dependence on foreign aid. There is so much corruption there that it is unbelievable. (our fault) And I’m not proud of Pakistan’s begging. We should have stood by Talibaan. (You may disagree. I don’t care. I know what they did and how they rule. I know what there stance was about Al-Qaeeda, and they knew giving Bin Laden to US won’t prevent US from attacking them, US ppl were thirsty for Muslim blood, still are. G. W. Bush is elected and that is enough proof. No body elected Saddam or Bin Laden and Co.)
Did the same thing with Afghanistan after 9/11, and am doing the same thing now with Iraq -- and these were countries which attacked others.
Afghanistan attacked to whom? 9/11 was, allegedly by a separate terrorist organization, not a country. Show me proof than Bin Laden did it. Or he is innocent until guilty?
What Us did was changed the government in those countries to the government that favored them, instead of ruling them like in old ages and keep fighting all the freedom movements.
Look at Venezuela. Hugo Chavez is sure not doing what the US likes. Seen any coups lately? Yes -- one he staged in Columbia. (Oh, sorry, not worth noticing since the US didn't do it.)
You assuming that I’m endorsing them since US didn’t do it. If I get to discuss with some guy that says these countries are right no matter what they do I may disagree with them and discuss it. Right now I’m discussing with you. I agree with you about Venezuela.
Look at Spain and Germany -- often totally against US policy these days. And the oh-so-awful punishment being visited on them? ... ???
Perhaps they got real weapons? Or their resistance can be more powerful than Iraq and Afghanistan. Perhaps it may mean WW3, Europe against America?
So you give Clinton's "driving on the wrong side of the road" as an example of a horrible US thing??? From what I can see, it seems to have been a security precaution, perhaps against bombs planted ahead of time underneath the road.
I didn’t say it was horrible thing. About horrible things I’ll rather state step bombing in Afghanistan (they were no match in the first place, and many causalities could be avoided), bombing peace shelters in Iraq, Abu Gharib and all other things that you have said you don’t endorse. Never saw you writing about it as a main blog but its your blog. You can writer whatever you want.
Point was who is melting whose heart. You said Clinton not able to melt Ayatollah heart. I said it was funny US need to do it. And I gave an example that I know. Pakistan’s government, most of the time (except Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, who was in USSR block) is like a puppet to US. They of course, have to please US, and oh, don’t have to worry about their life in US, but US, wow, their life is so precious or they are so smarter that they have to do that. Smarter I agree. At least they don’t have any debt.
You want to see suffering? Look at the Sudan. Care to figure out where that suffering is coming from? How about the millions who starved in Ethiopia? And the estimated two million starving in North Korea. Who's doing that? Look at Chechnia -- a total disaster. How is the US involved? And let's see how the people of Myanmar are doing lately. Ivory Coast? Yes, ask how they're enjoying the French military takeover of their country -- when Ivory Coast hadn't done anything to anyone. Oh, but that's not worth mentioning either, I guess.
I have personally seen victims of USSR aggression on Afghanistan. It was like a celebration when USSR broke. Rest of course is wrong. It’s not just US only. I would mention it if you says that these all things were correct. But you don’t. Should I comment where I absolutely agree with you?. France sucks. Cuban government is extremely ridiculous. I’m not even able to determine what they actually want? Sundan need to think about their people’s favor.
Does the US literally pour money into Africa because it "needs" that, Imran? What about the huge aid after the tsunami? Where's the the nefarious plot there? What's the sneaky plan behind the recent Blair/Bush debt relief effort? For that matter, why was the money loaned, at artificially low interest rates, out of US taxpayer pockets, in the first place? Why has the US sponsored Peace Corps volunteers to build infrastructure in some of the most backward places on earth? Because of the booming high-tech industry there? Gold? Oil???
Us give a lot of Foreign aid, YES. And average American is a good person. Media may turn their emotions against some form of government (communism) or some particular nation. And as you have said before, you don’t endorse things like abu ghareeb and bombing on innocent people, in the same way, I never said US is 100% pure evil did I? Quixtar give a lot of charities. Michael Jackson give a lot of charities. He, before his 3rd operation was applauded by some Us presidents as well. It was before he turned into a total creep.
I roll my eyes when I hear Quixtar charity. Same way I roll my eyes when Clinton and Bush senior ask for some fund. Murderers doing charity??? But I don’t do that when Americans do, as you have said, an average American is not responsible for all those things.
And I will say same thing about Saddam as well, and all those weird named french / Spanish guys who did the bad thing. (Weird = what I can’t spell)
And finally you seem to have bought into zero-sum game thinking: you seem to make the assumption that if someone does something in their own interest -- even in the cases where that's true -- it proves they're doing something wrong. Look at trade: it's a win/win situation. You voluntarily give me something I want, I voluntarily give you something you want. You try to do this every day in your line of work. Does that make you a horrible, oppressive person?
Wrong. I assume that if some one does some thing, it’s in their interest first, then in any body else’s. It may be against the interest of somebody else. There are very few people who think selflessly. Saints etc. I have a problem with it? No. But if some tries to convince me they are selfless while they are clearly seeing their interest first, I’ll call it hierocracy. Call spade a spade. Even in your example, In trade, my interest would be to give maximum value out of my money. In trader interest, it would be best to give as less as possible and get as much money as possible. Then we reach a deal in which we both agree. In politics it becomes a power game. Some time countries that don’t have enough power are forced to accept the short end of the deal.
What's good for one is usually what's good for another. Why do you think we tried to rebuild Germany -- or Iraq, or Afghanistan? Because we believe -- foolish people we are -- that if countries are stable, democratic, and involved in trade, that they won't attempt to attack others. So under the US's malevolent influence, West Germany gained one of the highest living standards in the world, while East Germans nearly starved to death, and covered their phones with coats, whispering, in fear of the Stasi.
US did a great job in Germany. Again, if I start commenting on every thing I agree, I’ll quote almost all of your blog. So unless I don’t comment, I agree, or busy :)
Regarding the claim that his is what Us is doing, is misleading at the least.
Americas Third World War: How 6 million People Were killed in CIA secret wars against third world countries I wish that’s not true.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4068.htm
Regarding US need for democratic and stable countries:
http://archive.democrats.com/preview.cfm?term=CIA
The John Stockwell, former CIA official notes: "The CIA has overthrown functioning democracies in over 20 countries."
Liberal lies?
Our basic foreign policy goal is (a) trade, and (b) to prevent our people, and those of our allies, from being killed. And the two are really interlinked. Is that really so awful?
No, who said it is? Killing innocent people is awful when it can be avoided. To kill them to teach a lesson or show-off superiority and seek glory is awful.
Me, I'd rather we didn't get involved in the rest of the world. Our government takes our money and gives it to everyone else, and all they do is spit on us and blame us for every trouble they can think of (because they don't care to think about where the real problem lies). Yeah, thanks, I needed that.
Yeah, that’s exactly what the world do. They are completely safe from US, good people of US give them a lot of aid. US don’t do any thing to prevent them from developing. Us don’t temper with their governments and force them to sell oil cheaper or buy weapons. US don’t create political instability using CIA and other agencies to change governments.
Us is very fair in it’s trade. (It took 10 years to deliver F-16 that Pakistan bought from US.) World is just crazy. And Quixtar is the best opportunity in the world.
But we tried that before WWII, and the world basicly tried to rip itself to shreds. Imran, the entire world nearly went totalitarian. Or did you miss that part?
Yeah it was crazy. A side point: Neither Afghanistan or Iraq were the part of that was it? In fact there was no terrorist Muslim country in WW2. British does force a lot Indian and Pakistanis, including my forefathers to fight the war that was not their in the first place. I have more problems with British than Us. Study it some time.
And look back in history: How many countries have ever poured money into an enemy they just defeated in warfare? Rome collected taxes for the emporer. The US collects money from it's own people to give to other countries, attempting to bribe crazy, tin-pot dictators not to do stupid things like developing atomic weapons or touching off WWIII.
Misleading. Many democracies have been overthrown by US as well. Rome at times develop the countries they defeated as they become the part of Rome. America installed dummy governments, or governments that favored them. True, they give aid, but also, they create a long term loyal market and political ally. So they take good return on their money. Saying US does all that ONLY because of the goodness of their heart is unbelievable. I’m surprised you said that. No body is that good. It’s just not true. Of course US see their interest first. Every one does. Unless you are talking about some parallel universe.
Regarding atomic weapons: No much how much spin you give, Us is the only country that have used it so far. No other country, even Pakistan, filled with ‘fundamentalists’ haven’t used it. We should sell it to Iran btw. Iran might be able to defend itself.
Look: Someday, perhaps sooner than you think, you won't have the US as a superpower anymore. Nothing is forever. When you see what replaces us, assuming you survive it, you'll understand.
Yeah, I am not saying that Us is bad just because of US. They do some good things, of course. I have some problems with the foreign policies and actions. Biggest problem I’m having is with outright lies and an attempt to re-write history. As they said, “Victors write the history”.
Truth is truth. If some people sharing my belief did some thing real bad, yeah, it happened. That’s it. I won’t put any effort to make it look good. That’s what I expect. Hypocrisy that “we never did any thing wrong but every body hates us” is ridiculous.
"Never underestimate the power of the truth. Truth crushed to the ground will rise again."
- David Orgon Coolidge
Current examples. Would you disagree that CIA is involved in many coups, even assassinations?
Yes, and no. It depends on the specific example. Guatemala under Eisenhower? Yes, of course. Bay of Pigs? Yes, of course. You'd have to mention specific examples.
Carter made it US policy that the CIA could not attempt to assassinate a foreign head of state, which was the rule until recently (changed so we could attempt to target Saddam). So, as far as I know, there were no direct attempt to assassinate any head of state since the 1970's.
Many Pakistani are extremely critical of Pakistan dependence on foreign aid. There is so much corruption there that it is unbelievable.
I agree: I'm generally a critic of foreign aid, for just that reason. Of course, corruption doesn't only come from foreign aid -- the USSR was massively corrupt, and so is Iran, with no help at all from outside -- but whether or not it hurts, it makes people think it does.
As I said, we give tons of aid, trying to bribe nations to do the right thing (generally, what I think is, anyway), and we get spit on and blamed for every problem. We could get that for free.
Or maybe not: Look at Iran. Very pro-US in there. Perhaps because we haven't bribed their leaders as we have with so many other countries, and because they've had a full-blown home-grown revolution. Perhaps the best PR is free.
We should have stood by Talibaan. (You may disagree. I don’t care. I know what they did and how they rule.
So, let me get this straight: you back the Taliban and think they were good guys. Stop me if I'm wrong, but I don't get the impression most Afghanis feel that way. For example, recently 1,000 Afghan clerics agreed to strip Mullah Omar of his clerical role. Six hundred showed up for the ceremony, in person.
Ummm... that's a lot of clerics, Imran. How are you sure you're supporting the right people in this one? Unless I'm missing something, it sure looks like a lot of Afghanis wouldn't agree with you. And they looked pretty happy around election time too.
I know what there stance was about Al-Qaeeda, and they knew giving Bin Laden to US won’t prevent US from attacking them...
Really. So Bush publicly, in front of the whole world, promised no attack if OBL was handed over, and if the Taliban would have done so... the US would just have said: "Haha! Just kidding!" -- with the whole world watching?
Right. I'm not sure if you've noticed it, but Bush has a habit of saying what he means, and doing what he says. On top of it, there would be no way the US public, House, and Senate would have stood for such a blatant reversal, even if you can't believe the former argument.
But in your world, apparently this is believable, for some reason.
US ppl were thirsty for Muslim blood, still are.
Yes, of course. Being a US citizen -- and worse, a conservative! -- I want to drink it for breakfast. Goes so well on the cheerios, y'know.
Please, get real, Imran. Though I give you flack on this point (your apparent reflexive anti-Americanism), I respect and appreciate you. And imagine I like you -- as much, I suppose, as it's possible like someone who (a) I've never met in person, and (b) insists I and everyone I know here is hungry for innocent blood.
Look, Imran, I'm no expert, but I've read enough of the Qu'ran to know where the score stands. I fully understand that many read it as saying people such as I must be subjugated and humiliated, our wives taken, etc. (And I also understand claim that isn't how it's to be read -- at least to us outsiders.)
But on this end, the rule I'm supposed to obey is to love my enemies -- including those who want to kill me, and pray for them. I'm not perfect, but those are my marching orders, nonetheless.
So it's a bit odd to hear lectures on how non-Muslims mean so much harm to Muslims. I'm not perfect -- not at all -- but I assure you, I don't dance in the streets when I hear about the body count in Iraq. Nor does anyone I know. It makes me very sad. There was no glee about Afghanistan, here. Even hearing about al Qaeda people being killed bothers me. My view is always: I'm sorry it had to come to this. I wish there was another way.
Sure, there are exceptions out there. You've probably met some on other web sites, perhaps. I just honestly don't know any of them, Imran.
Bush is elected and that is enough proof...
Oh. What do you know. The last election was a referendum on hating all Muslims. Funny, I somehow got the idea part of it was just about certain groups who practiced terrorism, and that most Muslims weren't like that.
Since most of us -- like me -- were arguing we owed it to certain groups of Muslims -- e.g. the Iraqi people -- to stay the course, it never occured to me that I was arguing to expend more American lives for people that I hate.
But now I learn that I oppose Iraqis too, not just the insurgents, because they are Muslims, too. Gosh, thank you for teaching me this, Imran. The whole time I was arguing that we shouldn't leave Iraqi Muslims in the lurch I thought I was doing it because we owed it to them. I thought I was voting against Kerry because I was afraid he'd screw them again, like GHWB did last time.
And why, again, did I support the intervention in Kosovo, again at great expense? I seem to now be confused about that, since I can't remember the part where we got to kill Muslims in that one. I seem to remember me arguing it immoral for the UN to have run away and allowed Muslims to have been killed by white Sebian goons. But I guess I must be remembering it wrong, now that you have set me straight.
Funny, here in the US, many people got the wrong idea it also involved other issues. Like gay marriage, or the problems in the courts, the economy, or even just character. But, what do I know? It was all about wanting blood, it turns out. Not even safety -- just killing.
Afghanistan attacked to whom? 9/11 was, allegedly by a separate terrorist organization, not a country.
The Bush doctrine is that we oppose any country which officially shelters, sactions, or sponsors terrorists. The Taliban did that before 9/11 when it hosted OBL's training camps. The Taliban did it after 9/11 when they refused to give OBL up.
As I said, this could have been avoided had the Taliban said: "We don't approve of OBL" and worked to expell him, as Sudan had before. (When we were stupid enough to do nothing about their offer.)
Show me proof than Bin Laden did it. Or he is innocent until guilty?
Well, you could read Atta's answers.com page for an overview, including that he ran an al Qaeda cell. (I assume we don't disagree that al Qaeda was headed by OBL?)
Then, of course, there's the fact that OBL himself claimed responsiblity for 9/11, in tapes he released on Al Jazeera -- where he threatened to attack any US states which voted for Bush. (Not sure Kerry wanted that kind of endorsement. ;-))
What Us did was changed the government in those countries to the government that favored them, instead of ruling them like in old ages and keep fighting all the freedom movements.
I apologize, and I'm not trying to be difficult here, Imran: I actually don't understand what you're saying here.
[Chavez:] You assuming that I’m endorsing them since US didn’t do it.
No, not at all: I'm saying that people seem to have a particular kind of myopia ("confirmation bias") which tends to amplify the US's alleged misdeeds or contribution.
For example: take foreign aid. I'd love to cut it, but the left would cry: "Immoral", claiming it hurt Pakistan, or whoever. But in Pakistan, from what you say, they hate that their country receives foreign aid.
So here in the US, the US is bad because they don't give enough foreign aid to other countries. In Pakistan, we're bad because we give too much foreign aid. And foreign aid causes corruption -- except that countries which receive no US foreign aid are often just as corrupt, if not more so.
There's some truth to all of it, of course. But if there's some way to dislike the US in a particular case, it'll be found. Even if it's contradictory, or a small part of the big picture.
Take your stance on who armed Saddam, for example.
I agree with you about Venezuela.
Great then!
[Europe:] Perhaps they got real weapons? r their resistance can be more powerful than Iraq and Afghanistan.
Don't be silly Imran: Most these countries have the US army inside them. We could stage a coup at a moment's notice if we wanted. Better: we could have done so at any point in history.
France, for example, could never be called a "tool" of US policy: not during WWII, not afterwards. We could have walked all over them through most their history. (Probably still could.) Spain's been a mess most years since WWII. Again, could have done anything. Italy had a communist government. What the post-WWII US was cowering in fear of attacking Italy? And Germany has no army at all because of what happened in WWII. Germany has no possible way to resist a US attack.
Get a clue, Imran: the US is a democracy. Sure, we do some things wrong. Of course. But your model of us is fundamentally wrong. I don't want to go to war against France, much as I don't like her somedays. At most, I'll avoid visiting for a while.
We're not sitting here spoiling for blood. Most of us want OBL captured, and want the troops out of Iraq. I'm one of them. But I don't want to pull out one minute until the Iraqi polls say they want us to go, and until it's clear that Iraq can be whatever it wants to be.
I don't know how to convince you otherwise: I've lived here for more than 30 years. I know and speak to hundreds of Americans. And I'm a conservative -- theoretically, the worse, right??? -- and speak to many conservatives about what motivates them. Yet, to you, I'm apparently just lying or something.
Perhaps it may mean WW3, Europe against America?
I think that's about right. I suspect the European elite will use America-hatred in order to seize power. Seems to be the current strategy, anyway. Perhaps at some point Europe -- France, really, since they have the means -- might decide to rain down some nukes on the US (unprovoked suprise, perhaps, knowing the French), and that will be that. Millons and millions dead. Most of the survivors wandering around, slowly starving to death.
Why not? Europe started the last two world wars. Why not do it a third time?
Who knows, just a guess, but it seems to be where things are going. When I read the bible, I don't see the US playing an important role in the end of things, so I assume we'll be gone by then, whenever that is.
I’ll rather state step [stop?] bombing in Afghanistan...
I believe the bombing has been over for quite some time. Let me know if I'm mistaken.
... bombing peace shelters in Iraq...
Please show an example where a "peace shelter" was deliberately bombed.
Abu Gharib and all other things that you have said you don’t endorse. Never saw you writing about it as a main blog but its your blog. You can writer whatever you want.
I don't endorse Abu Ghraib. At the time, I only wrote that it was terrible, and that trials were warranted, and that we needed to look into any evidence which suggested that the orders came from those higher up. There wasn't really much more to say about it that wasn't being said already.
But note I don't write about most things in the news -- I tend to write about neglected stories, or neglected angles on popular stories. Abu Ghraib sure wasn't one of those. Likewise, I didn't cover Newsweek's latest faux-pas. Not because I agree, but because it's been beat to death already, and I didn't feel any added need to comment.
On the other hand, I also don't write about a number of other neglected things I'm aware of either, like far worse things going on constantly in Saudi Arabia. So perhaps the people who like to scream about a half-dozen abused naked people in Abu Ghraib (which I agree is bad and stupid) could make some proportional noise about people who are flogged 80 times with a flexible metal cable, or putting 1800 prisoners in a 11x30.5 meter room with overflowing toilets. Or is torturing 1800 people nothing compared to 6? Or what about these five? Or the welcome this maid received? Or this one?
Partially, Imran, I don't mention things like that -- even though they're much bigger, more pervasive, and worse-covered stories than Abu Ghraib -- because I don't want to inflame any possible anti-Muslim sentiment here in the US. We're pretty sensitive about that charge -- though apparently, that's a one-way street. (I've not heard too much worry about Muslims being anti-Christian, have you?)
You said Clinton not able to melt Ayatollah heart. I said it was funny US need to do it.
Ah, I see: you believed Clinton's apology and believed it was warranted. I'm no expert, but from what I understand, Clinton apologized for something that, in fact, never happened.
As I understand it, Clinton claimed the US had overthrown Iran's parliamentary democracy and installed the Shah.
But Iran wasn't a parlimentary democracy, and the Shah was there the whole time, and, in fact, had appointed Mossadegh head of parliament himself. Mossadegh gained control of the army, aligned himself with the communist Tudeh party, and began to plot a coup to consolidate all power. The US, of course, was drawn in, and the CIA worked to stop that, and give the Shah the upper hand again.
See here for a good brief synopsis, with the full background included.
When the left tells this story, they leave out pesky little details: they tell it as a story where the US simply charges in and removes a democracy, rather than being drawn in (by the UK) to a messy situation in which communists were already involved, backing a unelected strongman who had unilaterally taken over the military. That's a little too nuanced, apparently.
And yes, of course, desire to control oil was involved -- on both sides.
The Mullahs, of course, loved the apology, and broadcast Clinton's remarks broadly. Amir Taheri, an Iranian, complained in Arab News about the cooked-up history. He also notes that Clinton apologized for opposing a guy the Mullahs didn't even like.
Pakistan’s government, most of the time (except Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, who was in USSR block) is like a puppet to US. They of course, have to please US, and oh, don’t have to worry about their life in US...
Hey, let's remember here: Right now "pleasing the US" means breaking up terrorist groups and freezing their funds. As if that's some really controversial policy. Shouldn't nations back such a policy anyway, even if the US weren't throwing money at them, begging them to do it?
Or is there something here you think I'm missing?
And average American is a good person.
Imran, I don't understand you -- how can you say such a thing after claiming Americans want Muslim blood? If we just want to kill Muslims -- any Muslims, even innocent people, not just those who work with OBL -- then how on earth could you say we are in any way "good"? That makes no sense.
Of course, as you know, I think everyone is bad. Including us Americans. But there are matters of degrees here.
Media may turn their emotions against some form of government (communism)...
Where did you get that idea? The media seems to love socialism, in general. During the 1980s, the media castigated (hated) Reagan for calling the USSR the "evil empire", and portrayed Daniel Ortega's Sandanista (Communist) revolution in a falsely positive manner.
I'm not opposed to communism because the media tells me to be. I'm opposed to it -- and was, even when the media was defending it -- because it obviously didn't work. All you had to do is study the difference between East Germany and West Germany to see that. Or study human nature, and learn that people just don't magically share everything, like Marx predicted.
I never said US is 100% pure evil did I?
No, but that "Muslim blood" bit was pretty close.
And I'll agree that politicians look silly often, but it's nice they'll do it. Let me tell you a little secret about the current debt-relief thing: although the G-8 (mostly the US) will be paying off the debt to the world bank, and thus it will be costing us something, that bit about those African nations having to pay the debt is apparently false. Turns out the world bank stopped trying to collect on those debts ages ago, and that they just didn't remove the loan from the books so they could claim they've never lent a bad loan. But, like I said, we'll still be picking up the bill. Sigh.
(I can't spell either, Imran. I have to think two or three times about "weird" also. I keep having to look it up.)
Tim: you seem to make the assumption that if someone does something in their own interest... it proves they're doing something wrong.
Imran: Wrong. I assume that if some one does some thing, it’s in their interest first, then in any body else’s.
But you see, the problem is that you're saying "this is the in the US interest" about this and the other thing, as though that's automatically wrong. I'm not sitting here claiming the US is motivated out selflessness in every act, just that it properly understands that MOST things which are good for everyone are good for us too. That our self-interest is usually what's in everyone's interest.
Unlike, say, North Korea, who can't see that even Kim Jong Il would be a richer man if he'd do what China and Saddam did, and remained a dictator while trading with other nations.
There's a theory called "enlightened self-interest" which says that if you're truly selfish, and look at all the data, you'll see it makes the most sense to actually be good, not bad. I tend to think that's about right.
This is why I try to use greed to appeal to IBOs and point out they'll make more outside Quixtar: I could care less what their motives are. I just want them to stop hurting other people.
In politics it becomes a power game. Some time countries that don’t have enough power are forced to accept the short end of the deal.
To me, it's not that simple. You have to look at the specific deal. Look at the allied armistace with Germany: certainly, they were forced to accept whatever the US and UK pushed. But that didn't make it bad or harmful.
To give a counterexample, right now the US is trying to get China to revalue the Yuan, in order to decrease the trade deficit. But my gut tells me that's wrong: that we'll be hurting BOTH ourselves and China.
So power is interesting, but it's neutral: You have to look at how it's being used, not just look at the inequity or imbalance in it. A strong person isn't necessarily evil; a weak person isn't necessarily good.
Regarding the claim that his is what Us is doing, is misleading at the least.
So enlighten me. :-)
Americas Third World War: How 6 million People Were killed in CIA secret wars against third world countries I wish that’s not true... The John Stockwell, former CIA official notes: "The CIA has overthrown functioning democracies in over 20 countries."
Good bit of potential stuff to follow up on -- thanks for bringing it to my attention.
Some of what Stockwell says sounds plausible: when I was growing up, and from the 70s-90s, I used to get the impression there was a lot of things going on we weren't told about. Potentially that the C-in-C (President) wasn't told about.
I believe I was right about that, then, but I don't feel that way at the moment, anymore: my gut tells me things have changed.
As far as Stockwell's specific allegations, it sounds like a mixture of true points and clear exaggerations: he mentioned Korea and Vietnam as part of his tally. See here: Korea is 2.8 million in the war, and Vietnam and other closely-related Asian wars took 3.5 million. I don't know what else he's claiming yet, for large body counts, but if you're able to solely blame the CIA for those (as he apparently does) you've got 6 million already.
I'm getting tired now, so I'll dig into this more later, but it already smells fishy. Not that he's entirely wrong, but there's no honest way to just claim the CIA manufactured Korea and Vietnam unnecessarily, which it sounds like he's hinting at in the video.
(Seems to have a bona-fide case regarding Angola, but the rest of it sounds like he has no more insight, nor special access, than most of the rest of us. If you read his thing, he seems to be admitting that most of his view of the CIA came from reading books -- the same stuff the rest of us can access.)
Regardless, I don't think these things are going on any more, on the same scale, in the same uncontrolled fashion: You yourself provided the links support that, about the secret war against GWB. I suspsected that was happening -- it had all the signs out. Turns out others were seeing it too. How interesting.
Thanks, Imran, and best to you. My desire for Muslim blood notwithstanding. ;-)
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« Liberal Leaders and Followers |
Front Page |
Page Two
| Downing Street Memo: Sheep of the Left »
|
One of the more amusing things President Clinton does is to apologize. He's quite fond of it, and seems to have a prodigous talent in that area. For example, he apologized to Hawaiians (the natives seem angry and restless, nonetheless), Iran (though I doubt it melted the Ayatollah's heart),
Yeah it is funny. US appologizing and melting Ayatollah's and other people's heart :) US is a super power and does what it please. (read 'need'). Be it aiding or step-bombing. Other countries need to melt US heart. One who fails suffer. Suffer real bad.
I remember when some Pakistani president visit US. On which side they drive? of course with the traffic laws of US. I remember a US president clinton visiting Pakistan. On which side his drivers drove? Opposite to the traffic direction there. They are the super power and control a lot in Pakistan. So who is melting who? And that's just one example.
Posted by: Imran Aziz on June 9, 2005 10:28 PM