Despite his sexual proclivities, it can be argued “Slick Willie” was even more pro-war than George W. Bush.
According to a public event notice recently posted on Facebook by the “Loretta Sanchez Campaign”, former Democratic President Bill Clinton (aka “Slick Willie”) will be appearing at the Old Orange County Courthouse in downtown Santa Ana on Friday, October 15th to stump on behalf of Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez:
Rally Featuring President Clinton and Loretta SanchezTime:Friday, October 15 · 3:00pm – 7:30pmLocation:Old Orange County Courthouse, 211 West Santa Blvd, Santa AnaCreated by:Loretta Sanchez CampaignMore Info:Please join us for a free rally featuring President Bill Clinton and Loretta Sanchez on Friday, October 15th, 3pm at the Old Orange County Courthouse in downtown Santa Ana. Family and friends are all welcome! Thank you for your support!
It’s clear that the Orange County Democratic Party is becoming incredibly desperate if they’ve got to trout out “Slick Willie” at their campaign events. I’m amused at all the party faithful who like lemmings would toss themselves off a cliff for this man even though many of his policies were identical to those of President George W. Bush.
It can be argued that “Slick Willie” was more pro-war than Bush in that he deployed military forces to combat situations all over the world. He bombed Iraq practically every day he was in office and administered economic sanctions against that country that caused the deaths of more than 500,000 children.
In addition, “Slick Willie” bombed Serbia to smithereens in direct violation of international law and under the false premise of trying to stop “ethnic cleansing”. While he was turning that country into a graveyard, he sent billions of dollars in miltary assistance to Israel and Turkey who themselves were involved in “ethnic cleansing”.
In 2004, “Slick Willie” defended the Bush administration’s decision to attack and invade Iraq. Former Bush national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was quoted in the Washington Post saying Clinton was “privately briefed by top White House officials about war planning in 2003 and that he told them he supported the invasion”.
Among other things that “Slick Willie” did is sign into law Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1996, giving police officers the ability to enforce federal immigration law. So if you want to meet the man who gave racists like Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio the power to arrest undocumented workers for any reason, go to this rally.
For purposes of disclosure, Duane Roberts is the Green Party candidate for U.S. Senate in the State of California
Word up! Slick Willie is bad news…too many people buy into the hype still. He gets to claim that he was Mr. “Economy” even if the bubble that took place under his presidency exploded on Dubya’s first term.
Oh yeah, and NAFTA!
The Clintons sucked on immigration too.
hence, NAFTA and 287 (g)
I enjoyed Clintons visit in 1998, should be a great show.
America’s Most Popular Politician: Bill Clinton
http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/09/29/americas-most-popular-politician-bill-clinton/
Sorry losers…..get over it. We still love Bubba!
I don’t think any dead Iraqi children were included in that poll, were they?
sounds like Loretta has TOUGH competition…………QUE PASO!!!!!!!! i thought Loretta was overly comfortable that her re-election was a SLAM-DUNK………her time is up and her track record shows she has nothing but SELF INTEREST IN HER DEEP POCKETS
yes! thank you
No Duane ……probably not. They didn’t poll dead wolves either.
I’m not of the opinion there are any anatomical similarities between dead wolves and dead Iraqi children, but I seriously doubt the latter would look upon President Bill Clinton favorably if they had the ability to speak from beyond the grave.
I find it remarkable how people are taught to look at politicians like Clinton in awe. In a just world, he would be put on trial as a war criminal for violating international law and committing genocide against innocent civilian populations.
To be fair, the same could be said against George W. Bush, his father, and many other U.S. presidents, both Democrat and Republican. In fact, there isn’t a single one of the lot that hasn’t violated the 1950 Principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal.
http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-nurem.htm
I guess might makes right, doesn’t it?
And yet at the time, conservatives railed about how “liberal” Clinton was. Talk about clueless.
You see the same clueless rhetoric regarding Obama…yet I ask;
Would a radical liberal Socialist Anti-Colonialist promise to close Guantanamo within a year of taking office and then fail to do so?
Would a radical liberal Socialist Anti-Colonialist totally eliminate single-payer from the healthcare reform debate, and then also fail to lead forcefully on the public option?
Would a radical liberal Socialist Anti-Colonialist not only fail to end the war in Afghanistan, but actually send MORE troops?
Would a radical liberal Socialist Anti-Colonialist dramatically increase drone attacks on Pakistan?
Would a radical liberal Socialist Anti-Colonialist keep in place many of Dubya’s national security policies (increased power vested in the Executive, most especially), and also EXPAND the use of the State Secrets privilege to not only exclude PIECES of evidence in a case, but to dismiss ENTIRE cases?
Would a radical liberal Socialist Anti-Colonialist promise to filibuster any bill that included retroactive immunity for telecoms that helped the Government illegally spy on Americans, and then not only fail to do that but then turn around FOR a bill that included said immunity? (during campaign)
The list goes on and on, but you get the point.
When you put it all together, it just goes to show how warped these people really are. And some of them get handsomely paid for peddling nonsense too. The other day I heard Sean Hannity refer to Obama as a radical Keynesian! Keynesianism is not radical and Obama is not a Keynesian! Maybe he had a Freudian slip and meant to call him a radical Kenyan…
These people would go into immediate cardiac arrest if they ever met a real Black socialist…
Yeah, by all means, let’s continue with the Friedman approach to economics…that’s worked out real well for us.
Duane………by the way……I’m againt the military industrial complex as much as you,….I just don’t see how empowering Republicans and weakening Dems gets us there. For all your grandstanding it is a two party system. I’d suggest picking one…..
> Duane………by the way……I’m againt the military industrial complex as
> much as you,….I just don’t see how empowering Republicans and weakening
> Dems gets us there
That’s based on your assumption the Democratic Party is “better” than the Republican Party. Are they? I don’t see that, to be quite honest with you. In many respects, the Democrats are much worse.
Does that mean I want the Republican Party in power? No, not at all. I don’t prefer either of the two. That’s why, with few exceptions, I rarely vote for candidates with a “D” or an “R” as their party affiliation.
If there is only a Democrat and Republican on my ballot, I leave an empty space. I’ve learned long ago to stop wasting my vote on candidates who don’t reflect my views and opinions on political matters.
> For all your grandstanding it is a two party system. I’d suggest picking one…
Nah, not interested.
It hasn’t always been “two party system”. In the late 19th century, the Populist Party elected people to the U.S. Senate and controlled entire state legislatures.
The Socialist Party at one time had more than 1,000 people elected to public office at the local level in the early part of the 20th century.
And besides, you don’t seem to understand that so-called “third political parties” have always been at the forefront of major social changes in American history.
Abolition of slavery? Social Security? Racial equality? Minimum wage? Gay rights? Third political parties were the first ones to bring these ideas up.
Take for example marijuana legalization. The Libertarian, Green, and Peace and Freedom parties have supported that idea for many decades.
For example, P & F made marijuana legalization part of its platform in 1968, when it first became a ballot-qualified political party in the state of California.
Just imagine. It took the Orange County Democratic Party about 42 years to recently catch up with them ….
cecilia iglesias-independent for district 47
First of all Duanne,
He did’nt the Southern Watch did. I think there were something like thirty three countries involved.
In fact. The reunion is slated to bring 15,000 active members to the MGM grand next month For a charity event that guess what, raises money for injured chldren.
The fact that you compare those artifically inflated numbers to BUSH’S 1 MILLION DEAD IRAQI kids makes me realize, your answer is baked into the cake.
> The fact that you compare those artifically inflated numbers to BUSH’S 1
> MILLION DEAD IRAQI kids makes me realize, your answer is baked into
> the cake.
In essence, you’re suggesting that President William J. Clinton was a “better” mass murderer than President George W. Bush because he only killed 500,000 children whereas the latter killed 1,000,000 children.
So a serial killer who kills ten people is much better than a serial killer who kills fifteen people? By your logic, both of these serial killers are better than Clinton or Bush since they’ve slaughtered less human beings.
In respect to Clinton’s war crimes, they are very well documented. To somehow make the claim that Bush is worse is nonsense especially given many Democrats — including Clinton — backed the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Below is an exchange between CBS reporter Leslie Stahl and U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright on May 12, 1996. Understand Albright was defending the Clinton administration’s decision to impose tough economic sanctions against Iraq:
Leslie Stahl: “We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?”
Madeleine Albright: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it.”
You can see the exchange at the following link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEtdw7Z04QQ&feature=related
In reality, the Clinton administration’s economic sanctions against Iraq killed more than one million people. Those are based on estimates made by the United Nations and other reputable organizations.