When it comes to foreign policy goals, Clinton administration, Bush administration same same, the differences in execution - aside from being due to Clinton's being more knowledgeable and better prepared - are mainly a result of the fact that the latter was not burdened by a domestic agenda of «starving the beast» and rolling the country back to before 1913 and the XVIth Amendment) spin.
So, Clinton was more knowledgable and better prepared about foreign policy?
That is, of course, your opinion unsupported by facts. Clinton's ineffective pin prick strike against Al Qaeda's Tora Bora Afghanistan stronghold in 1998 was perhaps an example of this superior foreign policy knowledge?
His softness towards the dictator of that island workers paradise, Commuist Cuba, is maybe another example of his foreign policy knowledge?
Forgive me Henry, but I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this "rolling the country back to before 1913 and the 16th Amendment'. Are you referring to Bush's reduction of income taxes? If so don't you think that you might be exagerating a little? Bush has done nothing to abrogate the 16th Amendment. Rather it is an attempt, ineffective though it may be in the long run, to reduce years of "pork barrel" spending by previous Administrations and Congresses.
The term "crucifixion" as used in my post is, of course figurative. Though Ms. Miller may have received a generous severance pay, she WAS fired, and the left leaning media in the United States spent a lot ink and air time painting her as a shill for the Bush Administration as you have done.
Since I know that you are very intelligent and are able to see my intent in highlighting the NYT's application of opposite approaches involving the same set of facts to the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration, I can only conclude that you are being disingenuous. My post clearly points out the hypocrisy of the NYT.
And it is interesting that you claim that the problem with the NYT is that it has far too many Judith Millers. It causes me to wonder why you have so much faith in the credibility of the "Gray Lady".
I hadn't heard about Iran's "opening an oil bourse denominated in Euros". That is interesting. Maybe Iran's hostage taking leader realizes, as many do, that there is a great future for Islam in Europe. I have heard it predicted that within 50 years Europe will become another Muslim State ruled by a Muslim theocracy. Perhaps you would care to research the population growth statistics of indiginous Europeans as opposed to the stats regarding the emmigration of Muslims from North Africa to Europe. You might enjoy this
article, Henri. Though it is only opinion, it contains some interesting stuff about Europe's future and the future of the West in general.
Or it could mean that Iran's current leadership, in light of the weak economies of some EU countries, is taking one
h e l l of a risk merely to slap the U.S. in the face.
Here's an excerpt from another
article you might find interesting.
…it’s hardly a surprise that the EU is teaching propaganda to young children. The trouble is that ultimately, reality always smacks wishful thinking in the face. We don’t know when and how the European project, in its current dictatorial form, will come to grief. Perhaps when Iran’s nuclear weapons are within range of Paris and Berlin, and Europe suddenly discovers why it likes America again. Or perhaps, as Mark Steyn believes, Europe is simply on its way out, as native population grow older without having children, and unassimilated immigrants take over.
Again, it is merely an editorial, but does make some interesting points, don't you think?
Not to worry - when push comes to shove, even though there may be quibbles about execution, newspapers like the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, and the LA Times will always be there, rooting for the good guys (even if a few OpEd columnists may complain about such minor matters as illegalities and the US Constitution - which King George has informed us is just a piece of paper) !…
You must be referring to the "wire" tapping of international cell phone calls made by suspected Al Qaeda terrorists. Most of the pulications you list have failed to mention, I believe, that the adminsitrations of Bill Clinton, George Bush Senior, Ronald Reagon and Jimmy Carter did the same or similar things. And they probably failed to mention Abraham Lincoln's suspension during the U.S. Civil War of the right of Habeus Corpus guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. On one occasion America's greatest president ignored an order from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. I may have missed it, but I don't think any of the leftist media sources have mentioned Lincoln's suspension of Constitutional rights in the face of the exigent circumstances of the Civil War. If, as I believe, they have ignored it, and you would probably know this, then it is another example of their dishonest reporting. Note that I consider dishonest those journalists who claim to be objective in their reporting but ignore critical facts that do not support their agenda.
Finally, could you please tell me when "King George" (presumably you mean George W. Bush) informed us that the Constitution is just a piece of paper?
You will note that a significant majority of American citizens understand the Constitutional basis for the the interception of suspected terrorist communication and support it, despite the less than objective leftist media's attempts to convince them their rights have been violated.
For your edification here
is an in depth analysis of the Constitutionality of warrantless wiretapping. This analysis was produced by the lawyers who run "Powerlineblog.com". Their expertise in matters of the United States Constitution, I would hazard to wager Henri, is at least equal to your own.