________________________________________________________________________________ ======================================[from: Stefan Wray ]== CLINTON'S WET DREAM IS OVER by Stefan Wray June 9, 1999 Clinton's wet dream is over. Now we have "peace." The U.S. directed war on Yugoslavia successfully drew media and public attention away from Clinton's dick and Monica Lewinsky's mouth. Five months ago the press and Congress were hot with talk of presidential impeachment. Now this talk is dead. Nothing like a little war to create a distraction. But are U.S. leaders so cunning they would orchestrate a war to divert public attention from the ignoble acts of presidents? This is what some people thought when the U.S. bombed Iraq at the end of December and this is what some people thought at the onset of the NATO actions against Yugoslavia. Now, we hear no more talk about Clinton's sexual adventures, nor do we hear anymore conjectures about how his military adventures conveniently served to dull the interest in his perjury before Congress. But whether by design or not, the fact remains that Clinton, as the bombs stop falling on Serbia, has few people noticeably concerned about his previous misdeeds. Clinton may have to contend with the wrath of generals who all along thought his military strategy was ridiculous and doomed to failure. He may have to deal with continued disgruntlement from some Republicans in Congress who all along thought the U.S. should have never been engaging in this latest global police action. But in the end, receiving criticism from generals and lawmakers over flawed military strategy is a better position to be in, than being hounded by House judiciary committee members over charges of lying to Congress and having to apologize before a national television audience over his sexual transgressions in the White House. And again, whether by design or by accident, it does not matter. Five months ago Clinton was in trouble. Now, he may not necessarily be out of trouble, but the kind of trouble he may be in is much more becoming of a president. Historians, of course, will not forget Monicagate, and once this Yugoslav episode fades in the minds of most Americans - as it surely will in the not too distant future - perhaps remnants or re-inventions of Monicagate will resurface. Or not. Maybe the bombing campaign has wiped out any interest in Clinton's domestic escapades. So how much did this intended or unintended public relations job cost? And who ultimately pays? There is probably not yet a definitive total. We have the cost of the entire NATO military operation, for which the U.S. - i.e. the U.S. taxpayers - have paid the lion's share. We have the cost of damage inflicted upon Yugoslavia. CNN reports this evening that just replacing door and window frames will cost $10 million dollars. Who pays for this is unclear. Total costs must run in the billions of dollars. What do we - the U.S. public - get out of this? We were able to observe superficial news coverage on network and cable television programs that glorified the campaign and offered little in the way of considered criticism. We were able to watch so-called government leaders reiterate over and over again the rationale for the bombing campaign. And from time-to-time we saw some of the effects of the war with glimpses of Yugoslav or international television. But this war wasn't for the American people. Or rather, the American people had little to lose or gain in this war. There was never any threat to American lives. Parents of soldiers had little to fear. There were no American casualties due to battle. At most there was mild paranoia on the part of relatives of soldiers or pilots. No body bags came home. The worst thing was the capture of three - a mere three - U.S. soldiers along the Yugoslav border. Big deal. Yet when was there a war or military action in which the American people really had something to gain or lose? The Civil War? Normally the American people do not start wars, carry out wars, or finish wars. And it's been quite a long time since the U.S. was actually attacked. For Americans war exists on television and in film. Admittedly, despite the losses incurred from the military operations, there must have been some economic gain. The U.S.-NATO war proves that the U.S. is still willing to act as a global police force. This is important. War is good for the economy. And the economy must be protected. But who really gains? Who was this war for? Why did it occur? Was it by design? Did it simply just happen? Clearly it had something to do with the consolidation of power and the realignment of political blocs. Probably NATO comes out ahead. But then on the other hand with Russia more willing to talk with China and India, that's bad news for the alliance. But then again, it seems NATO has now demonstrated a new face - one willing to take military action. But getting back to the original point raised. Clinton, he comes out relatively unscathed. Yes, he ran into some roadblocks and hurdles, but he certainly comes out of this more elegantly than he did from the Monicagate debacle. Returning to the question of whether the U.S. instigation of the NATO air campaign on Yugoslavia was in some way a ploy to distract public attention off Clinton's poor image, it is not inconceivable, as government's are apt to do what they need to do in order to maintain themselves, but it is probably impossible to prove. And it may not matter. But the fact remains, that Clinton is in better shape in the public's eye and that the war in Yugoslavia was certainly a distraction from domestic issues that plagued him. So if there are any winners, Clinton is probably one. ================================================================================ ================================================[from: dominique@hushmail.com]== >Clinton's wet dream is over. Now we have "peace." The U.S. directed war >on >Yugoslavia successfully drew media and public attention away from Clinton's >dick and Monica Lewinsky's mouth. Yes! It is time we get back to such important issues as these...we need to return to talk of Mr.Clintons sex life! What do you think he is doing RIGHT NOW? > Five months ago the press and Congress >were hot with talk of presidential impeachment. Now this talk is dead. Three months ago the vote went through not to impeach him. Funny how after the decision was made, no one talked about making the decision anymore. In moderate circles, this is called "moving on." >Nothing like a little war to create a distraction. Or a little posturing to create a conservative argument.... >But are U.S. leaders so cunning they would orchestrate a war to divert >public attention from the ignoble acts of presidents? This is what some >people thought when the U.S. bombed Iraq at the end of December and this >is what some people thought at the onset of the NATO actions against >Yugoslavia. Frankly, mass graves and ethnic cleansing may have had something to do with it. Certainly, NATO did not act in an exemplary manner...but would england send in troops to divert attention from Clintons Dick? Are He and Blair frat brothers? >Now, we hear no more talk about Clinton's sexual adventures, If thats what you need, here: www.freeporn.com >nor do we hear >anymore conjectures about how his military adventures conveniently served >to dull the interest in his perjury before Congress. Again, the issue was settled. It was out of the courts. To create a diversion would be to create a diversion from a Clinton victory. You conservatives try so hard sometimes, its kind of endearing. But whether by design >or not, the fact remains that Clinton, as the bombs stop falling on Serbia, >has few people noticeably concerned about his previous misdeeds. Yes...and more are concerned with the NATO action against yugoslavia. But perhaps hearing "oral sex" in the news every day is more important? >But in the end, receiving criticism from generals and lawmakers over flawed >military strategy is a better position to be in, than being hounded by >House judiciary committee members over charges of lying to Congress and >having to apologize before a national television audience over his sexual >transgressions in the White House. Did you notice that he already made the apology? No one is asking for another. He was also not impeached..the trial is over. >Maybe the bombing campaign has wiped >out >any interest in Clinton's domestic escapades. I find it far more important to protest Clintons wanton bomb dropping tactics than to continue to demand we discuss a single blow job in a white house bathroom. I fear NATOs domination of europe, I fear the USA as a kingmaker, I fear the deaths of civilians. I do not fear a dick in a mouth. >What do we - the U.S. public - get out of this? We were able to observe >superficial news coverage on network and cable television programs that >glorified the campaign and offered little in the way of considered >criticism. I agree here. Now you are discussing the important issue... there was certainly not enough criticism on television, which does not surprise me- television loves war. But look at peoples conversations, and you will see heaping criticism. NPR...the internet...REAL people- not the newsmakers-are being critics.That is far more important. >Admittedly, despite the losses incurred from the military operations, there >must have been some economic gain. The U.S.-NATO war proves that the U.S. >is still willing to act as a global police force. This is important. War >is >good for the economy. And the economy must be protected. A stunningly new and inventive idea. I am not sure I can see the relevance of this text. What is your point, aside from a rather unoriginal conservative attack on Clinton? I despise the man, but for far more concrete reasons than what I think was an ADMIRABLE perjury over a question he should not have been asked. What matters is a man far more concerned with how History will look at him, rather than how to look at history. That is the frightening charectoristic, and if the typical conservative wasn't god-fearing exploiter of the stupid, they could construct a very relevant argument against Clinton- unfortunately, the idiotic puritan heritage boils in the loins, and for want of ejaculation, (for which they are so bothered concerning Clintons) they will spew hellfire and brimstone, leaving americans to the pearl necklace of conformity and hate disguised as altruism and love of "values." >But who really gains? Who was this war for? Why did it occur? Was it by >design? Did it simply just happen? Clearly it had something to do with the >consolidation of power and the realignment of political blocs. Probably >NATO comes out ahead. But then on the other hand with Russia more willing >to talk with China and India, that's bad news for the alliance. But then >again, it seems NATO has now demonstrated a new face - one willing to take >military action. NATO is attempting to undermine UN policy makers. The USA...the strength of the NATO alliance...has a vested interest in maintaining its political superpower status. It is as simple as that, though not as simple as Clinton- a figurehead- it is a matter of those in power (the USA, not democrats or republicans) wish to remain there. Particularly facing the alliance of the euro. NATO is Americas foot in the door.... any president from any party would wish to maintain that power. Certain men may take it to different extremes- Clinton took it much too far. >But getting back to the original point raised. Clinton, he comes out >relatively unscathed. Yes, he ran into some roadblocks and hurdles, but >he >certainly comes out of this more elegantly than he did from the Monicagate >debacle. No one cared when it was going on! The only interest was in smug televangelists and republican mainstays. > >Returning to the question of whether the U.S. instigation of the NATO air >campaign on Yugoslavia was in some way a ploy to distract public attention >off Clinton's poor image, it is not inconceivable, as government's are apt >to do what they need to do in order to maintain themselves, but it is >probably impossible to prove. And it may not matter. But the fact remains, >that Clinton is in better shape in the public's eye and that the war in >Yugoslavia was certainly a distraction from domestic issues that plagued >him. So if there are any winners, Clinton is probably one. I would like to see you backup any of your claims. ================================================================================ ===================================================[from: porculus@wanadoo.fr]== > Yes! It is time we get back to such important issues as these...we need to return to > talk of Mr.Clintons sex life! What do you think he is doing RIGHT NOW? my opinion is really the usans are lucky to be in the biggest democratie and having blow job by the proxy delegation of democratic power of its representatives, cause not even in their panz couldnt be concealed. at each time i ask to an usan male or female if is it good, i have no reponse or an haughly silent one. i am jalous. yes i am jalous cause here in europe (except for these so old britain democratic subjects perhaps) in our so monarchic contries when a president aka a king, a monarch, fucks a sheepherdess (cause it could be happen sometimes) it's -absolutely- not possible for us, the vilains, the paesants, to have some sexual pleasure by way of political retrocession, nothing of her sideway look above her cheeks, nothing of the twisted of her heaves nothing of his lecherous words, nothing for the people, nothing, all for her, all for him, all for them, nothing for us. it's disgusting. so i believe we have right to copy the usa till in increasing europa military investment, especialy in hightech technologie, especialy in data acquisition system for the very outpost soldiers, yeah when our fucking soldiers will burn the hair of ass of a witch with flamethrower and will bake her brain with microwaves arm i hope it would be direct send to our tv, you know those images whose pentagon censors, in judging them quite private, only for the dirigeants : here are what He is doing righ now for being sure america could make the best way than all the others over the world next time. here are the invisible hand of the adam smith's sister in a as free market as large is the pants of a zouave, here are the public investment for dumping R&D, here are public investment for all usan caution banking and for saying again hahaha to fmi for the half debt of the world, here are what europa will have to copy for having a good euro change and for politicaly existed in the futur, here are the real results of election here : to increase the already 2/3 of usan investment in military equipment: to coordinate military effort in europe cause it is question of dobloons and to achieve a threshold effect for getting back the economical and political benefit : you know what it misses to euro for having good change, some laser bomb collateral caution, then be sure we could share the blow job of our president ================================================================================ # distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission # is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@desk.nl and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner@desk.nl ________________________________________________________________________________ no copyright 1999 rolux.org - no commercial use without permission. is a moderated mailing list for the advancement of minor criticism. more information: mail to: majordomo@rolux.org, subject line: , message body: info. further questions: mail to: rolux-owner@rolux.org. archive: http://www.rolux.org