Summit of the Americas: Then and Now
2005 Summit of the Americas in Argentina:
Thousands of demonstrators flooded the streets of this seaside resort Friday chanting “Get out Bush” as the U.S. president sought to promote free trade at a divided Summit of the Americas. Protests turned violent with about 1,000 people shattering shopfronts with clubs and pelting riot police with stones. … Demonstrators took to the streets hours before the summit started, shouting insults about Bush and chanting “Fascist Bush! You are the terrorist!” [AP, 11/4/05]
1998 Summit of the Americas in Chile:
At one point, Clinton walked in hazy sunshine down Gran Avenida, a busy commercial street lined with thousands of people, including schoolchildren in blue and white uniforms, many of them chanting “Clinton, Clinton.” A few bystanders chanted “Kennedy,” apparently in reference to the popular former U.S. president. [CNN, 4/16/98]
To be fair, there were also protesters when Clinton arrived in Chile, but we have yet to witness any indication that there is any popular support for President Bush in Argentina. Wonder why that might be.
Go go gadget Bush!
What a dumb ass. Even with all this unrest, he sat way back in his chair smirking. With his idiotic laugh. Good lord, I cringe thinking about him.
November 4th, 2005 at 7:11 pmIts (tragically) amazing that it only took Bush 5 years to completely destroy our reputation in the world. But then again, its a lot easier to destroy something than to build it. :(
November 4th, 2005 at 7:12 pmAnd that is why we have to truly unite and regain what we’ve lost.
November 4th, 2005 at 7:29 pmas a part-time buenos aires resident, i can tell you why… they think bush is a loose cannon… they think he’s a murdering cowboy… they think he has no idea what real people think and feel or what they have to go through to make ends meet… they think he wants to tell other countries what to do all the time but doesn’t want to listen to anyone… they think he’s insincere and arrogant… they think that everything he does is suspect… these people are extremely good at spotting phonies and they’ve got bush pegged… clinton radiated warmth… bush radiates a sneer…
as per anywhere, the best possible source of local information are the cabbies… i almost never fail to engage a taxi driver in conversation… once the ice has been broken and we’ve chatted about this and that, the question is invariably asked - “what do you think of booo-sh…?” i’ve had the same question asked throughout europe, greece and the balkans, mexico and south america… once they see that i’m not going to preach to them, the dam breaks and out pours all the feelings about george… not invective, mind you… surprisingly intelligent, well-informed views… anybody who discounts the intelligence and insights of our non-u.s. brethern is in for quite a surprise…
the zogby poll published the other day on latin american views of the u.s. is quite enlightening…
http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/ 2005/ 11/ summit-of-americas-what-bush-is-flying.html
November 4th, 2005 at 7:33 pmThank god these people are willing to stand up to the scumbag Bush. They will aid the effort in waking Americans out of their Bush-induced coma. Keep it coming.
November 4th, 2005 at 7:33 pmIn my travels it’s comforting to hear foreigners say that they don’t dislike the American people (although they do wonder what the hell is wrong with us), only our president.
November 4th, 2005 at 7:36 pmDavid Brooks has gone mad.
November 4th, 2005 at 7:38 pmprofmarcus, my brother visits Europe extensively. He feels he must tell people up front that he is not a Bushie supporter in order to protect himself from taunts.
Folks in Europe tell him repeatedly that they do not hate Americans but feel that Americans are stupid for allowing Bushie to live in the White House.
My brother says that Europeans see us as a joke and no longer consider us a super power.
Our reputation around the world is pathetic.
November 4th, 2005 at 7:39 pmI think this comparison says it all - and as #2 put it, it doesn’t take much to destroy a reputation and America’s reputation abroad is horrible. But, when you have a “Bring ‘em on” “cowboy” like Bush, that’s what happens. The problem is, why did half of America vote this bozo back into office? Even my dad - a longtime Republican didn’t vote for him.
November 4th, 2005 at 7:39 pmJust read about the “unrest” and the eerie calm that has since taken the streets down there….
God, he’s got the whole world angry at us…
November 4th, 2005 at 7:40 pm#9, “…why did half of America vote this bozo back into office?”
Simple, because they’re “wackos”
http://thinkprogress.org/ 2005/ 11/ 03/ delayabramoff-partner-michael-scanlon/
November 4th, 2005 at 7:48 pmVery Perceptive, those Argentinians. Viva Eva!
November 4th, 2005 at 7:50 pm#9
Half of the American voters did not vote the Bozo in. All of the crooked voting machines and Repug Election Officials snuck him by.
November 4th, 2005 at 7:55 pmThe Argentinians have this sucker down pat but I hate to see them destroy a beautiful city. Looks like he’s as popular there as he is in my household.
November 4th, 2005 at 7:56 pm2000 and counting and everyone was better than Bush.
Bush is an embarrassment to the human race. He’s an advertisement for why mothers should not drink excessively during pregnancy! If GH hadn’t been such a manwhore, maybe babs wouldn’t have been such a drunk, and the world would have been a better place.
November 4th, 2005 at 8:02 pmNice job on the comparison.
November 4th, 2005 at 8:26 pmBush has brought unprecedented levels of animus toward the US and himself in particular.
Although, I’m really not enamored of the destruction of property and other dangerous antics of these people.
As for their feelings toward Bush, I’m pretty much with them. But I take no joy in watching them riot.
New on EWM: Kevin Bacon to play Libby in upcoming “Six Degrees of Scooterâ€
It’s ‘Dumb and Dumber’ meets ‘All the President’s Men.’
November 4th, 2005 at 8:28 pmThe amazing thing is some right-wing wackos will think that this is a good thing. “Why should we listen to the rest of the world? We the best, and most holy…”
November 4th, 2005 at 8:39 pmI think the contrast of those two pictures pretty well says it all.
November 4th, 2005 at 8:53 pmFor sure Leatherneck, notice how Bushie can’t even enjoy America’s favorite past time, baseball? Let alone walk down a street doing some hand slapping.
I got real satisfaction while watching the World Series and not seeing Bushie. You know it killed him inside not to be able to be there.
Thats what he gets when he takes on a pattern of hand selected audiences.
November 4th, 2005 at 8:59 pmCheer up George. Even people like you serve a valuable purpose in life. In your case, You can always serve as a bad example.
November 4th, 2005 at 9:00 pmIt’s interesting how different Chile is from Argentina. What’s up with that? Or as Bill Maher mockingly says: “They hate us for our freedom”. By the way, how come we don’t fill our streets in protest? Used to be we’d all flock to DC and hang out on the Mall yelling “No war!” Now we just blog and send money to Moveon . . . .
November 4th, 2005 at 9:21 pmsnarky
November 4th, 2005 at 9:24 pmBill Clinton is no better than George Bush. He just put a smiley face on brutal imperialism.
November 4th, 2005 at 9:27 pmWhat does burning stores and destruction of property have to do with ‘hating Bush’….the President will be on a plane tomorrow and those shop owners will be without a living for weeks and months to come. Those were criminal acts not protesting.
richb
November 4th, 2005 at 9:28 pmBill Clinton was MUCH better, only an idiot or a republican (I know that was redundant) would actually believe otherwise.
November 4th, 2005 at 9:32 pmHey, the Debtonator aka fuzzynutz has folks writing parody’s about him.
Join the fun at http://www.hipforums.com/ forums/ showthread.php?p=1899702#post1899702
November 4th, 2005 at 9:32 pmRichb
November 4th, 2005 at 9:34 pmYou seem to be an expert on criminal acts. Sometimes it takes a fire to get people’s attention. DOn’t you agree.
RichB,
I’ve noticed that rightwing fascists like you always use any taint of violence do ‘dismiss’ protests. Stop being such a delusional putz and realize that we’ve pissed of a LOT of the world, and that often erupts into violence out of frustration that those people feel. It doesn’t justify violence, but the presence of violence doesn’t justify your ignorance and stupid response. What a wanker!
November 4th, 2005 at 9:34 pmRyan Neat
November 4th, 2005 at 9:34 pmOnly an idiot or a Republican would say what you said.
Che,
Funny how you sound like a republican while claiming to be a liberal. It’s called a ’sympathy troll’, and it usually reflects republican stupidity and stereotypes at its worse. You clearly reflect that stupidity, and therefore are a republican and stupid.
November 4th, 2005 at 9:41 pmRyan Neat
Your full of it. Typical maneuver. YOu attack me. I rebut, so you call me a troll. I just expressed an opinion that you don’t like. Namely that Clinton sucks. He’s an imperialist just like BUsh. SO go get stuffed. YOu and the rest of the Democratic party that sold us out can get stuffed.
And if your only defense against the trust of your culpability is to label your critics from the left as being trolls and right-wingers, you have no future.
November 4th, 2005 at 9:43 pmChe,
You’re wrong. Prove your premise. You are posting an ‘opinion’, and not facts - that’s classic republicanism.
November 4th, 2005 at 9:44 pm“truth of your culpability”
November 4th, 2005 at 9:44 pmRyan Neat
November 4th, 2005 at 9:45 pmANd yours are not opinions? You are a joke.
Ryan
November 4th, 2005 at 9:45 pmYou are the fascist. YOur brain is seeped in fascism you can’t even see it.
I criticize people for their actions, you confuse an adjective with a ‘label’. You are acting like a republican, stop acting like one, and I’ll stop accusing you of acting like one.
Explain why Clinton was worse. If it’s just your opinion, then you’re acting like a republican troll. Since I KNOW you can’t prove it, then I know you’re either a republican fool, or just a fool.
November 4th, 2005 at 9:45 pmYou’re a fool who doesn’t even know what fascism is.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/ wikipedia/ en/ thumb/ b/ bb/ Ancap_chart.JPG/ 400px-Ancap_chart.JPG
November 4th, 2005 at 9:46 pmChe,
No, I judge based on FACTS, since you can’t present any, then you are posting opinions. You say he’s as bad, prove it. If you can’t prove it, then your present an ‘opinion’ that simply is rebutted by the fact you can’t prove it.
November 4th, 2005 at 9:47 pmProve that CLinton is an imperialis - ok let’s do that
On September 20, the Bush administration published a national security manifesto overturning the established order. Not because it commits the United States to global intervention: We’ve been there before. Not because it targets terrorism and rogue states: Nothing new there either. No, what’s new in this document is that it makes a long-building imperial tendency explicit and permanent. The policy paper, titled “The National Security Strategy of the United States of America” — call it the Bush doctrine — is a romantic justification for easy recourse to war whenever and wherever an American president chooses.
November 4th, 2005 at 9:47 pmhttp://www.motherjones.com/ commentary/ columns/ 2003/ 01/ ma_205_01.html
`
Ryan, ” often erupts into violence out of frustration that those people feel”….
It’s only okay when they (chickenhawks) are frustrated and erupt into violence (war)(torture).
November 4th, 2005 at 9:48 pmYou claim to make a point about Clinton, yet your quote is something that’s done by Bush? You’re a retard.
November 4th, 2005 at 9:49 pmWho let the retards out?
November 4th, 2005 at 9:50 pmUnder the Clinton model, the United States ruled the world — but it did so in a carefully masked way that produced high degrees of acquiescence among the dominated nations.
November 4th, 2005 at 9:50 pmhttp://www.theglobalist.com/ DBWeb/ StoryId.aspx?StoryId=3856
Demonstrators took to the streets hours before the summit started, shouting insults about Bush and chanting “Fascist Bush! You are the terrorist!†[AP, 11/4/05]
They nailed the b*****trd didn’t they:) the reason he does that smirk he think he is going to Control The World much like other dicators did…..noticed how fat he was around the gut and upper body,the jerk off is scared shytless so he has to wear protection hee heee…….
November 4th, 2005 at 9:51 pmWhat do you mean ‘under the clinton model’?
You keep bringing up generalities and ‘opinions’ and treat them as facts. You aren’t presenting facts, you’re presenting anecdotal opinions and prejudices. You’re a hack and a fool.
November 4th, 2005 at 9:52 pmThe launching of US air and missile attacks on Iraq is a measure both of the desperation of the Clinton administration and of the criminal recklessness and bellicosity of American imperialism. Thousands of Iraqi lives are to be sacrificed, for the short-term goal of preserving Clinton’s presidency, and for the long-term goal of maintaining US dominance in the oil-rich Middle East.
The timing of the attack, on the eve of the impeachment debate and vote in the House of Representatives, is clearly bound up with the political crisis of the Clinton White House. As he has throughout this political crisis, at every point when his presidency has been threatened, Clinton has sought to appease his right-wing opponents with the threat or use of military force.
In February, after the eruption of the Lewinsky affair, amid a media barrage aimed at forcing his resignation, Clinton seized on a conflict with Iraq over the activity of United Nations weapons inspectors to go to the brink of military action. In August, only three days after his testimony before the grand jury convened by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, Clinton launched cruise missile strikes on Sudan and Afghanistan.
http://www.wsws.org/ news/ 1998/ dec1998/ iraq-d17.shtml
November 4th, 2005 at 9:52 pmSaying “there will be no sanctuary for terrorists,” President Clinton on Thursday said the U.S. strikes against terrorist bases in Afghanistan and a facility in Sudan are part of “a long, ongoing struggle between freedom and fanaticism.”
November 4th, 2005 at 9:54 pmhttp://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.01/
Che,
You post these UN APPROVED air attacks as proof of Clinton being ‘no better’. The fact he did this at the request and cooperation with the UN PROVES CLINTON IS BETTER, and completely undermines your childish and idiotic argument.
You’re a child and a moron.
November 4th, 2005 at 9:55 pmWhen asked on US television if she [Madeline Albright, US Secretary of State] thought that the death of half a million Iraqi children [from sanctions in Iraq] was a price worth paying, Albright replied: “This is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it.â€
November 4th, 2005 at 9:56 pmhttp://www.globalissues.org/ Geopolitics/ MiddleEast/ Iraq/ Sanctions.asp
#45 thot’s, Bushie does look fat and haggard doesn’t he….
His hair is completely gray and he has deep drunk lines in his face.
Not being able to cheer on the Houston Astro’s at the World Series really got to him. He can no longer enjoy the freedoms that we enjoy.
I love this country!
November 4th, 2005 at 9:56 pm… many say that, although president Bush led this invasion, that president Clinton laid the groundwork with the sanctions and with the previous bombing of Iraq. You were president Clinton’s U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations…. the U.N. sanctions, for example … led to the deaths of more than a half a million children, not to mention more than a million Iraqis.
November 4th, 2005 at 9:57 pmAmy Goodman
http://www.globalissues.org/ Geopolitics/ MiddleEast/ Iraq/ Sanctions.asp
Che,
A hand full of measured responses proves Clinton is BETTER than Bush. You’re a FOOL.
November 4th, 2005 at 9:58 pmThe International Committee of the Red Cross warned in a report in December 1999 that the oil-for-food program “has not halted the collapse of the health system and the deterioration of water supplies, which together pose one of the gravest threats to the health and well-being of the civilian population.†Seventy members of Congress sent a letter to President Clinton in early 2000 denouncing the sanctions as “infanticide masquerading as policy.â€
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0402c.asp
November 4th, 2005 at 9:59 pmA group of United States congressmen - both Democrats and Republicans - are putting pressure on the Clinton administration over its support of the United Nations economic sanctions against Iraq.
The group’s spokesman, David Bonior, a Democrat for Michigan, has described the sanctions as “infanticide masquerading as policy”.
November 4th, 2005 at 9:59 pmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/ 1/ hi/ world/ middle_east/ 646783.stm
The Iraq sanctions were done by Bush I, or had you forgotten that in your effort to be a republican propagandist?
November 4th, 2005 at 9:59 pmMeanwhile, two top Clinton officials wrote an op-ed in the archconservative Wall Street Journal claiming Democrats “need to embrace certain Republican policies…One early test will be the vote…the Central American Free Trade Agreement - an agreement that Democrats should support.” This, despite overwhelming opposition to CAFTA from rural America, labor, and consumer groups. They then claim that doing so will help Democrats’ electoral prospects: “If the Democratic Party wants to regain the White House and control of Congress, it has to take pro-growth, pro-jobs positions on key issues, including trade agreements.”
November 4th, 2005 at 10:02 pmhttp://www.davidsirota.com/ 2005/ 04/ growing-revolt-on-trade.html
http://www.fpif.org
Free Trade Area of the Americas
Volume 6, Number 12
April 2001
By Karen Hansen-Kuhn, The Development GAP
Editors: Tom Barry (IRC) and Martha Honey (IPS)
12ifftaa.pdf
Key Points
President Bush seeks to fulfill his father’s dream of creating a free trade zone of the Americas, and the timetable may be accelerated to complete negotiations by 2003.
The economic crisis in Mexico and sustained citizens’ protests have dampened enthusiasm among the general public, but not among major corporations in the United States, for the extension of free trade agreements throughout the hemisphere.
Nine negotiating groups have been working to complete a draft agreement to implement the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).
As leaders of 34 Western Hemisphere countries gather in Quebec City, Canada in April 2001, President George W. Bush hopes that the third Summit of the Americas will mark a step toward fulfilling his father’s dream of creating a free trade area stretching from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego. For a variety of reasons, this goal seems increasingly out of reach.
When, at the first Summit of the Americas in Miami in December 1994, President Bill Clinton proposed establishing a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) linking all of the hemisphere’s economies (except Cuba’s) by the year 2005, he held out Mexico as the model of economic reform and NAFTA as the model trade agreement. Just ten days later, however, the Mexican peso experienced a massive devaluation. Stunned observers watched as billions of foreign investment dollars flowed out of the country. That, coupled with the austerity and adjustment conditions attached to the bailout package financed by the U.S. Treasury and the International Monetary Fund (IMF)—particularly the requirement that interest rates be maintained at very high levels—led to further devaluation and sent the Mexican economy into a deep depression.
The effects of the crisis reverberated well beyond Mexico. Subsequent financial crises in East Asia, Russia, Brazil, and elsewhere rocked stock markets and shook confidence in the free trade model of globalization. The failure of the 1999 WTO Ministerial meeting in Seattle and the emergence of intense citizen protests there and subsequently at other official meetings related to globalization have further increased uncertainties.
The economic crises and public discontent have dampened congressional enthusiasm for free trade agreements, as demonstrated by the defeat of the Clinton administration’s request for fast-track authority in 1998. Since then, further efforts to introduce fast track—or, as Bush’s Trade Representative Robert Zoellick calls it, “trade promotion authorityâ€â€”have stalemated, with a bloc of congressional Democrats insisting that any agreement must include labor and environmental standards and Republicans vowing to block any accord that includes a linkage.
http://www.developmentgap.org/focustr.html
November 4th, 2005 at 10:03 pmAh, here we go, more republican propaganda…
Che, you’re such a partisan hack. If you want to criticize Clinton for continuing the policy that BushI started, and that the pentagon and CIA believed was critical for mideast stability - then you can choose to believe that.
“In 1995, a high-level Iraqi defector revealed explosive details of covert weapons development in Iraq. That put renewed pressure on Hussein, and the Russians convinced the Iraqi government to enter into negotiations. But Hussein knew that the U.S. and U.K. leadership had domestic political and public relations problems, and held his own citizens hostage until he got a deal that was flexible enough for him to manipulate.”
November 4th, 2005 at 10:04 pmOnce again you post BUSH policies.
It’s so obvious that you’re a free republic freak posing as something other than what you are. You’re such a stupid partisan hack. You can’t even stick to clinton, and they ONLY complaint you seem to have is that he continued policies that a REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT established.
YOU ARE A COMPLETE FOOL!
November 4th, 2005 at 10:06 pmThe fact is that globalization is an issue, both for potential good and potential bad. But the difference is that Clinton and progressives realize this ambiguity. Partisan hacks like you do not.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:07 pm“Not being able to cheer on the Houston Astro’s at the World Series really got to him. He can no longer enjoy the freedoms that we enjoy”.
Another thing I delight in is the fact that Delay wants a change of venue for his trial.
Houston, the largest city in Texas is scary to him.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:07 pmAnd CheHole,
The reason the republican congress didn’t want clinton to be able to negotiate the terms of the free trade agreement, is because they thought he would be TOO FAIR. Don’t be such a retard.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:12 pmChe’s obsessed Clinton, maybe an autographed photo of him would calm his nerves. Problem is, if we give in to his obsession it could escalate and he may start demanding alone time with Bill.
What do ya think? Should we pitch in for the autographed photo or should we call Bellveiw?
November 4th, 2005 at 10:12 pmNine years ago, President Clinton gathered thirty-three of his Western Hemisphere counterparts in Miami for a celebrity-studded gala, a ride aboard a billionaire’s yacht and a harmonious discussion of plans for a hemisphere-wide trade deal called the Free Trade Area of the Americas. There was nary a protester in sight.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:12 pmhttp://www.thenation.com/doc/20031201/anderson
While Bill Clinton imposed dollars520 million worth of sanctions when we disdained to buy all our bananas from a Democratic Party funder, he is threatening nearly a billion dollars’ worth as punishment for our perverse reluctance to let his beef producers poison us. Something has gone terribly wrong with the way the world is being run.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:14 pmhttp://www.monbiot.com/ archives/ 1999/ 05/ 13/ free-trade-fundamentalists/
Ryan Neat asked for facts. I’m providing the facts
November 4th, 2005 at 10:14 pmHowever, it would take a Democrat, Bill Clinton, to deliver the Bush-corporate vision.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:16 pmhttp://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/ Central_America/ CAFTA_LegacyFreeTrade,html
Euphoria peaked as Clinton savored his NAFTA triumph at the Asia-Pacific summit in Seattle, where he expounded his “grand vision for Asia,” bringing leaders together “to preach the gospel of open markets and to secure America’s foothold in the world’s fastest growing economic community.” This “may be the biggest rethinking of American policy toward Asia” since World War II, David Sanger observed. Clinton outlined the “new vision” before a “cheering throng… inside a giant airplane hangar at the Boeing Company,” “a model for companies across America” with its “booming Asian business” — and its plans for “multimillion-dollar job-creating investments outside the United States on a scale that would terrify NAFTA’s opponents.”1
November 4th, 2005 at 10:16 pmhttp://www.zmag.org/ chomsky/ articles/ loot9401-free-market.html
If you need further proof that Clinton is just as much an imperialist as Bush, I will continue.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:17 pmNeither of those items is either ‘bad’, nor is the second item what you say it is.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:18 pmNAFTA was negotiated by BushI, not Clinton.
You’re just full of disinformation and misinformation, you really should go work for the pentagon in the Iraq group.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:19 pmTake a pill Che, if you consider your obsession with Clinton as stating the facts then you are worse off than I thought.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:19 pmPlease, what you posted proves nothing. Have the stuff you posted was bush policies that were inherited. The rest was related to standard trade disputes. You’ve not shown any degree of similarities or proven anything other than you have a hysterical and irrational hatred of Clinton. Which pretty much says you’re a republican or a green party moron.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:20 pmPresident Bill Clinton’s talks on oil development and the expansion of free-trade during his present trip to South America will lead to the continued destruction of the Amazon rain forest, U.S. and Latin American environmentalists charged.
“Expanding free-trade and developing the oil projects within the Amazon — this will only bring environmentally and socially destructive multinational corporations into rain forest areas,” Shannon Wright of the San Francisco-based Rainforest Action Network (RAN) told IPS.
Clinton’s policies will allow oil and logging corporations to turn the Amazon into an environmental wasteland, she said.
The U.S. President is using his week-long South American trip to win support for establishing a hemispheric free-trade zone by 2005. He had hoped to be taking with him renewed fast-track negotiating authority to allow him to begin formal negotiations with Chile on a free-trade pact intended to get the ball rolling on expanded U.S. trade throughout Latin America. Congress, however, is still working on the details of that legislation.
http://members.aol.com/ cmwwrc/ marmamnews/ 97101603.html
November 4th, 2005 at 10:21 pmCHE(pronounced she),
November 4th, 2005 at 10:23 pmClinton GOOD Bush BAD NEXT
When he was first (s)elected in 2000, I knew he was ignorant, but he was president and I crossed my fingers that he wouldn’t be as bad as I feared. Well, crossing fingers sure as hell didn’t do a damn bit of good. This incredibly uncurious, ignorant fool has, in 5 years, destroyed America in countless ways domestically and internationally. He has traveled beyond ignorant to dangerous. People around the world hate him, and blame us for being so stupid as to elect him. He must be impeached in order to begin to restore honor and integrity.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:23 pmThe Clinton regime is concentrating on what it calls “conflict containment†in Africa. The aim is to do this through the main regional powers, Nigeria and South Africa, and this was the theme of Clinton’s visit. In the last weeks the US announced that it was training a new Nigerian armed force, increasing the number of US trainers in Nigeria from 40 to 200. This week, the first of these American military personnel arrived to train and equip five Nigerian battalions that Clinton said would be ready to enter Sierra Leone at the beginning of next year.
http://www.wsws.org/ articles/ 2000/ sep2000/ nig-s01.shtml
November 4th, 2005 at 10:23 pmSupporting free trade is not imperialistic despite your rhetoric and hysterical claim to the contrary. How those free trade policies are implement or negotiated alone can determine the possiblities.
And guess what, Clinton never secured that agreement, so you’re once again holding him responsible for something he did not do. You’re an idiot.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:24 pmI see “leftist commie pinkos” who resemble Muslim Terrorists. How long before these south american disgruntles are smugglin’ anthrax between the pages of Che’s Weekly Standard?
November 4th, 2005 at 10:25 pmRyan NEat
November 4th, 2005 at 10:25 pmYou ask for proof, you give none. I give you countless articles, you deny all of them. You are a fraud. You are a typical “liberal” and it is the likes of you that have done us in, along with Bush and the neocons.
You think you know it all. But you know nothing. You are deaf, dumb and blind, and you worship the Clintons. And they are no better, I REPEAT, NO BETTER THAN THE BUSHIES. THEY ARE THE SAME DISEASE.
Wow, so helping africa (ITSELF) to contain conflicts from getting out of hand is now imperialistic? You’re even a bigger fool than one would have believed. This is both admirable and clearly not something Bush could or would have done. Thanks for proving yourself wrong again.
All you’ve demostrated is that you don’t know squat about what you’re talking.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:25 pmRyan Neat
November 4th, 2005 at 10:26 pmFree Trade IS Imperialism
You DopE
YOu are the idiot
You didn’t give proof. That was a collection of hate mail and op-ed pieces. Half the articles weren’t even about Clinton, the rest were issues that Clinton inherited and tried to find better solution for.
You just proved you didn’t know what you’re talking about, you didn’t prove your point though.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:27 pmAND he sure plays a mean pinball.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:27 pmFree trade is not imperialism, you’re an idiot.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:27 pmWhat time is “lights out” for the retards?
November 4th, 2005 at 10:27 pmRyan Neat
You are lower than the Bushies, cause you sell people out with your nice sounding rhetoric about “helping” people. LOOK AT THE STATE OF THE WORLD. YOU THINK IT GOT THIS WAY IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS ALONE. YOU THINK CLINTON HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT?
AND YOU THINK IF HILARY IS ELECTED SHE WON’T CONTINUE THE IRAQ WAR? OR MAYBE YOU DON’T CARE. MAYBE YOU LIKE THE IRAQ WAR. IF so I WON’t even bother to respond to you.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:28 pmI’m thinking maybe Clinton isn’t
November 4th, 2005 at 10:29 pmPresident anymore.
I am also thinking that the article
shows a historical difference in public
opinion which seems to be quite stark.
All this imperial drivel is just a distraction.
Free trade is ECONOMIC TRADE. Imperialism is ECONOMIC CONTROL. These can overlap, but to say they’re the same is intellectually dishonest, ignorant and propagandist. Not to mention hysterically foolish.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:29 pmFREE TRADE IS IMPERIALISM
November 4th, 2005 at 10:29 pmChe,
I have a degree in economics, let me say this as respectfully as I can. You don’t know what the hell you’re even talking about.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:30 pmChe’s in a manic state. How long does it take for the pills to kick in?
November 4th, 2005 at 10:30 pmYou can stick your degree up your arse. You are so typical of the elite liberals. You are the scum sucking imperialist pig in sheeps clothing. You know nothing.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:30 pmChe,
I travel all of the time, i know the state of the world, do you? The fact is there are lots of world problems, but your sort of intellectual dishonesty won’t help it. Revolutionaries often know how to destroy, but without understanding what it takes to create you’re just a common thug.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:31 pmI remember that NAFTA was warned against by Ross Perot — remember “the giant sucking sound” in the debates? That was a GHWBush project.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:31 pmClinton operated with a Republican Congress (remember Newt and the boys). Bush has no one to blame for anything except himself and his cronies and appointed friends. Comparisons can’t be made between him and other presidents because, like absolute zero, it can’t get any lower.
What would Che say?
November 4th, 2005 at 10:32 pmHide Che! The imperialists are coming to get you.
Quick! Under the bed!
November 4th, 2005 at 10:32 pmRyan Neat
The fact that you have a degree in economics says it all - forget you, you are a waste.
You travel all over the world. Are you CIA?
November 4th, 2005 at 10:33 pmChe,
And you’re typical of the illiterate fools who don’t do their homework or take the time to understand the problems they appoint themselves critique experts on. You’re so typical of the ‘wanna be’ elites who won’t dedicate themselves to the task of TRULY learning their subject matter. You’re lazy, foolish and a hypocrite. Why? Because it is you who feels ‘elite’ and ‘righteous’, yet you’re too lazy to even learn about the actual subject and issues at hand.
Economics and economic systems are complex. And frankly there’s a lot wrong with globalization, but there’s a lot right with it. Fools like you can’t see that ambiguity.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:33 pmI had a friend with a Chrysler Imperial,
November 4th, 2005 at 10:33 pmdoes that count?
I don’t much care for the margarine, though.
Clinton is more peaceful. Everyone knows that.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:34 pmRyan Neat
November 4th, 2005 at 10:34 pmYou need to read
“Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” by John Perkins
It will open your mind, if you still have one
It’s the yeah but he did it too defense.
With that one you could group Bush and Santa Clause together because they both dropped presents down peoples chimneys.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:35 pmThe old Chrysler Imperials could take the “head on” at the demolition derby.
Margarine is too soft.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:35 pmFREE TRADE IS IMPERIALISM
They led off the 10:00 news with that tonight.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:36 pmCheck out RawStory.com. A new poll says 51% think impeachment is the answer.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:36 pmI don’t get the point of this academic argument as to who is worse, Clinton or Bush. Reminds me of a similar fight yesterday over whether Bush’s (dis)approval numbers were exaggerated, “the lowest in history” vs. “No, the lowest was Nixon . . .” Such bickering misses the point. Bush may not be at the absolute historical low in presidential disapproval, but he’s close and that’s indisputable. So what if Bush isn’t the worst; he’s bad, very bad. Same thing here with Clinton vs. Bush. Even if Che is right (and he is obviously dead wrong), it wouldn’t change the fact that Bush is still extremely dishonest, incompetent and at the bottom in the rankings of this country’s presidents. If we still had the independent prosecutor statute, Bush may well be behind bars by now. Or if the Democrates had a majority in the Senate, he might be impeached. Well, okay that last bit was a stretch. The Dems wouldn’t be able to get it together to do anything . . . .
November 4th, 2005 at 10:37 pmYeah, they had a lot of room between
November 4th, 2005 at 10:37 pmthe bumper and the radiator, which is
what usually got killed in demo derby.
I recall old Eldos did very well backwards.
I understand your position, Che. But in the real world, sadly, developers build subdivisions packed with huge homes with 2 cars a piece. THEN they build the roads to get back and forth from these subdivisions. Is that a Reaganomics microcosm?
November 4th, 2005 at 10:40 pmI’m with Marie, Impeachment is the answer. I demand it everyday. I’m positive I will have my demands answered.
votetoimpeach.org
write or call each and every representative and senator in your state and demand impeachment hearings. Let them know that if they do not support impeachment they will lose their jobs.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:40 pmIf anyone is damned by “Confessions Of an Economic Hitman ” it is Bush who’s father headed the CIA for years. Clinton is an outsider in regards to old money and power.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:41 pmFree trade could only be imperial if it was singlularly exploitative. For instance, if the US signed a free trade agreement with africa, then africa would almost exclusively benefit from this arrangement. This means not only would it not be ‘imperialistic’, it would actually be beneficial to africa.
However, this would hurt american farmers who consist of many heavily subsidized corporate interests. In the free trade world, the poor countries of africa would benefit with their trade with the states.
So once again, it shows your understanding of free trade is simplistic and deficient, and the fact that free trade in and of itself is not inherently imperialistic.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:44 pmSusan and Marie are the beginning of the THINK PROGRESS impeach Bush movement. If Clinton can be impeached for lying about having sex with that woman then why shouldn’t Bush be impeached for lying about Sadam having weapons of mass destruction and buying yellow cake in Niger? I join the movement, IMPEACH BUSH NOW!
November 4th, 2005 at 10:45 pmChe,
You need to read period, and not just your anti-free trade rags. This issue is more difficult and more complex than your current irrational hysteria will permit you to see.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:45 pmWhat is this WSWS.COM?
Dedicated to trotskyism they are?
I suppose that Bill Clinton is an imperialist because he thinks that his ideas will improve the system, not overthrow it.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:45 pmRyan Neat
November 4th, 2005 at 10:46 pm“I tried to comfort myself by recalling lessons learned in my macroeconomics courses at business school. After all, I told myself, I am here to help Indonesia rise out of a medieval economy and take its place in the modern industrial world. …We were promoting US foreign policy and corporate interests. We were driven by greed rather than by any desire to make life better for the vast majority of Indonesians.”
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” by John Perkins
pages 25-26
Ryan Neat
November 4th, 2005 at 10:49 pm“I also realized that my college professors had not understood the true nature of macroeconomics: that in many cases helping an economy grow only makes those few people who sit atop the pyramid even richer, while it does nothing for those at the bottom except to push them even lower.”
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” by John Perkins
page 26
Che, you’ve got to type faster. . . what’s on page 27?
November 4th, 2005 at 10:51 pmOnce again, not free trade. What you’re discussing is the exportation of corporate interests, of which Perkins and many other ‘corporate types’ do. These are corporate interests, and I have no problem with your concern about them or their power.
However, that is NOT the same thing as free trade.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:51 pmI have always been a strong supporter of George W. Bush.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:53 pmI agree with his program of tax cuts for the well to do because they are justified.
I supported him because those damn Iraqis had something to do with 9-11, I just know it.
I even liked his nomination o f Harriet Miers to the supreme court and I like this Alito pick even more.
This will probably be my last post because I’ll no longer have a computer.
They are releasing me from the asylum tomorrow.
John Perkins was secretly CIA ,recruited out of college into the Peace Corps in order to get inside views of other countries, later becoming a “hit man”. The intelligence community and international banking system control the economic hitman. Clinton was a local politician from humble beginings risen all the way to President, with little contol over and connection to this sort of economic terrorism.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:53 pmmama,
Che’s just copying and pasting. He’s convinced he’s right, so he has his list of quick copy/paste info items.
Actually John is right about the wealth gap, but this is more of a function of countries not implementing sound taxation policies than it is anything.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:53 pmRyan Neat
November 4th, 2005 at 10:55 pm“Taken cumulatively, the integration of the world as a whole, particularly in terms of economic globalization and the mythig qualities of “free market” capitalism represents a veritable “empire” in its own right…”
American Leader or Global Empire by Jim Garrison, as quoted in Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, page 170
Nix,
John Perkins was part of the group they call “CapitalismsInvisibleArmy”, which is both a secret and frankly uncontrolled entity with corporate ties. They’re slime, and they’re part of the same republican rightwing aholes that overthrew basically every democracy in latin america. Che, if you think this group is under the control of a democratic president, you’re sniffing glue.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:55 pmRyan Neat
November 4th, 2005 at 10:56 pmSo you sit there first condemning me because I offered no supporting documents. Then you condemn me when I do. But you offer nothing. I guess this case is closed. YOu are a fraud. And you are a waste of my time.
Ryan Neat
November 4th, 2005 at 10:58 pmYou are slime. and your name should be mud on this blog after what you’ve revealed here. you’re complete ignorance of anythign other than your own opinions. YOur inability to support your opinions except with attacks. and your reduction of anyone who disagrees with you to slime. You definitely are slime.
“and they’re part of the same republican rightwing aholes that overthrew basically every democracy in latin america…”
Oh, like United Fruit, whose attorney was the brother of the director of the CIA under Eisenhower and who’se bankers had ties to Prescott Bush?
November 4th, 2005 at 11:00 pmYou’re mixing your metaphors again. Free market capitalism doesn’t mean zero taxation, and this is completely separate from free trade. You have just enough knowledge to be dangerous, but sadly not enough to be useful.
November 4th, 2005 at 11:01 pmHey guys since I’m leaving the asylum we’ve got room now. Che, looks like you need a break.
November 4th, 2005 at 11:02 pmPeople do seem to like Clinton, don’t they?
November 4th, 2005 at 11:02 pmHe gives good speeches too.
People don’t seem to like FUBAR Bush.
He really doesn’t seem very nice.
Kind of a elitist sneer, if you ask me,
but I never really liked people like
him. I must be too low class or something.
That’s because the documents you presented did not support your hypothesis.
November 4th, 2005 at 11:02 pmRyan Neat
November 4th, 2005 at 11:04 pmMy guess is you are probably CIA, or you are tangentially CIA, like William F. Buckley. He admitted in an op ed piece in his National Review this week that when he was CIA in the 50s he worked to undermine the Mexican government. He admitted it as an aside in his confused and tortured ramble about the Plame outing. It meant nothing to him. It was just a job, undermining another country’s government.
Che,
Much of what you presented was BushI or BushII and UN policies, including the situation in Iraq. You put the whole free trade fiasco on Clinton, yet he didn’t sign the agreements you criticized him over.
The only thing clinton actually ‘did’ that was remotely imperialistic was attack afghanistan and the sudan after WE WERE ATTACKED.
Much of what you posted actually showed Clinton had more restraint and judgement than bush, undermining your argument.
In otherwords you think you proved something, but you didn’t even supply evidence to do so, in fact much of your evidence DISPROVED your premise.
November 4th, 2005 at 11:05 pm#127,
Actually I like Ryan. I have read a good number of
November 4th, 2005 at 11:05 pmposts and he seems to treat people appropriately
depending on how they act and what they say.
I am not sure where you came from, Che, but
you have not left me with a very good impression
so far.
Ryan
November 4th, 2005 at 11:07 pmI did nothing of what you said. And I know you did not read any of the supporting documents I offered. So just stop your bs.
Maybe it is just Clinton’s humanistic approach,
November 4th, 2005 at 11:10 pmbut he seemed to deal with different people
in a positive way.
Chimpy just locks out people who aren’t
“the base”. Wait, doesn’t some other group
use that term?
Oh but you did. I already reviewed them. They do not support your premise, and in most cases they fully undermine it.
Not only was clinton MUCH more popular around the world, but so was the US. Your premise of them being identical is childlike and irrational. It’s not supported by international ‘approval’ ratings, nor is it supported by the even handed and measured method of governing that Clinton exhibited and bush is devoid of. You’re clearly a hack.
November 4th, 2005 at 11:12 pmHey Joe Sixpack,
I think this thread needs some of your
November 4th, 2005 at 11:12 pmwisdom.
Ryan
November 4th, 2005 at 11:13 pmYou are childlike and irrational in your love and devotion for Clinton.
Ryan
November 4th, 2005 at 11:15 pmwhere is your proof? “even-handed and measured method” - what does that mean - support it.
I’m pretty sure Chimpy is the one
November 4th, 2005 at 11:16 pmin South America, no?
I bet he wishes he was “cutting brush”
in Crawford. What a dork.
Old money and power:
Bush born an insider, a spoiled rich kid.
Clinton a relative outsider and pretty regular guy.
It is pretty clear who has the interest, power and backing to be a dangerous imperialist.
November 4th, 2005 at 11:21 pmWhy is a defense of Bush usually an attack on Clinton?
November 4th, 2005 at 11:21 pmRyan
Your silence speaks volumes. YOu have nothing to support your opinions. Yet you attack me for supporting my opinions. And you don’t have the guts to admit you can’t defend your beliefs.
You truly are a lowly slimeball for being so gutless. You think it’s enough to talk large about Clinton and what a great guy he is. You are an ass-clown.
November 4th, 2005 at 11:24 pm#145,
It is really too bad that your guy Chimpy
November 4th, 2005 at 11:30 pmis such a zero, but that is really NOT
Clinton’s fault. You will just have to
come to grips with that someday.
#145 (’Che’): Piss off you troll.
November 4th, 2005 at 11:35 pm#148
November 4th, 2005 at 11:35 pmUp yours you moron
#148,
Smartest thing you said all night.
November 4th, 2005 at 11:37 pmWackos of both ends of the spectrum unite!
November 4th, 2005 at 11:40 pmwanker
November 4th, 2005 at 11:41 pmTrolls trying recycle themselves as leftwing wackos. Human garbage then, human garbage now.
November 4th, 2005 at 11:41 pmwanker troll
November 4th, 2005 at 11:42 pmI have carefully been following this discussion and reading everyone’s posts. Why is it that people feel the need to resort to name-calling simply because their views differ from the views of another poster. This is certainly not what I expected from a group of self-proffessed liberals.
November 4th, 2005 at 11:45 pm#154,
Yes, well it is more of a right-wing trait,
November 4th, 2005 at 11:47 pmbut sometimes you have to fight fire with
fire, ya know?
noob
November 4th, 2005 at 11:47 pmAsk Ryan Neat. He’s a master of name-calling. But he’s taken his ball and gone home because he was losing.
Ryan losing to you? Certainly not up to you to decide. Actually, he won after the first exchange. Don’t know why he went on after that, but that’s his business.
November 4th, 2005 at 11:55 pmBy the way, you sound exactly like a certain reichwing troll. Ashamed to say you are pro-bush now?
You’re an ass-clown too
November 4th, 2005 at 11:58 pmAll progressives are winning.
November 5th, 2005 at 12:00 amI just discovered David Ensor. Most excellent reporting.
‘Night everyone. Get some sleep, Che. Have a drink.
Let’s see,
November 5th, 2005 at 12:00 am#156, meet #158 and we see typical
right-wing hypocrisy.
Not once, not once, did Ryan Neat support his opinions. Yet he attacked me for not supporting mine. SO I did. But he has not once supported anything he has said. Just burbling about how great Clinton is -measured and even-handed nonsense. The mutterings of who is in his own words is “childlike and irrational”
November 5th, 2005 at 12:01 am#156
“Ryan Neat is a master of name calling”
#158
“You’re an ass clown too”
November 5th, 2005 at 12:01 amBoys, boys! Is this really necessary?
November 5th, 2005 at 12:04 amAfterthought,
November 5th, 2005 at 12:05 amIt actually thinks we are falling for its pathetic masquerade. Amazing.
William Jefferson Clinton is a GOD among men.
November 5th, 2005 at 12:05 amAll hail to the real and rightful chief.
All rise.
Not once did Ryan Neat support anything he said. Not once. When asked to support his opinions, he bolted. But not before calling me a whole host of names to silence me. But I would not be silenced by him or by any one else just because I think and know that Clinton is no better than Bush. They are both imperialists. Just Clinton wears the smiley face, as I said in my original post. After which i was attacked by Ryan Neat. But he had nothing to support his assault.
November 5th, 2005 at 12:06 amChe,
You’re a retard. Not only did I show you that your whacko theory was nonsense, but I pointed out that most of your attacks supposedly on Clinton had BUSH IN THE TITLE. You’re a fool. Why should I have to prove a negative, when you didn’t prove the premise you say existed.
You’re a childish freak.
November 5th, 2005 at 12:06 amAnd on the seventh day there was …yes ..Bill Clinton
November 5th, 2005 at 12:07 amRyan
November 5th, 2005 at 12:07 amYou just proved my point. YOu have nothing except verbal insults. Nothing else.
Please, you don’t even know what imperialism is. Grow up little boy.
November 5th, 2005 at 12:08 amRyan
November 5th, 2005 at 12:09 amClinton is an imperialist just like BUsh
Why should I need anything else. I already POINTED OUT YOU POSTED BUSH CRAP AND PRETENDED IT WAS CLINTON ISSUES. You’re just a fool. Grow up.
November 5th, 2005 at 12:09 amI think Ryan over-reacted. Labeling someone a “republican” is no way to initiate discourse.
November 5th, 2005 at 12:09 amRyan
November 5th, 2005 at 12:10 amClinton is an imperialist and so is BUsh
When people resort to ‘opinions’ when they can’t present convincing facts, that’s being ‘republican’. It’s what they do.
November 5th, 2005 at 12:10 amRyan
November 5th, 2005 at 12:11 amPresent convincing evidence of your opinions Ryan, go ahead, DO IT FOR ONCE. QUit talking about it and DO IT.
Che,
You’re full of crap. You didn’t prove Clinton was imperialistic.
How about this retarded partisan Clinton signs child labor ban
Not only is this something bush would NEVER do, it’s the OPPOSITE of imperialism. You’re a fool. In 5 seconds I disproved your entire mythology.
November 5th, 2005 at 12:12 amRyan
November 5th, 2005 at 12:13 amFinally something. One link. That’s it. I gave you at least 10. Come on. You’re just lazy.
If there is one thing no one needs, is proof that Clinton was a more effective chief executive.
November 5th, 2005 at 12:14 amYou gave completely irrelevant and unrelated links. You’re unfocused and irrational both in your argument and content.
November 5th, 2005 at 12:15 amtptif,
Unfortunately partisan hacks can rarely distinguish between the relevant and irrelevant, it’s why they’re hacks.
November 5th, 2005 at 12:16 amPutting down my links is not the same as providing supporting links to your opinions.
November 5th, 2005 at 12:16 amI remember this che troll from before. He knows he can’t win a debate from the right so he has chosen to attack from a different angle, the extreme left.
November 5th, 2005 at 12:16 amRyan, you are correct. Che made the first claim, it is his burden to prove that his claim is true.
Shifting the burden from his claim to requiring proof of your refutation of his claim is the classic “burden of proof fallacy”.
Since his claim that Clinton