www.nettime.org
Nettime mailing list archives

dominique {AT} hushmail.com: Re: CLINTON'S WET DREAM IS OVER
nettime on Wed, 16 Jun 1999 09:01:02 +0200 (CEST)


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

dominique {AT} hushmail.com: Re: CLINTON'S WET DREAM IS OVER


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
<nettime-l-temp {AT} material.net> is the temporary home of the nettime-l list
while desk.nl rebuilds its list-serving machine.  please continue to send
messages to <nettime-l {AT} desk.nl> and your commands to <majordomo {AT} desk.nl>.
nettime-l-temp should be active for approximately 2 weeks (11-28 Jun 99).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 


Date: Sun Jun 13 13:06:18 EDT 1999
Subject: Re: CLINTON'S WET DREAM IS OVER
To: nettime <nettime {AT} basis.Desk.nl>
Cc: sjw210 {AT} is8.nyu.edu

At Sat, 12 Jun 1999 18:23:18 +0100, nettime <nettime {AT} basis.Desk.nl> wrote:

>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. 


Get HushMail. The world's first free, fully encrypted, web-based email system.
Speak freely with HushMail.... http://www.hushmail.com