(no subject)
Nov. 21st, 2007 10:58 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Now when Bill Clinton was impeached, apparently it wasn't over whether he'd spunked over an intern's dress, it was because he had lied about it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7105001.stm
I await to see what will happen now after this testimony.
Kenneth Starr, where are you? Surely this should matter at least as much, especially as we're talking of folk involved in something illegal (naming a CIA agent) not just of dubious morality (infidelity, for a given value thereof).
You know something, American hypocrisy about this sort of stuff is going to lose you chaps lots of friends. Either you're consistent about what matters, or you will be looked at as something pretty similar to the Nation states that your administration goes around denouncing.
You can arraign one president for being economical with the truth.
You will not do something about a president and administration that behaves much much worse by your own standards.
And yet you criticise other countries in the hope that they'll change their ways and adopt your system: well from the outside, your present government seems as criminal as that of South Korea, Iran, Zimbabwe....
This isn't a good thing, but I don't expect anyone to deal with it.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-22 08:28 pm (UTC)Seriously though, I hear you loud and clear. The saner part of this country never trusted him from the beginning, but there's also this fantatical right wing neo-con theocracy group that encompasses another third of the country. That leaves the middle group with the ability to sway things, and quite honestly, when they're in freaked the fuck out and/or "what harm could he do" sheople mode, they tend to give the right wingers their ear.
Why? Great question. I can't figure it out either. Again, hopefully the next president will get things back together. I hear that Hillary would send Bill out to help repair the damage and that alone is worth her price of admission.
All I can really hope is that we as a nation have learned from this.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-23 10:15 am (UTC)Some of my best friends are French, but really....
Nah, the French are okay: they beat us a couple of times, we beat them a couple of times and we both almost lost to Germany a couple of times: but all this was in a very different era. We're almost grown up now and have other forms of national expression.
A country that can nurture a Napoleon, and follow him to Moscow, can't be that inclined to surrender without good reason (overwhelming odds for example). The Brits have an insula stubborness that sometimes means we don't realise that odds are overwhelming, so we keep at it anyway. Sometimes the rest of the world thinks we're brave: when it's often just pig-headed stubborness.
But sometimes we're brave, & so are the French.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-10 01:05 pm (UTC)If the world is a giant garden, some of the nicest plants came from your seeds.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-10 01:42 pm (UTC)The list is endless.
Zimbabwe 'worked' under Ian Smith: it was the breadbasket of Africa. The climate has changed somewhat, but now it cannot feed itself. From a practical position, de-colonisation has merely spread misery and starvation. Either we withdrew without safeguarding and securing proper government, or whatever safeguards we put in place were easily circumvented by corrupt and greedy politicians. Mugabwe went mad, from what I can work out, and now his people starve. And that happened in Uganda too.
The Congo, Central African Republic, and Rwanda are French and Belgian problems, but the C20th relicts of Britain's Empire in Africa and Asia haven't done us proud.
Australia, Canada, New Zealand, yeah, they work.
I just pray South Africa doesn't go the same way as Zimbabwe.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-10 01:06 pm (UTC)What is it with European dictators and Moscow though?
no subject
Date: 2008-01-10 02:29 pm (UTC)