The Sopranos TV - Texe Marrs - Barbara Bush - America: The Story of the US TV - Jeff Kandt - John Pilger - Christopher Hitchens - Paul Foot - The Clintons Exposed! TV - The Clinton Body Count - John Armor - Time Magazine - Eugene Holmes - Gary Aldrich - Mark Helprin - The New York Times - Fox News - Rory Bremner TV - Clinton PBS TV - Bill Clinton - New Statesman - Sean Wilentz - Dean Burton - Ralph Nader - Ronald Reagan - Noam Chomsky - London Sunday Times - Hillary Clinton - David Letterman - Dick Morris - Cathy O'Brien - Alex Jones - Keith Thompson - Jim Tucker - Terry Reed - Marijuana True History TV - Richard Bilton TV - The 90s: The Decade That Connected Us TV - Celebrity Scandals That Shocked Britain TV - Timothy Noah - Robert Fisk - Adam Curtis TV - Michael Moore TV - The Power Principle - Hillary, The Movie 2008 - The Corbett Report - Hillary Clinton 2000 TV - The Mena Connection - Abby Martin - The War Room 1993 - Clinton's Rise to Power aka The Clinton Chronicles 1994 - Hillary Clinton: Republican for President 2016 - Clinton Cash 2016 - Gary Byrne - Russian TV - A Very Heavy Agenda 2015 - The Clinton Affair TV - Chris Hedges - Truth Rising 2017 -
18,919. Hillary Clinton – I hate that woman. (Gangstas: New Jersey & Clinton) The Sopranos: Amour Fou s3e12 starring James Gandolfini & Lorriane Bracco & Edie Falco & Michael Imperioli & Dominic Chianese & Steven van Zandt & Tony Sirico & Robert Iler et al, woman at table with Carmela
40,946. Draft dodger. Filth. (Insult & Clinton) Texe Marrs of Bill Clinton
41,035. She is a witch ... She literally does practise witchcraft. (Insult & Clinton) Texe Marrs on Hillary Clinton
103,631. Could you really vote for a man who doesn’t even know how to toke a joint? Spitting Image s13e4
84,270. Clinton lied. A man might forget where he parks or where he lives, but he never forgets oral sex, no matter how bad it is. (Oral Sex & Clinton) Barbara Bush
28,950. Clinton ended his two-term presidency with the highest approval rating of any outgoing president. Ronald Reagan came second. (United States & President & Clinton) America: The Story of the US: Millennium
28,952. Bill Clinton has raked in more than $60,000,000 in speeches alone since leaving office. (United States & President & Clinton) ibid.
29,356. Three years ago, in response to embassy bombings, America attacked a pharmaceutical factory in one of the poorest countries in the world. The Clinton administration said that the Sudanese factory was linked to Osama bin Laden and involved in the production of chemical weapons.
In the following months, that justification fell apart. Although it was not widely reported, it appears that our leaders reacted too hastily, with tragic results. While there were few injuries from the bombing itself, the people of Sudan have suffered enormously as a result of losing this crucial source of medicine.
Please, let’s not let that happen again. (United States & Clinton & Empire US & Sudan) Jeff Kandt
99,033. On 14 August, you are invited to ‘an audience’ with Bill Clinton in London. You have a choice. You can attend the ‘breakfast and speech’ or the ‘brunch buffet and speech’. These will take place in the white elephantine Millennium Dome, where a place in the ‘Kings’ Row’ will cost you £799. Last year, Clinton made more than £5m granting ‘audiences’. Not only the usual corporate types attend. A few years ago, I watched a conga line of writers, journalists, publishers and others of liberal reputation shuffling towards his grotesquely paid presence at the Guardian Hay Festival.
The Clinton scam is symptomatic of the death of liberalism - not its narcissistic, war-loving wing (‘humanitarian intervention’), which is ascendant, but the liberalism that speaks against crimes committed in its name, while extending rungs of the economic ladder to those below. It was Clinton’s promotion of the former and crushing of the latter that so inspired new Labour’s ‘project’. Clinton, not Bush, was Cool Britannia’s true Mafia godfather. Keen observers of Tony Blair will recall that during one of his many farewell speeches, the sociopath did a weird impersonation of Clinton’s head wiggle.
Clinton is able to make a shedload a money because he is contrasted with the despised Bush as the flawed good guy who did his best for the world and brought economic boom to the US - the fabled American dream no less. Both notions are finely spun lies. What Clinton and Blair have most in common is that they are the most violent leaders of their countries in the modern era; that includes Bush. Consider Clinton’s true record.
In 1993, he pursued George H W Bush’s invasion of Somalia. He invaded Haiti in 1994. He bombed Bosnia in 1995 and Serbia in 1999. In 1998, he bombed Afghanistan; and, at the height of his Monica Lewinsky troubles, he momentarily diverted the headline writers to a major ‘terrorist target’ in Sudan that he ordered destroyed with an onslaught of missiles. It turned out to be sub-Saharan Africa’s largest pharmaceutical plant, the only source of chloroquine, the treatment for malaria, and other drugs that were lifelines to hundreds of thousands. As a result, wrote Jonathan Belke, then of the Near East Foundation, ‘tens of thousands of people - many of them children - have suffered and died from malaria, tuberculosis and other treatable diseases’.
Long before Shock and Awe, Clinton was destroying and killing in Iraq. Under the lawless pretence of a ‘no-fly zone’, he oversaw the longest allied aerial bombardment since the Second World War. This was hardly reported. At the same time, he imposed and tightened a Washington-led economic siege estimated to have killed a million civilians. ‘We think the price is worth it,’ said his secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, in an exquisite moment of honesty.
Clinton’s economic ‘legacy’ - like Blair’s - is the most unequal society Americans have known. In his last presidential year, 1999, I walked along the ocean front at Santa Monica in California and was struck by the number of middle-class homeless, ‘bag gents’ who had lost executive jobs and families thanks largely to Clinton’s North American Free Trade treaty. As for working Americans, the boasted high employment figures concealed a reversion to real wage levels of the 1970s. It was Clinton, not Bush, who wiped out the last of Roosevelt’s New Deal. Back in Santa Monica the other day, I noted the bag gents had multiplied.
These days, you see Good Ol’ Bill, or the Comeback Kid, as he is variously known, wiggling his head on the TV news, campaigning for his wife, Hillary, among Americans who, terminally naive, still believe the Democratic Party is theirs and that ‘it's time to vote a woman into the White House’. Together, the Clintons are known as Billary and rightly so. Like Good Ol’ Bill, his wife has no plans to address the divisions of a society that allows 130,000 Americans to claim the wealth of millions of their fellow citizens. Like GOB, she wants to continue Iraq’s torment for perhaps a decade. And she has not ‘ruled out’ attacking Iran.
Those settling down in the Kings’ Row at the Millennium Dome on 14 August for breakfast or brunch with GOB, having transferred another swag to the Clinton bank account, are unlikely to reflect on the blood spilt and the epic suffering caused, or on the moral corruption of the liberal ideology that courted and acclaimed Clinton, along with the criminal Blair.
But we should. John Pilger, article August 2007 ‘Good Ol Bill, The Liberal Hero’
33,072. The bombing has doubled since last year (2006) and this is not being reported. And who began this bombing? Bill Clinton began it. During the 1990s Clinton rained bombs on Iraq in what was euphemistically called the no-fly zones. At the same time he imposed a medieval siege called economic sanctions, killing perhaps a million people. (Iraq & Clinton & United States) John Pilger, The Invisible Government
98,980. A virulent if familiar censorship is about to descend on the US election campaign. As the cartoon brute, Donald Trump, seems almost certain to win the Republican Party’s nomination, Hillary Clinton is being ordained both as the ‘women's candidate’ and the champion of American liberalism in its heroic struggle with the Evil One.
This is drivel, of course; Hillary Clinton leaves a trail of blood and suffering around the world and a clear record of exploitation and greed in her own country. To say so, however, is becoming intolerable in the land of free speech.
The 2008 presidential campaign of Barack Obama should have alerted even the most dewy-eyed. Obama based his ‘hope’ campaign almost entirely on the fact of an African-American aspiring to lead the land of slavery. He was also ‘anti-war’.
Obama was never anti-war. On the contrary, like all American presidents, he was pro-war. He had voted for George W Bush’s funding of the slaughter in Iraq and he was planning to escalate the invasion of Afghanistan. In the weeks before he took the presidential oath, he secretly approved an Israeli assault on Gaza, the massacre known as Operation Cast Lead. He promised to close the concentration camp at Guantanamo and did not. He pledged to help make the world ‘free from nuclear weapons’ and did the opposite.
As a new kind of marketing manager for the status quo, the unctuous Obama was an inspired choice. Even at the end of his blood-spattered presidency, with his signature drones spreading infinitely more terror and death around the world than that ignited by jihadists in Paris and Brussels, Obama is fawned on as ‘cool’ (the Guardian). (Presidency US & United States of America & Obama & Clinton) John Pilger, Trump and Clinton: Censoring the Unpalatable, March 2016 viz website
33,719. Indifferent to truth, willing to use police-state tactics and vulgar libels against inconvenient witnesses, hopeless on health care, and flippant and fast and loose with national security: the case against Hillary Clinton for president is open-and-shut. Of course, against all these considerations you might prefer the newly fashionable and more media-weighty notion that if you don’t show her enough appreciation, and after all she's done for us, she may cry. Christopher Hitchens, article Slate January 2008
33,720. During the Senate debate on the intervention in Iraq, Senator Clinton made considerable use of her background and ‘experience’ to argue that, yes, Saddam Hussein was indeed a threat. She did not argue so much from the position adopted by the Bush administration as she emphasized the stand taken by both her husband and Al Gore, when they were in office, to the effect that another and final confrontation with the Ba’athist regime was more or less inevitable. Now, it does not especially matter whether you agree or disagree with her about this (as I, for once, do and did). What does matter is that she has since altered her position and attempted, with her husband’s help, to make people forget that she ever held it. And this, on a grave matter of national honour and security, merely to influence her short-term standing in the Iowa caucuses. Surely that on its own should be sufficient to disqualify her from consideration? Christopher Hitchens
33,721. What do you have to forget or overlook in order to desire that this dysfunctional clan once more occupies the White House and is again in a position to rent the Lincoln Bedroom to campaign donors and to employ the Oval Office as a massage parlour? You have to be able to forget, first, what happened to those who complained, or who told the truth, last time. It's often said, by people trying to show how grown-up and unshocked they are, that all Clinton did to get himself impeached was lie about sex. That’s not really true. What he actually lied about, in the perjury that also got him disbarred, was the women. And what this involved was a steady campaign of defamation, backed up by private dicks (you should excuse the expression) and salaried government employees, against women who I believe were telling the truth. In my opinion, Gennifer Flowers was telling the truth; so was Monica Lewinsky, and so was Kathleen Willey, and so, lest we forget, was Juanita Broaddrick, the woman who says she was raped by Bill Clinton. Christopher Hitchens
33,722. One also hears a great deal about how this awful joint tenure of the executive mansion was a good thing in that it conferred ‘experience’ on the despised and much-deceived wife. Well, the main ‘experience’ involved the comprehensive fouling-up of the nation’s health-care arrangements, so as to make them considerably worse than they had been before and to create an opening for the worst-of-all-worlds option of the so-called HMO, combining as it did the maximum of capitalist gouging with the maximum of socialistic bureaucracy. This abysmal outcome, forgiven for no reason that I can perceive, was the individual responsibility of the woman who now seems to think it entitles her to the presidency. Christopher Hitchens
33,796. During the 1992 election I concluded as early as my first visit to New Hampshire that Bill Clinton was hateful in his behaviour to women, pathological as a liar, and deeply suspect when it came to money in politics. I have never had to take any of that back, whereas if you look up what most of my profession was then writing about the beefy, unscrupulous ‘New Democrat’, you will be astonished at the quantity of sheer saccharine and drool. Anyway, I kept on about it even after most Republicans had consulted the opinion polls and decided it was a losing proposition, and if you look up the transcript of the eventual Senate trial of the president – only the second impeachment hearing in American history – you will see that the last order of business is a request (voted down) by the Senate majority leader to call Carol and me as witnesses. So I can dare to say that at least I saw it through. Christopher Hitchens, Hitch-22: A Memoir
33,797. The last time that I consciously wrote anything to ‘save the honour of the Left’, as I rather pompously put it, was my little book on the crookedness and cowardice and corruption (to put it no higher) of Clinton. I used leftist categories to measure him, in other words, and to show how idiotic was the belief that he was a liberal's champion. Again, more leftists than you might think were on my side or in my corner, and the book was published by Verso, which is the publishing arm of the New Left Review. However, if a near-majority of leftists and liberals choose to think that Clinton was the target of a witch-hunt and the victim of ‘sexual McCarthyism’, an Arkansan Alger Hiss in other words, you become weary of debating on their terms and leave them to make the best of it. Christopher Hitchens, ‘Christopher Hitchens and His Critics: Terror, Iraq and the Left’
33,798. Seeing the name Hillary in a headline last week – a headline about a life that had involved real achievement – I felt a mouse stirring in the attic of my memory. Eventually, I was able to recall how the two Hillarys had once been mentionable in the same breath. On a first-lady goodwill tour of Asia in April 1995 – the kind of banal trip that she now claims as part of her foreign-policy ‘experience’ – Mrs Clinton had been in Nepal and been briefly introduced to the late Sir Edmund Hillary, conqueror of Mount Everest. Ever ready to milk the moment, she announced that her mother had actually named her for this famous and intrepid explorer. The claim ‘worked’ well enough to be repeated at other stops and even showed up in Bill Clinton’s memoirs almost a decade later, as one more instance of the gutsy tradition that undergirds the junior senator from New York.