Sunday, January 20, 2008

Where Was The `Change' During The Clintons' First Two Terms?--Part 10

In their current campaign to secure a third term in the White House, in violation of the spirit of the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (which limits U.S. Establishment politicians who become the U.S. president to two terms in office), the Clintons are claiming that a third Clinton Administration in Washington, D.C. will bring democratic political “change” to U.S. society. Yet as the following column items from Downtown indicate, when Bill Clinton was the U.S. President during the 1990s the Clintons failed to bring democratic political change to U.S. society:

448 Days After The Clintons’ Inauguration: Where’s The Change?

The failure of the Clintons’ Administration, after 448 days, to adequately respond to the special economic needs of U.S. youth may eventually provoke a U.S. Youth Revolt in the 1990s. Instead of worrying so much about what the North Koreans, the Bosnian Serbs or Irish solidarity activists are up to, perhaps Bill “Whitewater” Clinton should begin to allow U.S. youth to sit on the same U.S. government panels and corporate boards upon which [2008 Democratic Party presidential candidate] Hillary Rodham-Clinton sat—in order to radically democratize the economic, political and Big Media decision-making process in the U.S. in the 1990s?

And instead of worrying about what happens to his Trilateral Commission friends in Mexico, perhaps Bill “NAFTA” Clinton should do something about providing economic equality for African-American people in the United States in 1994 and redistribute some of Hillary Rodham-Clinton’s personal wealth to women welfare recipients in Washington, D.C.—since, as Bill Clinton stated in his March 24, 1994 press conference, “Every year I was governor my wife worked in a law firm that had always done business with the state” and “Now all I can do is tell you that she believes there was nothing unethical about it.”

(Downtown 4/13/94)

462 Days After The Clintons’ Inauguration: Where’s The Change?

The “Bill Clinton of Japan”—former Kumamoto Prefecture Governor Morihiro Hosokawa—recently resigned as the Japanese Establishment’s prime minister, after “he conceded…that he did not pay the interest” on a $1 million loan he took in 1982 from “a trucking company, Tokyo Sagawa Kyubin, that spent much of the 1980s buying influence from the country’s leading politicians…” (NY Times 4/9/94). Like Japan’s recently-resigned [in 1994] prime minister, former Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton and his corporate lawyer-lobbyist wife also apparently accepted money and special favors in the 1980s from special corporate interests which sought to secure special influence with leading politicians. And 462 days after the Clintons’ inauguration, the pro-CIA “Agents of Change” have failed to change much of anything in a positive way during their uncreative and unexciting administration.

Bill Clinton has, however, recently [in 1994] escalated U.S. military intervention in Bosnia’s civil war, a few days after his wife went to a baseball game in Chicago and threw out the first ball on opening day. Perhaps the CIA is preparing for yet another war? And perhaps Ms. Rodham-Clinton is preparing her pitching arm for the day when she succeeds her husband as U.S. Establishment president and is sworn in as the first woman president of the United States?

(Downtown 4/27/94)

Next: Where Was The “Change” During The Clintons’ First Two Terms?—Part 11

No comments: