Thursday, January 24, 2008

Where Was The `Change' During The Clintons' First Two Terms?--Part 14

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 historical 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:

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

Like former CIA Director Bush I, Bill “Carter” Clinton appears more interested in globetrotting than in actually providing high-wage job opportunities for people in NYC or responding to the leisure-oriented society aspirations of Woodstock Nation. And like Bush I, the Clintons still don’t have any real domestic agenda for radical democratic change that reflects the desire for peace, love and freedom which the residents of Woodstock Nation have shared for many years.

The apparent failure of the Clinton Administration’s Haitian policy—553 days after the Clintons’ inauguration—to give political asylum to all Haitian refugees and to effectively use nonviolent, diplomatic means to quickly[and permanently] restore the democratically-elected Aristide government to power in Haiti, has meant continued suffering for people in Haiti. And another 20th-Century military invasion of Haiti by the troops of Yankee imperialism is not likely to win much applause from either U.S. anti-war folks or most Latin American and Caribbean intellectuals and radicals.

(Downtown 7/27/94)

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

Like former CIA Director Bush I, the Clintons still don’t seem—609 days after their inauguration—to have much of a domestic agenda—except to get Bill Clinton re-elected in 1996 and Bill Clinton’s wife elected in the year 2000 and 2004 [or 2008]. Although the Clintons have been talking a lot about providing universal health insurance, the Clintons’ Administration has still not immediately issued Medicaid cards to the 39 million people in the U.S. who still lack health insurance in 1994. Although “Commander-in-Chief” Bill Clinton still talks about the need to fight crime, 30 years after the Warren Report was released he still has not appointed a special prosecutor like Mark Lane to investigate possible CIA involvement in what many people consider one of the greatest crimes of the century: the apparent conspiracy which took the life of President Kennedy.

(Downtown 9/21/94)

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

Like former Southern Democratic President Lyndon Johnson, Hillary Clinton’s husband apparently sees nothing morally wrong about either invading or threatening to invade other countries—even if he has to apparently violate the 1973 War Powers Act.

In the late 1960s, “Commander-in-Chief” Bill Clinton also apparently saw nothing morally wrong about utilizing his special U.S. government contacts to avoid reporting for military induction. As On The Make by Meredith Oakley recently [in the early 1990s] recalled:

“Troubling questions about [Bill] Clinton’s draft record remained to be answered: Who cancelled the April 1969 draft notice? Were there actually two draft notices, and if so, who cancelled the second one, purported to have been issued in July 1969?...Why was Clinton classified 1-A for 17 months without being called to duty?”

In A Sept. 8, 1992 letter to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, a classmate of Bill Clinton at Oxford—Cliff Jackson—asserted:

“…You Bill…maneuvered to void a draft notice already issued to you and to avoid reporting on your scheduled induction date…The story is more universal than mere draft-dodging…It is about deceit and manipulation and exploitation of people for your personal benefit.”

Even if the Clintons’ Haitian policy doesn’t hurt their 1996 re-election prospects, 623 days after the Clintons’ inauguration it might still be a good idea to impeach Bill Clinton before he decides it’s okay to apparently violate the 1973 War Powers Act again.

(Downtown 10/12/94)

Next: Where Was The “Change” During The Clintons’ First Two Terms?—Part 15