Where Was The `Change' During The Clintons' First Two Terms?--Part 15

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 item from Downtown indicates, when Bill Clinton was the U.S. President during the 1990s the Clintons failed to bring democratic political change to U.S. society:

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

Bill “Bush” Clinton may still not be very popular among either Arab nationalist youth or members of the Woodstock Generation that didn’t attend Oxford or Yale. But 658 days after his inauguration,[ 2008 Democratic Party presidential candidate] Hillary Clinton’s husband is still not willing to follow Nixon’s example and resign from office before being impeached. One reason Bill Clinton is unwilling to resign is because, like former CIA Director Bush I, he enjoys campaigning in foreign countries while the domestic needs of people in the United States are neglected.

Another reason Bill Clinton apparently still intends to cling to public office is that, as Arkansas governor for 12 years, he grew accustomed to living lavishly at the expense of U.S. taxpayers and on the hefty salary Hillary Clinton earned from representing corporate clients. As On The Make: The Rise Of Bill Clinton by Meredith Oakley recalled:

“As governor, all the perks of his office were exempt from federal taxation. In fiscal year 1988 alone, taxpayers spent $783,116.30 a year to support the Clintons. That included a 12-person security staff, food, utilities, maintenance and operation of the Governor’s Mansion…and transportation. It did not include his $35,000-a-year salary and the public relations fund on which there were no spending restrictions. In addition, for each year he served as governor, Clinton received three years of credit toward his state pension. That and the two-for-one credits he received for his two years as attorney general constituted 38 years of retirement credit for the 46-year-old Clinton when he resigned the governorship to become president.

“Anything Clinton wanted or needed that the state or his supporters did not or could not give him, Hillary Clinton provided. With her six-figure income from Rose Law Firm, the dividends generated by most of her investments and the income tax deductions she parlayed out of donating to charity everything from evening dresses to shower curtains to socks, she could have provided a comfortable living for the family even without the tax-free perks of Clinton’s office.

“In 1989 alone, the Clintons claimed charitable and religious contributions of $12,676, which included two pieces of the governor’s underwear valued at $1 each.”

(Downtown 11/9/94)

Next: Where Was The “Change” During The Clintons’ First Two Terms?—Part 16

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

Where Was The `Change' During The Clintons' First Two Terms?--Part 13

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 historical item from Downtown indicates, when Bill Clinton was the U.S. President during the 1990s the Clintons failed to bring democratic political change to U.S. society:

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

Despite their 1992 presidential platform, 539 days after the Clintons’ inauguration Bill “Oxford” Clinton has not shown much eagerness to deliver a nationwide television address in support of a federal gay rights bill—although, according to the 1993 book Lesbians, Gay Men, and the Law, “in 43 states [as of 1993] it remains perfectly legal for a private-sector employer to deny employment or refuse to serve or to rent to lesbians and gay men based solely on their sexual orientation—unless one happens to be in a municipality that has a gay rights ordinance.”

But Bill Clinton was very eager to dial into a radio call-in program from Air Force One on June 24, 1994 and mouth yet another 23 minutes of platitudes in which he asserted—despite what happened to JFK—that “I don’t suppose there’s any public figure that’s ever been subject to any more violent personal attacks than I have, at least in modern history, anybody who’s been president.”

Although Bill Clinton also complained about “how much of talk radio is just a constant, unremitting drumbeat of negativism and cynicism,” he apparently failed to mention that—despite the Clintons’ 1992 campaign pledge to prevent special corporate interests from using big money to control U.S. electoral politics—“since Mr. Clinton’s inauguration in January 1993, the Democratic Party has raised $20.5 million,” a healthy share of that money was personally raised by Mr. Clinton,” “the Democrats’ most generous donors include Time-Warner Inc. and its executives, who gave $508,333” and “some of Mr. Clinton’s big donors…are past supporters of President Bush and the Republicans.” (NY Times 6/22/94)

(Downtown 7/13/94)

Next: Where Was The “Change” During The Clintons’ First Two Terms?—Part 14

Where Was The `Change' During The Clintons' First Two Terms?--Part 12

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 item from Downtown indicates, when Bill Clinton was the U.S. President during the 1990s the Clintons failed to bring democratic political change to U.S. society:

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

The U.S. and British Establishment’s U.S. Commander-In-Chief—Bill “Oxford” Clinton—has been making more re-election campaign speeches in Europe lately—in preparation for possibly another escalation in Pentagon military intervention in Asia or the Caribbean. Yet 525 days after the Clintons’ inauguration, the former Washington, D.C. student government politico has still not appointed a special prosecutor to investigate the CIA’s possible role in the elimination of JFK and RFK, as we approach [in 1994] the 30th anniversary of the Warren Commission’s release of its “official report on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.”

Like another former student government politico—the now-deceased former NSA President Allard Lowenstein—Bill Clinton was apparently able to avoid participation in U.S. military intervention in Asia due to his special U.S. government connections.

According to The Pied Piper by Richard Cummings, “throughout the NSA’s relationship with the CIA, it was standard practice for NSA officials who cooperated with the CIA to be given draft deferments,” “the documents on which the extract of Lowenstein’s classification record is based have been destroyed by the Selective Service System” and “Lowenstein chose to conceal his true draft status and the CIA had every reason to get him a deferment.”

One of the U.S. government connections whose staff apparently helped Bill Clinton get permission to ignore two orders to report for induction while he attended Oxford, was former Arkansas Senator J. William Fulbright—who “is mentioned in a Whitewater-related criminal referral that alleges he received $50,000 in diverted savings and loan funds in 1985,” according to the Associated Press (5/27/94)

Perhaps it’s time to consider holding a 1990s love-in outside the Big Media studios until U.S. radicals are finally granted free speech rights?

(Downtown 6/29/94)

Next: Where Was The “Change” During The Clintons’ First Two Terms?—Part 13

Where Was The `Change' During The Clintons' First Two Terms?--Part 11

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:

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

As we approach the 500th day of 1996 [and 2008] presidential candidate Clinton’s administration, the Clintons still appear more interested in issuing ultimatums to people in foreign countries (unless they used to work for the CIA in Haiti) than they are in democratizing the political, economic and Big Media decision-making process in the United States. If anti-war people in the U.S. don’t eventually mobilize against the CIA’s government and its Big Media, it still looks—476 days after former American Legion youth leader Bill Clinton and his wife’s inauguration—as if another escalating war in the 1990s [and in the 21st century] is possible.

Richard Nixon is now gone [in 1994]. But, unfortunately, Nixon’s spirit of ruthless power-tripping and macho power-grabbing apparently lives on in Washington, D.C. and in the Virginia offices of the Central Intelligence Agency.

(Downtown 5/11/94)

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

Former Georgetown University student government politico Bill Clinton recently [in 1994] made a 1996 re-election campaign speech before UCLA’s graduating class in California, in part, because “the president’s emphasis on value-based themes—may serve to distract attention from more sensitive subjects, including efforts by Mr. Clinton and his lawyers to devise a strategy to fend off a lawsuit accusing him of sexual harassment” (NY Times 5/21/94). The Times also noted that “Mr. Clinton also planned to use his trip to California to raise at least $2.5 million for Democratic candidates for Congress.”

Voters in the U.S. have received a lot in the way of platitudes from the Clintons, but very little in the way of actual positive change—504 days after the Clintons’ inauguration. There’s still no federal gay rights bill, no adequate response to the AIDS epidemic, no legalization of marijuana, no peace treaty with Iraq, no economic prosperity in New York City, no end to institutionalized racism, sexism and classism and no free health care insurance for all U.S. citizens. And the CIA has still not been abolished by the Clintons’ Administration—despite the Cold War being over.

Downtown has not learned whether Al Sharpton plans to challenge the Clintons for the 1996 Democratic presidential nomination, but perhaps the former Arkansas governor should now allow an African-American candidate to be nominated for president by the Democratic Party in 1996—before arranging for Hillary Rodham-Clinton to succeed him in the Oval office in 2001 [or in 2009]?

(Downtown 6/8/94)

Next: Where Was The “Change” During The Clintons’ First Two Terms?—Part 12

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

Where Was The `Change' During The Clintons' First Two Terms?--Part 9

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:

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

There’s still no economic prosperity in the Big Apple, 420 days after the Clintons’ inauguration. Nor is there any health care insurance program yet established for people who lack health insurance. And an adequately-financed federal crash research program to find a cure for AIDS is also still not in existence.

But the threat of World War III breaking out in the Balkans or the Middle East appears to be greater these days. As the German poet Bertolt Brecht once wrote:

“When the leaders speak of peace
The common folk know
That war is coming.

“When the leaders curse war
The mobilization order is already written out.”

Ironically, World War I also was triggered when “The Austrian statesmen in 1914 decided that the time had come when it would be necessary to control the Serbian menace, and they consciously planned an ultimatum to Serbia of such severity that it would be practically impossible for Serbia to concede all of their demands” (Genesis of the World War by Harry Barnes), although “Serbia felt a natural and justifiable impulse to do what so many other countries had done in the 19th Century—bring under one nation’s Government all the discontented Serb people” (Origins Of The World War by Sidney Fay).

Yet the Clintons’ Administration still apparently regards Europe as a chessboard on which to play a 19th-Century game of power politics, in apparent support of the special interests of German, French and British imperialism, the transnational oil corporations and the CIA’s military-industrial-media complex. Happy St. Patrick’s Day!

(Downtown 3/16/94)

434 Days After The Clinton’s Inauguration: Where’s The Change?

Like Richard Nixon, Bill “Whitewater” Clinton should be able to land a multi-million dollar contract from one of the book-publishing media conglomerates to write his memoirs, if he decides to resign his post soon. He also stands to make big bucks and have more time to play golf and jog if he decides to get a job as a lawyer-lobbyist for some Washington, D.C. corporate law firm or some Japanese transnational corporation. On March 11, 1994, the Times noted that “the financial markets were worried that the investigation of the president and first lady’s various Arkansas business and political dealings, known collectively as the Whitewater affair, would turn more serious" and “overseas metals markets were shaken briefly in the morning by rumors that Mr. Clinton would resign over the affair.”

Perhaps the CIA and its mass media have decided—434 days after the Clintons’ inauguration—that they won’t be able to market the Clintons again as “agents of change” during the 1996 U.S. presidential election [or in the 2008 U.S. presidential election]?

(Downtown 3/30/94)

Next: Where Was The “Change” During The Clintons’ First Two Terms?—Part 10