Comments: Clinton vs. Clinton vs. Clinton

Those who like trying to understand what's going on underneath all this disgusting blather by politicians, whether Cabinet ministers or President, might occasionaly read pepe escobar over at asia times, both on Libya and the Great Arab Revolt in general. Pepe is sharp.

Posted by N E at April 22, 2011 01:08 PM

Funny how that works, ain't it? What with Hillary and all upset one minute and trigger happy the next,she's an All American Gal. Boy, I SURE wouldn't want to be around IF one of those zirconium filled chickens came home to roost.

Posted by Mike Meyer at April 22, 2011 01:37 PM

Funny how that works, ain't it? What with Hillary and all upset one minute and trigger happy the next,she's an All American Gal. Boy, I SURE wouldn't want to be around IF one of those zirconium filled chickens came home to roost.

Posted by Mike Meyer at April 22, 2011 01:38 PM

I have to admit that Hillary's statement was a jaw-dropper for me when I heard it. But you right in pointing out that her emphasis of CLUSTER BOMBS is only half the story. Killing one's own people is the big no-no in international affairs--unless of course you dress your own people up in uniforms first and send them off to pointless wars, then it's okay to kill your own people. You'll find this in Hillary's Book of Proper International Manners and Etiquette.

Posted by Paul Avery at April 22, 2011 02:16 PM

Yes, I was struck by her implicit (and widely shared) notion that bombing somehow becomes less inhuman or vicious as long as you do it to people outside your own borders.

Posted by John Caruso at April 22, 2011 02:34 PM

...because if you don't have to come home to the aftermath of it, it's no different than playing a video game. We're pretty spoiled to fight our wars abroad.

Posted by Amandasaurus at April 22, 2011 02:46 PM

"cluster humanitarianism." Quite.

Posted by awesome guy at April 22, 2011 03:32 PM

Too bad she isn't running for re-election. It's stuff like this that would inspire me to give her five large and a song.

Posted by Happy Jack at April 22, 2011 06:09 PM

Killing one's own people is the big no-no in international affairs--unless of course you dress your own people up in uniforms first and send them off to pointless wars, then it's okay to kill your own people.

Unless of course you're Bahrain, in which case you can bring in mercenaries from another country (which is also allowed to kill its own people) to kill your own people for you; or Egypt, where you can use your own thugs to beat up and kill your own people for you; or the US, where you can send a hot young general with troops to fire on your own veterans who've come to Washington to petition for benefits -- the Bonus Army, but maybe that was too long ago, so there's always Kent State and Jackson State, and any number of other small incidents that do add up over time. If you're a US client, you can kill your own people with impunity too: El Salvador, Chile, Guatemala, South Korea (the Kwangju massacre) - the list goes on and on. And on.

I saw an article today (at Salon, maybe), which drew what might be a more accurate distinction: if you're a foreign leader who wears colorful authentic native garb, you can't kill or torture your own people; but if you're a foreign leader who wears impeccably tailored Western-style suits, the sky's the limit. It occurred to me that wearing color authentic native garb is a no-no even if you aren't a dictator and don't kill your own people (Chavez, Morales, etc.). Killing and torturing is often necessary and always exciting; but dressing like a goddam Injun is an abomination to God and Washington.

Posted by Duncan at April 22, 2011 07:17 PM

Thanks for modifying and correcting my remarks, Duncan. You brought up some valid points. I also think your garb theory is more accurate than
George Carlin's observation that our enemies are determined by the kind of hats they wear.

Posted by Paul Avery at April 22, 2011 07:38 PM

I would only point out that neither the Bahraini royals nor their even more vile Saudi counterparts dress in suits. It's not the hat, it's the signature on the big checks. $83 billion promised in arms purchases by the stinking House of Saud over the next decade. That buys a lot of broken bodies and bland statements from State.

Posted by Nell at April 23, 2011 12:03 AM

Duncan, FWIW I kinda said it before the Salonists, even if my pointing this out suggests I'm being a bit vain and fussy.

Posted by Jonathan Versen at April 23, 2011 02:58 AM

"Even as we continue our military operations today to protect civilians in Libya, we are determined to look to the future. We are convinced that better times lie ahead for the people of Libya, and a PATHWAY can be forged to achieve just that. [...] There is a PATHWAY to peace that promises new hope for the people of Libya [...]"

Steven Poole notes that "it makes, too, for an interesting comparison with the notorious roadmap in Israel/Palestine. Whereas a roadmap is an aerial view of the whole terrain, with lots of roads and other interesting features like concrete fences or rocket silos, a pathway is a single route." http://unspeak.net/

Perhaps it's also noteworthy that going from roadmaps to pathways implies that our foreign policy vehicle has broken down and is now on foot.

Posted by Paul Avery at April 23, 2011 04:21 PM

Frakenstein(OUR foreign policy) never learned to read a map, to understand the concept of a road, trail, or PATH, but stumbles on with arms outstretched, eyes closed shut and pistols blazing, up until even now, unstopable. Lybia is just one more example.

Posted by Mike Meyer at April 24, 2011 02:23 PM