| GREG-STRANGE.COM |
"If you haven't found something strange during the
day, it hasn't been much of a day." -- John A. Wheeler
day, it hasn't been much of a day." -- John A. Wheeler
PROVIDING SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTARY ON THE
PEOPLE, POLITICS, EVENTS AND ABSURDITIES OF
OUR TIME. SERVED UP WITH ACERBIC WIT, YOU
SHOULD FIND IT QUITE SATISFYING.
PEOPLE, POLITICS, EVENTS AND ABSURDITIES OF
OUR TIME. SERVED UP WITH ACERBIC WIT, YOU
SHOULD FIND IT QUITE SATISFYING.
President Clinton’s Special Mission For The First Gentleman
In a recent interview with the Guardian, a British paper
known for its anti-Americanism, Bill Clinton said that if his
wife Hillary wins the U.S. presidency, he would be given the job
of repairing America’s damaged international reputation.
Here’s a paragraph taken directly from the Guardian article:
“Mr Clinton, 61, reveals that his wife has said she would ask
him to ‘go out and immediately restore America’s standing, go
out and tell people America was open for business and
cooperation again’ after eight years marked by unilateralist
policies that have ‘enrage[d] the world.’”
It’s a bit difficult to sort out exactly who said what in that
paragraph -- what with the quotation marks within quotation
marks, and the brackets -- but the Guardian and the Billary are
pretty much on the same page about American conduct under
the Bush/Cheney/neocon warmongers. It’s all been a disaster
for the international consensus crowd, which is to say, the do-
nothing crowd. (You have to especially love that spliced
together part about “unilateralist policies that have ‘enrage[d]
the world.’” What kind of world is “enrage[d]” over the
removal of a mass-murdering dictator?)
So, anyway, let the word go forth that when Hillary becomes
president, bilateralism and cooperation will again be flowing
like milk and honey all over the world. Hallelujah! You can
almost hear the spontaneous outburst of whoops of joy that
must have echoed throughout the Guardian’s newsroom when
word got out.
Unfortunately, it almost pains me to be the one to burst the
bubble of euphoria inspired by the prospect of the Clintons,
both of them, back on the world stage again, making apology
tours of various continents and basically prostrating
themselves before their more enlightened internationalist
betters, but--
But the repair job, if you can even call it that, is already well
under way and without Bill Clinton delivering a single lip-
biting, penitential speech in a foreign land. Maybe the first
gentleman wannabe hasn’t been paying attention, but a slew of
those countries with whom he wants to repair America’s
“damaged international reputation” have in recent times been
electing more conservative, pro-American leaders than you can
shake a stick at. Topping the list, of course, are France and
Germany, but other notables are Canada, Sweden and Mexico.
In fact, in an interview with Sky News recently, British
Prime Minister Gordon Brown said that “the great change . . . is
taking place” and that “France and Germany and the European
Union are also moving more closely with America.” That’s
Gordon Brown, mind you, not Tony Blair, a.k.a. Bush lap dog.
France has certainly undergone the most breathtaking
transformation with this year’s election of its pro-American
French president, Nicolas Sarkozy. You have to wonder if the
Clintons caught the speech that Sarkozy recently made before
Congress. Rather than sounding like a guy who was all broken
up over “unilateralist policies that have ‘enrage[d] the world,’”
he sounded like someone who has the deepest respect and
affection possible for America, even under BushCo. Here are a
few highlights:
“The men and women of my generation heard their parents
talk about how in 1917, America saved France at a time when it
had reached the final limits of its strength, which it had
exhausted in the most absurd and the bloodiest of wars.”
“The men and women of my generation heard their parents
talk about how in 1944, America returned to free Europe from
the horrifying tyranny that threatened to enslave it.”
“I want to express the deep, sincere gratitude of the French
people. I want to tell you that whenever an American soldier
falls somewhere in the world, I think of what the American
army did for France. I think of them and I am sad, as one is sad
to lose a member of one’s family.”
“The men and women of my generation remember the
Marshall Plan that allowed their fathers to rebuild a
devastated Europe. They remember the Cold War, during
which America again stood as the bulwark of the Free World
against the threat of new tyranny.”
“I remember the Berlin crisis and Kennedy who
unhesitatingly risked engaging the United States in the most
destructive of wars so that Europe could preserve the freedom
for which the American people had already sacrificed so much.
No one has the right to forget. Forgetting . . . would be
tantamount to self-denial.”
Are you picking up on Sarkozy’s theme here? It’s called
appreciation for the fact that without America there would be
no free and prosperous France, or Europe, but rather tyranny
and darkness. And while the word “Iraq” was nowhere
mentioned in the speech, one can easily read between the lines
that if a number of countries, including France, have had a
disagreement with the United States over Iraq, they would be
well advised to keep things in perspective, not go overboard in
their condemnation and never forget what they owe America.
It’s an incredibly refreshing change from Jacque Chirac and
his congenital anti-Americanism. Also refreshing has been the
change in German leadership from Gerhard Schroeder to
Angela Merkel, who has shown herself to be comfortably pro-
American. No more Franco-Teutonic alliances set up for the
specific purpose of thwarting American power in its global
fight against terror regimes.
And all the rest of our traditional alliances with countries
like Australia, Canada, Japan and those in Eastern Europe are
just fine. (Yes, Australia just voted out its longtime staunchly
pro-American prime minister, John Howard, but the newbie,
Kevin Rudd, used the occasion of his victory speech to send
“greetings” to “our great friend and ally, the United States” and
Iraq was in no way a significant issue in the Australian
election.)
But Bill Clinton, still apparently clueless about the seismic
shift in the attitudes of some of our formerly disgruntled allies,
went right on in his Guardian interview with warm and fuzzy
reveries of how cooperative the U.S. would be under Hillary’s
vaunted leadership:
“And . . . people believe -- I think rightly -- that if she were
elected she would . . . tell people there may be a few occasions
when we have to do something on our own, but our strong
preference is going to be to be cooperative.”
Clinton’s inference, of course, is that all the
uncooperativeness in the world since 9/11 has come from a
reckless, unilateralist Bush administration bent on a senseless
war in Iraq. But the fact is that plenty of countries have been
involved in various capacities in the war in Iraq. As for those
who have been adamantly opposed to the war, why aren’t they
considered to be the uncooperative ones, rather than the U.S.?
It’s all so marvelously Clintonian, this idea of being
“cooperative.” It’s straight out of the “It takes a village”
mentality. But the problem with that is, what if the villagers
live in unrealistically utopian, Euro-style nanny states, don’t
perceive any particular threats to their way of life, and are
content to sit back and let apocalyptic Islamic terrorists run
roughshod over every part of the globe as long as they still have
their free healthcare, 35-hour workweeks and early retirement?
On Planet Hillary, being cooperative may very well mean
doing little or nothing about very real existential threats to the
American and Western way of life unless every last supercilious
Euro-snob is on board with a plan of action, which, of course,
will never happen. Even if Iraq turns out to be a total disaster
-- though lately there has been undeniable progress and
improvement -- I want a president who is still willing to boldly
fight evil in the world whether the EU and the UN like it or not.
In that regard, Hillary as commander-in-chief is simply
unthinkable.
In a recent interview with the Guardian, a British paper
known for its anti-Americanism, Bill Clinton said that if his
wife Hillary wins the U.S. presidency, he would be given the job
of repairing America’s damaged international reputation.
Here’s a paragraph taken directly from the Guardian article:
“Mr Clinton, 61, reveals that his wife has said she would ask
him to ‘go out and immediately restore America’s standing, go
out and tell people America was open for business and
cooperation again’ after eight years marked by unilateralist
policies that have ‘enrage[d] the world.’”
It’s a bit difficult to sort out exactly who said what in that
paragraph -- what with the quotation marks within quotation
marks, and the brackets -- but the Guardian and the Billary are
pretty much on the same page about American conduct under
the Bush/Cheney/neocon warmongers. It’s all been a disaster
for the international consensus crowd, which is to say, the do-
nothing crowd. (You have to especially love that spliced
together part about “unilateralist policies that have ‘enrage[d]
the world.’” What kind of world is “enrage[d]” over the
removal of a mass-murdering dictator?)
So, anyway, let the word go forth that when Hillary becomes
president, bilateralism and cooperation will again be flowing
like milk and honey all over the world. Hallelujah! You can
almost hear the spontaneous outburst of whoops of joy that
must have echoed throughout the Guardian’s newsroom when
word got out.
Unfortunately, it almost pains me to be the one to burst the
bubble of euphoria inspired by the prospect of the Clintons,
both of them, back on the world stage again, making apology
tours of various continents and basically prostrating
themselves before their more enlightened internationalist
betters, but--
But the repair job, if you can even call it that, is already well
under way and without Bill Clinton delivering a single lip-
biting, penitential speech in a foreign land. Maybe the first
gentleman wannabe hasn’t been paying attention, but a slew of
those countries with whom he wants to repair America’s
“damaged international reputation” have in recent times been
electing more conservative, pro-American leaders than you can
shake a stick at. Topping the list, of course, are France and
Germany, but other notables are Canada, Sweden and Mexico.
In fact, in an interview with Sky News recently, British
Prime Minister Gordon Brown said that “the great change . . . is
taking place” and that “France and Germany and the European
Union are also moving more closely with America.” That’s
Gordon Brown, mind you, not Tony Blair, a.k.a. Bush lap dog.
France has certainly undergone the most breathtaking
transformation with this year’s election of its pro-American
French president, Nicolas Sarkozy. You have to wonder if the
Clintons caught the speech that Sarkozy recently made before
Congress. Rather than sounding like a guy who was all broken
up over “unilateralist policies that have ‘enrage[d] the world,’”
he sounded like someone who has the deepest respect and
affection possible for America, even under BushCo. Here are a
few highlights:
“The men and women of my generation heard their parents
talk about how in 1917, America saved France at a time when it
had reached the final limits of its strength, which it had
exhausted in the most absurd and the bloodiest of wars.”
“The men and women of my generation heard their parents
talk about how in 1944, America returned to free Europe from
the horrifying tyranny that threatened to enslave it.”
“I want to express the deep, sincere gratitude of the French
people. I want to tell you that whenever an American soldier
falls somewhere in the world, I think of what the American
army did for France. I think of them and I am sad, as one is sad
to lose a member of one’s family.”
“The men and women of my generation remember the
Marshall Plan that allowed their fathers to rebuild a
devastated Europe. They remember the Cold War, during
which America again stood as the bulwark of the Free World
against the threat of new tyranny.”
“I remember the Berlin crisis and Kennedy who
unhesitatingly risked engaging the United States in the most
destructive of wars so that Europe could preserve the freedom
for which the American people had already sacrificed so much.
No one has the right to forget. Forgetting . . . would be
tantamount to self-denial.”
Are you picking up on Sarkozy’s theme here? It’s called
appreciation for the fact that without America there would be
no free and prosperous France, or Europe, but rather tyranny
and darkness. And while the word “Iraq” was nowhere
mentioned in the speech, one can easily read between the lines
that if a number of countries, including France, have had a
disagreement with the United States over Iraq, they would be
well advised to keep things in perspective, not go overboard in
their condemnation and never forget what they owe America.
It’s an incredibly refreshing change from Jacque Chirac and
his congenital anti-Americanism. Also refreshing has been the
change in German leadership from Gerhard Schroeder to
Angela Merkel, who has shown herself to be comfortably pro-
American. No more Franco-Teutonic alliances set up for the
specific purpose of thwarting American power in its global
fight against terror regimes.
And all the rest of our traditional alliances with countries
like Australia, Canada, Japan and those in Eastern Europe are
just fine. (Yes, Australia just voted out its longtime staunchly
pro-American prime minister, John Howard, but the newbie,
Kevin Rudd, used the occasion of his victory speech to send
“greetings” to “our great friend and ally, the United States” and
Iraq was in no way a significant issue in the Australian
election.)
But Bill Clinton, still apparently clueless about the seismic
shift in the attitudes of some of our formerly disgruntled allies,
went right on in his Guardian interview with warm and fuzzy
reveries of how cooperative the U.S. would be under Hillary’s
vaunted leadership:
“And . . . people believe -- I think rightly -- that if she were
elected she would . . . tell people there may be a few occasions
when we have to do something on our own, but our strong
preference is going to be to be cooperative.”
Clinton’s inference, of course, is that all the
uncooperativeness in the world since 9/11 has come from a
reckless, unilateralist Bush administration bent on a senseless
war in Iraq. But the fact is that plenty of countries have been
involved in various capacities in the war in Iraq. As for those
who have been adamantly opposed to the war, why aren’t they
considered to be the uncooperative ones, rather than the U.S.?
It’s all so marvelously Clintonian, this idea of being
“cooperative.” It’s straight out of the “It takes a village”
mentality. But the problem with that is, what if the villagers
live in unrealistically utopian, Euro-style nanny states, don’t
perceive any particular threats to their way of life, and are
content to sit back and let apocalyptic Islamic terrorists run
roughshod over every part of the globe as long as they still have
their free healthcare, 35-hour workweeks and early retirement?
On Planet Hillary, being cooperative may very well mean
doing little or nothing about very real existential threats to the
American and Western way of life unless every last supercilious
Euro-snob is on board with a plan of action, which, of course,
will never happen. Even if Iraq turns out to be a total disaster
-- though lately there has been undeniable progress and
improvement -- I want a president who is still willing to boldly
fight evil in the world whether the EU and the UN like it or not.
In that regard, Hillary as commander-in-chief is simply
unthinkable.