- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
First off, I agree with Glenn's post, in its entirety. What's missing, and revealing, is the failure to mention Clinton's "harder" crimes.
I don't blame Glenn for this - he's criticizing Dowd's column, and that's fine. But isn't it interesting that MD failed to mentions Clinton's air campaign against Serbia and Kosovo? And his bombing of Iraq? And his bombing of the pharmaceutical plant in Sudan?
These are the crimes Clinton really needs to answer for, not his partying with Monica Lewinsky. Maybe he lied under oath, maybe not - if he did, then he should answer for that, but that issue is peanuts compared to his orders to bomb innocents in foreign countries.
The common thread, it seems to me, is that the American media and political class just don't care if you use the military might of our country irresponsibly and inappropriately. Instead, it's expected. In fact, Presidents that don't take these steps will get criticized as weak, certainly from the hard right, but often from such "moderates" as Joe Lieberman or Joe Biden as well.
THIS is what has to change. Of course Clinton's sexcapades are a joke compared to Bush's rampant criminality. But Clinton (and most of our previous Presidents before him) helped set the stage for Bush by being allowed to use force without justification and without consequence for so long.
It is my hope that all the people that got so angry with Bush (and appropriately so) over his lawbreaking and reckless use of our military will also get angry with Obama and try to prevent him from doing the same.
Given Obama's support for the bill immunizing the telecom companies and his intention to step up the war in Afghanistan and potentially bomb Pakistan witout Pakistani permission, I fear there will be plenty of opportunity for continuing these struggles.
