You’ve seen all those creepy photos of George Bush rubbing up against Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf, the two of them grinning and giggling like they’re going to the senior prom. So it’s hard to remember that it was Hillary and Bill who brought Pervez to the dance in the first place.To me, the point that article makes is that bad foreign policy that most often flies in the face of democratic ideals and the best interests and aspirations of the "natives"--not to mention the longer-term interests of America and its people--is a bi-partisan epidemic in the US, and we shouldn't forget that. Venting all our frustrations at placards of George W. Bush might feel good but is not going to help anybody in the medium-to-long term. What we need to do is to try and help the whole US establishment see the light...
Technorati tags applicable to this post: Pakistan - Emergency - CrisisPK - Hillary - Hillary on Pakistan - Hillary on Musharraf - 2008 Elections - 2008
Right you are. We MUST keep in mind that the policies of US stay the same no matter which party comes to power. Dems may present a prettier face to us but both Dems and Republicans are two faces of the same coin.
Lately another fact coming out in the open is that it is not really US interests they are protecting but corporate interests and this act is well-presented in documentaries like "America: From Freedom to Fascism."
By the way I would really like to know if Mush's rise is really due to being a successful bill collector for Clinton's and Blair's friends? Did he really send 30,000 troops to power stations back in 1998 as Palast mentions?
Post a Comment