If changing the reason for going to war three times a week (nuclear weapons, complicity with bin laden, uranium yellow cakes, etc), outing CIA agents with contrary evidence, and lying to the public on just about every other fact in the lead-up to the invasion isn't enough to be interesting to the american public, I doubt any revelations forthcoming in their 70s and 80s will be.
Not to mention torture, outsourced, contracted out or otherwise, and Guantanamo Bay. It's an unfortunate fact that however inalienable human rights are supposed to be, democratic government are only interested in their citizens'.
Lip service to their citizens' rights only. They've already determined it is 'ok' to kill a US citizen with a drone purely on the presidential whim, and hold you indefinitely without trial.
Plenty has come out already at people don't seem to care. Airliners filled with pallets of shrink-wrapped cash which is then handed out with no accounting? Go freedom fighters!
"The World Trade Center bombing occurred on February 26, 1993, when a truck bomb was detonated below the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York, NY."
"On June 26, 1993, Clinton ordered a cruise missile attack on the Iraqi Intelligence Service's (IIS) principal command and control complex in Baghdad, publicly announced as retaliation for the assassination attempt by the IIS on former President George H. W. Bush while he was visiting Kuwait in April of that year to commemorate a coalition victory over Iraq in the Persian Gulf War. "
"In Clinton's 1998 State of the Union Address, he warned Congress of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's possible pursuit of nuclear weapons:
Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. "
It is more information about the years that led up to the Iraq war, the long one, addressing the poster's comment on what else might come out. My post was to show that there's a lot out there now that happened in the 90's that seems to sometimes be lost.
Including the stuff that took place in Iraq during the 8 year reign of Clinton. Oh, his wife was on the legal team that blew Watergate out of proportion forcing a fine and honorable president to leave office on his own accord. Bill, her husband didn't leave even after getting caught undermining the US justice system. He just rode it out.
"In 1974 she was a member of the impeachment inquiry staff in Washington, D.C., advising the House Committee on the Judiciary during the Watergate scandal.[52] Under the guidance of Chief Counsel John Doar and senior member Bernard Nussbaum,[35] Rodham helped research procedures of impeachment and the historical grounds and standards for impeachment.[52] The committee's work culminated in the resignation of President Richard Nixon in August 1974."
| honorable president to leave office on his
| own accord
I'm not sure if this is a troll, or some form of satire... Calling Nixon on "honorable President" in a discussion of an article about hard evidence that he sabotaged peace talks for his own personal gain?
| undermining the US justice system
Now who's blowing things out of proportion? He lied about having an affair. He did so under oath, so it's perjury. Is this wrong? Yes. Is this "undermining the US justice system?" Not really. Committing a crime is not a undermining the justice system, no matter how much you might dislike the person.
Actually he walked a semantic tightrope in which he chose to define "sexual relations" as sexual intercourse and the public and congress disagreed. The larger point was that he was pursued over a personal matter by a special prosecutor who had spent tens of millions on one or another fishing expedition and turned up nothing of consequence.
It's a tangent, but, one of the things apparent sometimes when politics is discussed is that reductio ad absurdum is absolutely not guaranteed to work as an argument technique. It depends on everyone involved being able to recognize the absurd.
I'm comparing undermining the US justice system, one president stepped down, the other just hung around. Or do you think that doing the right thing after doing the wrong thing is only something that Republicans should do?
