blaming Clinton

[Terrance]

Paul Mackin wrote:
> 
> While in office Clinton got blamed regularly from both the left and the
> right. His right wing critics blame him NOW for lack of preparedness but
> they sang a different tune when he was in office. When  he ordered missile
> strikes in an effort to kill bin Laden ('98?) they said he was just trying
> to deflect attention from Monica Lewinsky. and when he ordered Pennsylvania
> Avenue in front of the White House closed off after Oklahoma City he was
> accused of hysteria. The Peace Movement is at least a little more
> consistent.

Yeah, it seems the peace people were as consistent as the policies
(Bush/Clinton/Bush)  they opposed. 
Some of them anyway. What I read from a lot of Doug's so called
alternative press is personality bashing and propaganda. They don't care
about the facts, the policies, the point being to sell their tired story
to a new generation of readers leaning in their direction and the old
guard who don't need to read it because they "know" it already. 

Look how Doug reacted to the new war. 

Told you so. 

Here we go again. 

The war economy blah blah. 

Confronted with the facts, he turned on the heavy spin machines,
multiple persona attacks on and off-list. 

It's a habit by now I guess. 

It's also very paranoid spin, it suggests things over and over and
repeats numbers and assertions (not facts, like 500,000 children
murdered in Iraq etc.) that won't believed by anyone with the time and
the motivation to look things up. 

They spin and spin. Begin with a claim that the USA services in WWII
were from a higher economic status than those that served after WWII. 

A false claim. 

But when I ask for the facts only spin replies. 

Rediculously high percentage of Vietnam Vets are homeless or the
soldiers were disprepotionatley black and welfare....and the fancy foot
work to split the hairs with several terms, foot soldiers, middle-class,
working-class, underprivlidged....

When you confront them and ask for the facts, duck. The facts will never
show up, but you will called every name under the moon and asked
questions like, 

"don't you care about starving children in Afghanistan?" 

I admit that I delete about 90% of Doug's posts w/o reading them now
(this includes his many personas) but I've read enough of them to know I
don't want to read them. As you said Paul, the news is not about in
depths analysis, but  some folks are able to put a story out without
insulting their readers too much.