blaming Clinton

[Paul Mackin]

The moral dilemma is in dealing with the authoritarian regimes (their being
no NONauthoritarian ones except Israel) but the practical problem of the
moment  for the U.S seems to arise from being in the Middle East at all.
Desecrating holy Islamic ground. An issue that can really stir up the masses
in the hands of a bin Laden. It might be nice to alleviate at least the
moral dilemma but can anyone imagine the authoritarian regimes' being
democratized at the insistence of the U.S. Am I being too paranoid in
thinking that under more freedom fundamentalist rabble rousers would  be
able to stir things up more than ever. Look what getting rid of the Shah
did. The friendly authoritarian regimes and the U.S.  and Israel very much
have something  in common. They don't want to see more Islamic
fundamentalism.

So is the answer to forget the Middle East and the World Economy's need for
its oil. There's always Alaska and other sources to supply the U.S. for a
while but what about Europe and Japan. And wouldn't Israel be pushed into
the sea. Maybe not but it would be touch and go.

Haven't the foggiest.
        P.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Romeo" <richardromeo at hotmail.com>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 5:27 PM
Subject: Re: blaming Clinton


> Terrance--
>
> of course, I don't, dude--I'm talking about the difficulty US
> administrations have with supporting regimes that are quite autocratic
like
> Egypt and Saudia Arabia and rationalizing such a relationship vis a vis
> avowed positions regarding freedom, democracy and the like.
>
> It's not perceived favorably in many countries I would think. Kuwait never
> did loosen up after the Gulf War, did it?
>
> Such rhetoric taken to an extreme--well, we can see the results. This
attack
> appears not to be created in a vacuum, you know.
>
> Rich
>
>
> >From: Terrance <lycidas2 at earthlink.net>
> >To: "pynchon-l at waste.org" <pynchon-l at waste.org>
> >Subject: Re: blaming Clinton
> >Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 11:48:58 -0400
> >
> >
> >
> >Richard Romeo wrote:
> > > his administration is partly to blame for sure,
> >
> >He's to blame for what?
> >
> >Doug said some have blamed Clinton for 9/11.
> >
> >This is a stupid thing to say. Bill Clinton's didn't fly a plane into
> >the WTC or the Pentagon. The terrorists are responsible for that.
> >
> >If Clinton is to blame for 9/11 we should put him on trial.
> >
> >Let those who accuse him of crimes on 9/11  present the facts and
> >evidence.
> >
> >But what should we blame the Clinton administration for?
> >
> >Want a list? Eight years worth?
> >
> >
> >The alternative press did not spare Clinton. Why would they?
> >But it's was a difficult job, why he had "genocide" in Africa, nubile
> >long hairs in the White house, frigid wife.  No matter where he put that
> >cigar he would have trouble.
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>