Abstract: The Clintons, during an eight year presidency, made the rich richer, and started the present war with Iraq (confirmed by several H. Clinton votes as a senator). THAT’S IT! Besides this, the CLINTONS DID NOTHING. We describe below why it will be more of the same next time Clintons come around, to the deep secret delight of their smoking and fuming pseudo opponents. All what changed during the Bush-Clinton rule, besides smoke and mirrors, was ever more war against the planet. Bush the Father became Vice President, the all important right hand man of Reagan, 27 (TWENTY SEVEN) years ago (the own dad of that Bush had a personal, and immensely lucrative relationship with … Adolf Hitler … truth is more violent than fiction!) Inbreeding of a ruthless, brazen elite has made the USA into a very strange place. It’s high time to get out of that trance with the past. For the planet, yes, but also for the USA.


The Clintons promised health care reform 16 years ago, as they were running for the White House. What happened? Well, nothing. They caused a lot of antagonism, and used the controversy they had created to do nothing (it’s a new sort of machiavelism).Here is a quote from Paul Krugman, a writer and economist who is no Obama lover (”Lessons of 1992?, New York Times, 01/28/08)

“… Mr. Clinton promised health care reform… This turned out to be a disaster. Much has been written about the process by which the Clinton health care plan was put together: it was too secretive, too top-down, too politically tone-deaf. Above all, however, it was too slow. Mr. Clinton didn’t deliver legislation to Congress until Nov. 20, 1993, by which time the momentum from his electoral victory had evaporated, and opponents had had plenty of time to organize against him. The failure of health care reform, in turn, doomed the Clinton presidency to second-rank status. The government was well run … but as Mr. Obama correctly says there was no change in the country’s fundamental trajectory.”-

Well, the entire problem of the USA has been the “fundamental trajectory”. The US has been behaving as if, alone among the concert of nations, it had nothing to learn from anybody. This is reflective of a general inability to learn from the other side, fundamentally arising from a self persuasion of intrinsic purity and superiority. In one word: hubris. So the Clintons’ presidency did not do any health care reform. Were they too busy doing something else? If so, what was it?

What did the Clintons’ presidency achieve? Well, Rubin (head of Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, great sub prime crisis architect, and also Clinton Treasury Chief) told Clinton in 1992 what he would be doing as president. Clinton said: “You tell me if I want to be reelected I should keep the fu..ing bond trader happy?”. Well, he was, because he did. That’s good, to keep the bond traders happy: it keeps interest rates low, and you have to be nice with rich people, worldwide (because most bond traders are overseas). But is that all the Clintons could do to help the USA? Make nice with the Rich?The Clintons did not make any health care reform, but they created the BUBBLE economy (”irrational exuberance”, Greenspan nicknamed it in 1996, half way through the Clintons’ presidency).

The Clintons also went to war against IRAQ. As Clinton boasted during the debate with Obama (01/31/08): “In 1998 we bombed them for days”. She seemed really happy about that, she was beaming: nothing beats a good bombing, and especially not reasoning with one’s adversary. The Clintons did not just bomb: they instituted continual war, harassment and blockade against Iraq. They did not dare go to the last step, themselves, but then, in several votes, in 2002, Senator Clinton incited G. W. Bush to invade Iraq.

The Iraq invasion could be viewed as the ultimate aim, conscious or not, of the Clinton strategy: don’t negotiate, just attack, antagonize everybody. Just as with the Clintons’ pseudo effort with health care. To this day, the USA will not talk to Iran. Instead it has Europe’s “Big Three” do the talking for them (it reminds one a bit of Munich, where the US was conspicuous by its absence). Now Hillary Clinton has positioned herself to stay in Iraq indefinitely, because she will withdraw troops only if it’s “RESPONSIBLE” (she said in the debate with Obama). Well, Bush’s, and Mc Cain’s point, entirely. They both withdraw troops everyday, and are very “responsible”, and if it’s irresponsible to withdraw, well, they don’t. But if Clinton is going to be Mc Cain light, why not get the real thing? People may wonder what motivation Clinton would have to go on with the Iraq war. Well, what motivation had the USA to go to war against Iraq under the Clintons? Well, the same motivation that Great Britain had in invading Iraq: OIL. And keeping oil men, and their derivatives, happy.

Other suggestions of Hillary Clinton such as freezing interest rates are completely unworkable, and would be totally unjust (as Obama correctly pointed out, free market interest rates would then rise enormously, so there could not be any new home purchase: Clinton has got to know that, everybody knowing a bit of finance and international law knows that, so she deliberately misrepresents reality by omitting this significant negative change).

The Clintons did nothing much during their eight year presidency. By comparison, Nixon set up with “Federal financial assistance” the “Health Maintenance Organization” system, unique in the world, a national health care were the rich profits financially from sickness and death. Nixon found some spare time to do this during Watergate, while extricating the US from Vietnam, and fighting the huge inflation the Vietnam war had caused. While the Clintons stayed 8 years in the White House, playing the saxophone as they let the economy drained, exporting all its jobs overseas, Nixon did a lot during 5 years (OK, mostly in the wrong direction, but the point is that, contrarily to what the Clintons’ rule showed, a president can do a lot.)

The HMO system set up by Nixon, with the attending insurance industry, destroys ever more US health care (now # 37 and sinking). The Clintons did nothing about it.

The Clintons talked lots about ecology, but they did nothing, there, again. This is not just a question of having clean air, and the fact the US emits about one-third of the world’s CO2. Doing nothing about US inefficiency also STRATEGICALLY WEAKENED the USA. Under the Clintons the inefficiencies in the US economy grew, as proven by the apparent, otherwise unexplainable, rise in “productivity” (GDP loves waste: the bigger the traffic jam, the more productive, as far as GDP is concerned). So doing, the USA fell further behind Europe and even the rest of the world, in many technologies and industries (China adopts EU standards, so the USA cannot sell its over-polluting cars in China, a problem the Germans, French and Japanese do not have with their own cars).

Bush extended all the Clinton policies to their logical conclusions. The Clintons had saved some money for him, as they did not invest in infrastructure whatsoever. Of course a modern infrastructure is what an economy makes. The US is now clearly relatively less competitively industrialized than, say, France.

What were the Clintons after? Well, B. Clinton, soon after his presidency, earned more than 40 million dollars just in speaking fees, and H. Clinton declared more than 20 million dollars in her personal stock portfolio, a few years ago (they assuredly own much more than that, these are two items we observed passing by). This does not look good in comparison with all past US presidents, but one, all the way back to Truman (neither Nixon nor Reagan nor Carter used their presidential prestige as a piggy bank). OK, the Bushes are a different problem: having got money from their collaboration with Hitler (!), as a family, they keep on going with their fundamental trajectory, empowering themselves (the Carlyle group, doing business in and from the Middle East, etc…)

The Clintons are probably sincere: they believe that all can be done is micro tweaks to the US trajectory, and they may as well have a good time doing it. It’s true the neoconservative attack machine gave them no respite (but that is a smokescreen, as we said: the true work of the Clintons is to do nothing fundamental). The problem, though, is that the entire world is moving fast these days.

If change is not brought in a timely and controlled manner, the US economy could get in very dire straights. A modern house can be made 15 times more efficient than an old one. The US is covered with inefficient houses. The EU mandates efficiencies, and not just in housing. The entire US railroad system has to be rebuilt. All of this crisis of US energy inefficiency, means economic opportunity, if grabbed early enough, and spells disaster if, as under the Clintons, the solution is viewed as more US military action in Iraq. Iraqis have plenty enough reasons to hate Americans: get over it, and pass the buck to the United Nations (this is the meaning of withdrawing from Iraq).

According to Adm. R. Mullen, Chief of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, military spending should rise to about 2 billion dollars a day. Payments to Iraqis and replacement of worn equipment are augmenting quickly. According to the commander of the Marine Corps, “We are making do … but we see some needs on the horizon.” (Source of all this: Wall Street Journal, February 4, 2008). In other words, the life energy of the United States of America is draining in the sands of Mesopotamia.

The Bush administration, out of money and imagination has been saving a few hundreds of millions by savaging the US MENTAL infrastructure (from biology to high energy physics). For example the budget for thermonuclear fusion was cut down to zero, leaving the monopoly of that highly strategic field completely to Eurasia. This sort of diplomacy (the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor being an international project), with the knife (as in Iraq), removes ever more goodwill for the USA. At the Bali climate change conference, all of the planet’s governments were disgusted by the US attitude. To the point that, when the Papua New Guinea representative told the USA to “get out of the way”, everybody applauded, and the US had to submit. For the USA to stop being just reactive (hence submissive), it will take more than the tinkering the Clintons, and their secret neoconservative friends, propose to do ad vitam eternam.

As the US keeps on rebuilding in Mesopotamia what will be bombed tomorrow, probably by the US itself, it’s as much which is not built in the USA, by the USA, for the USA. Sisyphus should get out of making war in Mesopotamia. It’s unlikely that the Clintons, who started the massive air war against Iraq, would suddenly change, and learn to become more constructive. Clintons have been consistently reproaching Obama to want to talk (instead of what? Bombing, the Clinton way?)

For the longest time, for all too long, the USA was put to sleep by all the advantages its victory in WW II brought (in a war that killed more than 70 millions, mostly in Europe, the USA suffered only 418,500 dead, and no damage to its infrastructure; by comparison France had lost entire cities to bombings, and only a handful of railroad engines still worked; most of the core of Europe had been devastated; it’s hard to believe, but repairs for the damage caused by WW I, yes, the First World War, is still ongoing!) All other countries have known immense turmoil, and the wisdom most have gained is that it is better TO PREVENT THROUGH CHANGE, INSTEAD OF BEING VICTIMIZED BY CHANGE.

The planet is under immediate threat, and it could quickly turn into a military threat, if ecological panic gets out of control (what about $ 500 oil? And rising seas?) This crisis is also an opportunity, even an economic opportunity. The USA has to lead CHANGE, not just try to conserve a past which is now dead.


1) Note on the Anglo-Saxon obsession with waging war and hatred in Iraq: the Anglo-Saxons have been making war in Mesopotamia for more than 90 (ninety) years. Now the USA is making its largest investment ever, or anywhere, waging war in Mesopotamia. Clinton class this “RESPONSIBLE”. How come? Simple: Iraq has the largest oil reserves (behind, or not, Saudi Arabia), and the USA has the world’s most INEFFICIENT economy, dying for oil. One of deep cause of Anglo-American furor against the Ba’ath party in Iraq was that the Ba’ath had broken the monopoly of the British Iraq Petroleum Company (by signing with a French company), then the Ba’ath nationalized the IPC, and Iraq grew vigorously (after the 1968 revolution). The Anglo-Saxon hatred against Iraq runs very deep. The British Manual of Military Law of 1914 opined that the “rules of war” applied only to conflict “between civilized nations … they do not apply in wars with uncivilized States and tribes”.

In a War Office minute of 12 May 1919, Winston Churchill argued for the use of gas (in IRAQ): “I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favor of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare… I am strongly in favor of using POISONED GAS against UNCIVILIZED TRIBES. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a LIVELY TERROR and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most..”

Need I say more?

2) OK, I could put in doubt the sense of reality of the Clintons. Clinton, a huge white guy with a white wife and a white daughter, has long gone all around claiming he was “the first black president”. With the Clintons white is black too, and the blacks themselves seem redundant. Emperor Clinton has no clothes, but they are black too.

Patrice Ayme