Registered user login:

Good Ol' Bill, the liberal hero

John Pilger

Published 09 August 2007

Entering the "grotesquely paid presence" of Bill Clinton

On 14 August, you are invited to "an audience" with Bill Clinton. You have a choice. You can attend the "breakfast and speech" or the "brunch buffet and speech". These will take place in the cosy Millennium Dome, where a place in the "Kings' Row" will cost you £799. Last year, Clinton made more than £5m granting "audiences". Not only the usual corporate types attend. A few years ago, I watched a conga line of writers, journalists, publishers and others of liberal reputation shuffling towards his grotesquely paid presence at the Guardian Hay Festival.

The Clinton scam is symptomatic of the death of liberalism - not its narcissistic, war-loving wing ("humanitarian intervention"), which is ascendant, but the liberalism that speaks against crimes committed in its name, while extending rungs of the economic ladder to those below. It was Clinton's promotion of the former and crushing of the latter that so inspired new Labour's "project". Clinton, not Bush, was Cool Britannia's true Ma fia godfather. Keen observers of Tony Blair will recall that during one of his many farewell speeches, the socio path did a weird impersonation of Clinton's head wiggle.

Clinton is able to make a shedload because he is contrasted with the despised Bush as the flawed good guy who did his best for the world and brought economic boom to the US - the fabled American dream no less. Both notions are finely spun lies. What Clinton and Blair have most in common is that they are the most violent leaders of their countries in the modern era; that includes Bush. Consider Clinton's true record:

In 1993, he pursued George H W Bush's in vasion of Somalia. He invaded Haiti in 1994. He bombed Bosnia in 1995 and Serbia in 1999. In 1998, he bombed Afghanistan; and, at the height of his Monica Lewinsky troubles, he momentarily diverted the headline writers to a major "terrorist target" in Sudan that he ordered destroyed with an onslaught of missiles. It turned out to be sub-Saharan Africa's largest pharmaceutical plant, the only source of chloroquine, the treatment for malaria, and other drugs that were lifelines to hundreds of thousands. As a result, wrote Jonathan Belke, then of the Near East Foundation, "tens of thousands of people - many of them children - have suffered and died from mal aria, tuberculosis and other treatable diseases".

Long before Shock and Awe, Clinton was destroying and killing in Iraq. Under the lawless pretence of a "no-fly zone", he oversaw the longest allied aerial bombardment since the Second World War. This was hardly reported. At the same time, he imposed and tightened a Washington-led economic siege estimated to have killed a million civilians. "We think the price is worth it," said his secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, in an exquisite moment of honesty.

Clinton's economic "legacy" - like Blair's - is the most unequal society Americans have known. In his last presidential year, 1999, I walked along the ocean front at Santa Monica in California and was struck by the number of middle-class homeless, "bag gents" who had lost executive jobs and families thanks largely to Clinton's North American Free Trade treaty. As for working Americans, the boasted high employment figures concealed a reversion to real wage levels of the 1970s. It was Clinton, not Bush, who wiped out the last of Roosevelt's New Deal. Back in Santa Monica the other day, I noted the bag gents had multiplied.

You see Good Ol' Bill, or the Comeback Kid, as he is variously known, wiggling his head on the TV news these days, campaigning for his wife, Hillary, among Americans who, terminally naive, still believe the Democratic Party is theirs and that "it's time to vote a woman into the White House". Together, the Clintons are known as "Billary" and rightly so. Like Good Ol' Bill, his wife has no plans to address the divisions of a society that allows 130,000 Americans to claim the wealth of millions of their fellow citizens. Like GOB, she wants to continue Iraq's torment for perhaps a decade. And she has not "ruled out" attacking Iran.

Those settling down in the Kings' Row at the Millennium Dome on 14 August for breakfast or brunch with GOB, having transferred another swag to the Clinton bank account, are unlikely to reflect on the blood spilt and the epic suffering caused, or on the moral corruption of the liberal ideology that courted and acclaimed Clinton, along with the criminal Blair.

But we should.

John Pilger's new film, "The War on Democracy", will be shown on ITV on 20 August (11pm)

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

45 comments from readers

RobShorrock
09 August 2007 at 14:25

John,

Thanks for the usual dissonant and pompous polemic about western states. So how do we deal with international fascist states then in the current situation? How do you ensure that Iraq, Saudia Arabia, Iran, Pakistan etc become democratic states and enshrine and protect human and polictical rights?

Cybertiger
09 August 2007 at 15:31

"How do you ensure that Iraq, Saudia Arabia, Iran, Pakistan etc become democratic states and enshrine and protect human and polictical rights?"

How about bombing them back to the stone age? That will do the trick, won't it Rob? After all, 'destroy in order to save' is the good ol' military motto of the USofA

Rickk
09 August 2007 at 20:43

I'm sure that whoever follows the current President will also look relatively spectacular whatever his or her actual achievements. It makes a change to have someone knocking Bill Clinton but this article feels lop-sided and could do with some positive reflections to balance the blame so cogently pointed out.

RobShorrock, it's nice that you take the weight of the humanity and rights of the countries you list on your shoulders and that you presume the ideologies practised in 'the West' assume a level of superiority that enables them carte blanche to invade and dictate to others in order to 'spread' these things. Not everyone shares this presumption.

VR2LNNNTT
10 August 2007 at 08:14

John, I have lost many heroes in my search for the truth. Heroes not in the true sense of the word, just men that I looked up to from an ignorant, uninformed point of view. I can see a little more clearly now and even the ugly truths mean more to me now than my former super-heroes. Thanks for your courage and insightful reporting.

thoughtcontrol
10 August 2007 at 10:11

In reply to RobShorrock: Maybe Western governments should not actively try to undermine democratically elected governments by supplying arms and support to terrorist factions within the third world to ensure that valuable natural resources are kept in the hands of a few and out of the reach of the majority, as in Saudi Arabia. To quote a a famous medical adage: first do no harm.

mitchy
10 August 2007 at 13:50

Indeed thoughtcontrol.

Another adage which might be relevant here is: 'Do unto others...'

@RobShorrock: suggest you explore the meaning of the term 'fascist state' and look closer to home for comparisons.

Harry
11 August 2007 at 14:16

Ah Pilger. You know, youre the reason I stopped buying this magazine. You really are hopelessly so far to the left it just hurts. Something you need to learn- communism does not work. There are examples. You worry that ol bill charges too much? Well, believe it or not, some people are happy to pay that much. That is why they do. And he charges that much because he can. "ooooh what a terrible thing! It would never have happened in russia during communism! Oooohh dear what greed!!". Do us all a favour and move to cuba. Youll fit in there, until you realise you cant criticize the system without going to prison.

Matilda1234
11 August 2007 at 16:05

Harry, what are you on about? Where is there any reference to communism in Pilger's article? It seems you are projecting your own political bias on to an article which seems merely to be suggesting that before anyone valorises Clinton they need to look closely at his record and his behaviour. What's communist about that?

Harry
11 August 2007 at 16:11

Its pilgers communist thinking that makes him disgusted by clinton earning decent money. This idea that "money is bad". Communism. What other silly ideology would have an issue with a private citizen making money?

The Rev. All Green
13 August 2007 at 10:44

lol harry

really.

oh and why is that people always say: 'Communism doesn't work. Just look at the examples like the Soviet Union', but never say 'Capitalism doesn't work. Just look at the examples like Russia' ?

Harry
13 August 2007 at 11:12

I didnt say "just look at the soviet union." at all. There are other examples, believe it or not! All of them, in fact. Can you think of one example, out of the dozens of communist experiments that there have been over the years, which allowed people to have real freedom of speech? Freedom to say "this doesnt work", or indeed freedom to leave as they choose? They always stop those things eventually- because the countries would collapse if they allowed them.

By the way, the reason why we dont say "just look at russia" is because russia has only been a capitalist country for a few years. And even then, they have more freedom and money than they had under communism.

This is the problem with you communists- you overlook ALL the evidence. And still you refuse to move to Cuba. How do I know you havent? Because if you had, you wouldnt be able to read what anti-communists like me write. Real freedom of speech like Pilger here uses to make a living would not exist if we followed his advice.

The Rev. All Green
13 August 2007 at 11:27

"Do us all a favour and move to cuba. Youll fit in there, until you realise you cant criticize the system without going to prison."

sounds a lot like you want someone else to take away his freedom of speech.

btw, i'm not a communist. just wanted to point out your rather ridiculous

Harry
13 August 2007 at 11:50

Well, you didnt succeed in pointing it out at all. You havent nullified my arguement in the slightest. My arguement was that this communist way of thinking doesnt work. If youre not a communist, why are you dissagreeing?

And Im quite clearly not advocating taking away anyones freedom of speech-quite the opposite. Im supporting it- by criticizing the system of government, advocated (mainly in previous posts, but the same thinking is evident here) by the "journalist" above, which would take it away.

Cybertiger
13 August 2007 at 12:11

I was lead to believe that Islamists had now replaced the Reds under the bed. Please keep up, Harry!

Harry
13 August 2007 at 12:22

What has islam got to do with what we re talking about? Are you agreeing with me that communism is obsolete now? Surely, its pilger and his red readers that need to keep up?

Harry
13 August 2007 at 12:56

What has Islam got to do with it?! My word, you communists sure are hairy thinkers! What are you saying- that you agree with me that communism is dead, and that the advocaters of it (like the "journalist" here) should move to the centre?

mitchy
13 August 2007 at 12:59

Oh dear Harry, it doesnt sound as though you have a very clear idea at all of what you're trying to say.

I'd suggest you find out what 'Communism' actually is before using the term as a stick to try and beat people with.

Its often better to remain silent and merely be suspected a fool, than to open one's mouth and dispel any doubt, hmmm?

sr1
13 August 2007 at 14:28

I thank my fellow Australian John Pilger for this great article. But wish he also asked "Why should we pay to listen to a speech by anyone?"

Harry
13 August 2007 at 14:40

Apologies for the double post (pc playing up).

Mitchy, one thing that I do enjoy about you communists/ex-communists/pilger supporters, is that youre always avoiding the point! Its a sign of fluffy thinking (no offence or anything. Youre probably one of those communists that thinks that he would have got a real education in Cuba. I can sympathise). Why wont one of you give me the answer to my question? I keep asking for the name of a communist country (past or present), that survived with freedom of speech?

All of pilgers articles stem from the same silly notion- the idea that communism is the answer. Thats why, for example, he has an issue with a private citizen earning money. No other ideology would have an issue with that. Most people would be happy for the guy.

Harry
13 August 2007 at 15:36

to sr1: Why should anyone put on a service for free? Everyone should be paid. Thats something the communists here wont understand. They think everyone should work "for the love of their fellow man". What a load of nonsense.

Cybertiger
13 August 2007 at 17:04

Harry said,

"They think everyone should work "for the love of their fellow man". What a load of nonsense."

I suspect Good Ol' Bill could afford to set a good example to his fellow man - but whether Coca Cola or Pepsi flavoured, the big ole Americans can always be trusted to disappoint.

Harry
13 August 2007 at 17:21

So, youre telling me he should work for free?! Are you telling me that he actually should work "for the love of his fellow man"?! What silliness. Only a communist could come up with an excuse to exploit people like that.

Harry
13 August 2007 at 17:32

and before anyone chimes in- yes, it is even possible to exploit an ex-president. Hes a citizen too- and no one should be told to "work for free". What a silly ideology it is...

Cybertiger
13 August 2007 at 18:22

Silly Harry said,

"So, youre telling me he should work for free?! Are you telling me that he actually should work "for the love of his fellow man"?! What silliness."

I'm not saying the ol' democrat should 'work for free', but I do think the ol' freedom loving critter could afford to be a little freer with his favours.

PS. Whoops, my mistake - wasn't it Monica who was a little free with her favours to big ol' Bill?

PPS. Bill "we think the price was worth it" Clinton killed a million Iraqi civilians but was impeached for lying about sex with that woman. What sillness. What a silly ideology it is ...

bill
13 August 2007 at 20:39

It would be interesting to know how much money this show rakes in. Does Big Willy pay income tax in UK?

John Pilger left out a couple of other things that Clinton did to us:

1. "Reformed" the welfare system so that instead of providing aid for poor children it now concentrates on forcing poor moms work for minimum wage without child care assistance.

2. Initiated the 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which NYTimes columnist Anthony Lewis described as the worst assault on civil liberties since the aftermath of the Civil War.

Harry
14 August 2007 at 05:25

Cybertiger, what on earth has monica lewinsky got to do with what Im talking about?! Again, fluffy, hairy, communist thinking. I suppose you were one of those people who was horrified by the monica lewinsky scandal eh? Like its at all relevant to the real world. Hairy thinking. Im not Bill's press secretary- Im someone who thinks that your communist ideology is obsolete. Ive bearly mentioned Bill at all. And your last point- I think (im not sure- youre not very good at articulating your point)- that youre critisizing capitalism for how it dealt legally with Clinton? I could be wrong... Anyway, if that is your point, are you telling me that communism is somehow better at applying the law than capitalism? Because that really would be silly. Id like to see Castro being impeached! Hahaha. Good luck there!

And by the way- freer with his favours? It wasnt a favour- it was a job. Hes a private citizen earning money. He doesnt cut the price either "for the love of his fellow man".

Cybertiger
14 August 2007 at 10:26

Dirty Harry said,

"And by the way- freer with his favours? It wasnt a favour- it was a job. Hes a private citizen earning money. He doesnt cut the price either "for the love of his fellow man"."

Monica Lewinsky was probably paid by the communists - or maybe she was a paid up islamist insurgent - paid to make Big Willy look silly. She was good at her job and no doubt paid handsomely for her success in making love to the fella. Ms. Lewinsky, Good Ol' Bill and George Dubya make Americans, in the greatest democracy that money can buy, look like pricks, just a pack of silly great tossers. Don't you just love 'em ...

Harry
14 August 2007 at 11:34

Cybertiger, what an intellectual post! You used the phrase "a pack of silly great tossers", and even called me "dirty harry"! Rest assured, although its a pseudonym, and although Im over 16, its still very cutting. It certainly does go some way towards distracting me from my arguement, even if it doesnt begin to address it. Well done.

However, unfortunately, youre still missing the point. Youre still talking about Monica Lewinsky... She is, as I keep saying, entirely irrelevant to either Clinton's presidency, and, of course, what Im talking about, which is a different subject! Im saying, communism doesnt work. Lewinsky doesnt have much to do with it. As far as I can see, the sole purpose of your post is to insult me by insulting America. Its a nice try, but as a Brit who isnt even slightly pro american, it doesnt upset me much. Nice try though. Ill just assume that you cant think of a communist country, past or present, which allowed freedom of speech, like I asked for.

mitchy
14 August 2007 at 13:17

I'm guessing you're not much over 16 Harry, judging by your puerile tirade.

Firstly, I am not a communist, and although I do not agree with Mr. Pilger on everything, I happen to agree with him in this point, which does not make me a communist, or give you the right to try to label me one.

Why dont you try coming down off your high horse for a second and try to answer the flip side of your own question since you're such an obvious proponent of 'democracy' : Can you name any so called democracies which actually, truly advocate freedom of speech without trying to suppress it?

Stuart
14 August 2007 at 13:39

Harry,

if Pilger is the reason you stopped reading the NS, why the hell do you continue to read, and then carp on about, his articles on this site?

Is it perhaps the case that you merely no longer PAY to read the articles?

As Clinton's wife is running for president and he is not shy about grabbing media coverage (along with all the other first spouses) I think it is worth highlighting his track-record whilst president himself.

The fact that he is now selling tickets for an appearance at a rock muisc venue is hollow satire indeed. That he will surely be very critical of the current republican regime should be put in some sort of context.

To paraphrase Python, "he's not Elvis, he's a very naughty boy"

Harry
14 August 2007 at 13:48

To Mitchy: Saying someone is a child does not sound like a particularly good was of defeating someone's arguement, or indeed, displaying maturity.

I assume that the point you are refering to (you didnt say which one), was that Clinton earnt too much money? Because this is purely a communist point. As Ive already said, there are no other ideologies which would have a problem with a private citizen earning money. Unless, maybe, youre just so left wing that youre against the market? Either way, it's an obsolete view, and the second view doesnt have any kind of solution without the first.

Ok, Ill answer the flipside of my question, although its pretty easy-even if I was 16 I could do it (although if you live for 100 years youll never be able to answer it the way it was asked). How about England? Now, why dont you tell me one communist country that allows anywhere near that level of freedom of speech? I can think of many other capitalist ones that are pretty similar...

And to Stuart; I was bored surfing, so I thought Id kill some time here. I work from home actually, and I actually have enough money to kill time here. Arent I a terrible capitalist pig?

Matilda1234
14 August 2007 at 15:20

Harry's post highlights the problems of these 'have your say' forums - logically challenged, factually inaccurate, rhetorically empty - yet he is able to dominate the discussion by mere persistence. Where is communism mentioned in Pilger's article? Where in communist theory does it say "money is bad?" . Money itself has no moral value, but how it is earned and what we do with it surely does.

Harry
14 August 2007 at 15:47

Communism involves moving all private money/resources to the state. No one "owns" anything in a communist country- its all owned by the state. "Private money is bad". This is why Pilger used the term "grotesquely paid". He hates the idea of a private citizen earning a lot of money. How can any private citizen be grotesquely paid? The only way pay can be grotesque, is when someone isnt paid (which is the way it works in practice in communist countries).

Im still waiting for someone to give me the name of a communist country, past or present, where people retained freedom of speech without the system collapsing. Ill tell you what- if any of you can tell me one, Ill leave. Deal?

alzwick13
14 August 2007 at 16:46

Wow, this article is stuffed to the gills with problems.

I don't see what Pilgers issue with Bill Clinton making money is. None of the Pilgerists here seem to explain in any of there responses to "Harry" what the issue is either, unless they believe making money is wrong in itself.

I notice a general dislike of the rich in this article. He is upset that the American system " allows 130,000 Americans to claim the wealth of millions of their fellow citizens." What is he referring to? What wealth that belongs to other people is he talking about? Is he upset that seem people are wealthy because of hard work or good ideas they had? Also, can we get a source on this statistic, so we know he isn't making it up or taking it out of context?

His criticisms of Clinton seem a bit odd as well. He is upset that the US sent troops to Somalia to distribute food to all those starving people we saw on TV? Would it have been better to let them all starve? Also, the bombing of Bosnia and Kosovo were major factors that stopped the genocidal war there. Clearly we should have let them all keep killing each other, along with the thousands of innocent civilians Pilger claims to care so much about?

It seems that military force is only acceptable according to Pilger if not non-combatants are harmed, and no innocent civilians die. Unfortunately, that would mean many innocent civilians would still die because the cruel would be able to what they please.

Also, the New Deal programs were not intended to be permanent support systems for people. There were families when generations had been on welfare. The Clinton reforms helped alleviate that. They also provided childcare for those single mothers so they could work. If you read FDR’s speeches the New Deal was not meant to equitably distribute, or redistribute wealth, but to provide aid to people due to a unique economic situation. Many of the entitlement programs in the US were actually created in the 1960’s.

Lastly, one of the reason Clinton is loved by American liberals is he did something most other American liberals since the 1960's haven't been able to do. He won elections, and continued winning elections until he could not legally run again.

Cybertiger
14 August 2007 at 21:13

@Dirty Harry, pontificating earlier today ...

Good Ol' Bill dissembled and a million were destroyed ... in Iraq. Dubbya lied and a million died ... in Iraq. Big Willy lied about sex with that woman ... and was impeached for the sin ... by the idiot nation ...

... while Dirty Harry said,

"Monica Lewinsky... She is, as I keep saying, entirely irrelevant to either Clinton's presidency ..."

... the silliness is enough to drive folk without learning difficulties ... to communism or islamism ... or both.

PS. I thought Dirty Harry would appreciate being linked to Clint Eastwood and Harry "am I feeling lucky" Callahan. Well do ya punk?

PPS. Can you tell the difference between Pepsi (Democrat) and Coca-Cola (Republican)? Cos I can't.

Harry
15 August 2007 at 03:20

Cybertiger, again (yawn), Im not the spookesman for clinton. Im not defending anything his time in office- Im saying that a private citizen (even an ex president) has a right to charge a lot for his speeches- and that the communist way of thinking, which sees this as "grotesque", doesnt work, because communism doesnt work. This is a completely different subject.

If you must know in order to stop thinking about lewinsky- I dont actually particularly even like clinton. I can tell the difference between democrat and republican- but I think theyre both pretty hopeless. But that isnt relevant at all to what Im talking about.

Now, can you answer my question, please? I told you- Ill go away if you can just tell me the name of a communist country, past or present, where they kept freedom of speech without the system collapsing. Simple enough question. Hint: the answer doesnt involve monica lewinsky.

Cybertiger
15 August 2007 at 12:50

Hi Harry

"Simple enough question. Hint: the answer doesnt involve monica lewinsky."

Could it involve Madeleine "the price is worth it" Albright? Wasn't Albright the gangsters moll at the United Nations during GOB's era - who thought that a few darkest Africans weren't worth a few dozen daisy cutters (or other smart munitions) dropped from 30,000 feet like wot went down on Serbia in support of America's military industrial complex? Wasn't Albright that blessed woman who confirmed that the 'never again' promise was a promise only made to the Jews?

PS. Harry - we know the Americans don't like communism. Was that why they bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade - or was that smart bomb a few pence short of a shilling? Simple enough question?

Harry
15 August 2007 at 13:41

Again, a wonderfully intellectual post, Cybertiger. And you didnt even mention monica lewinsky once! I can see the genius in it- so winding, bizarre, and with so many random twists and turns that we can almost completely forget that question I asked... Unfortunately, you appear to have once again missed the point, perhaps due to your hairy communist thinking. As Ive already said, Im not an American, and, indeed, as Ive already told you, Im not even slightly pro-American. For this reason, I dont have any need to defend them.

And Im sorry to tell you this but... You appear to have forgotten to answer my question again... You know the one: "Can you tell me a communist country, past or present, which allowed freedom of speech?" Obviously my question isnt simple enough for the communists here. Maybe I just didnt ask it enough times... Or maybe...

One second, Ive got it! The answer to my question!

There has never been a communist country which allowed freedom of speech! Wow, it just hit me... Thats why no one here has chimed in yet! Because to answer the question, would be to show that their beliefs have never actually worked!!! My word its so simple... Communism has never survived freedom of speech... Or indeed free and fair elections... Thats why people here keep talking about Monica Lewinsky all the time! Its a big distraction from the huge gaping hole in their theory!

I told you before that if someone could answer my question, I would leave... So, Ill honour my word... I think Ive made my point that your ideology doesnt really work. I may have also made the point that your thinking is a little... Hairy. No offense or anything. Maybe as a result of our little talk, weve all learnt that communism never allowed freedom of speech (of the kind pilger here enjoys), and hence, we can move on.

I wont come back again so theres probably not much point in replying! Bye!

Cybertiger
15 August 2007 at 17:08

I always thought it was the Tories who were hairy and the Neo-Cons the hairyest - not the Communists - who are, in general, the relatively hairless of the species. I'll bet you're a hairy Harry - and the weakest link, goodbye!

Colind
16 August 2007 at 20:52

You have got it about right again john. Never surprises me how the truth hurts all those great thinkers

Matilda1234
17 August 2007 at 15:38

Harry what gives you the right to assume that because someone disagrees with you about your opinion of one John Pilger article that they are communists? Your intellectual arrogance is breathtaking and you hide your ignorance and bad manners behind "freedom of speech." If only freedom of speech was accompanied by "presence of logic." Pilger's article appears to be critical of his fee, not for its own sake, but because in order to earn it Clinton is exploiting his involvement in actions which ultimately caused significant suffering to many thousands of people, none of whom have the slightest chance of earning an equivalent amount for telling their story - even when they might need the money for something truly significant, like oh say, a prosthetic leg or somewhere to live. Incidentally, the reason why no-one is answering your red herring question, apart from it being irrelevant to the article under discussion, is that no-one on the left has defended communist regimes since the 1970s, even though some idealists have clung to the hope that the theory was not as flawed as those who abused it to create regimes which were not communist at all, but authoritarian dictatorships or oligarchies - do try to keep up, and at least argue about the article in front of you and not one in your imagination.

Cybertiger
17 August 2007 at 17:29

It might be of interest to Harry (and others) that John Pilger has answered some hairy (and silly) questions over on 'Comment is Free' at 'The Guardian' (that well known communist newspaper).

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/open_thread/2007/08/john...

gnuneo
19 August 2007 at 23:26

"Harry's post highlights the problems of these 'have your say' forums - logically challenged, factually inaccurate, rhetorically empty - yet he is able to dominate the discussion by mere persistence."

actually, what they also do is illustrate quite succinctly the end result of having a flawed education system.

were hidebound harry to actually have had a decent classroom and teacher to expound the theory that the only people who have a problem with grotesque money-making from propagandic speeches by someone who's regime's actions caused deaths to millions are "communists", then he would discover the educational effects of loud and mocking laughter.

or, more hopefully, would receive a lesson in basic logic, and moral reasoning.

democracy and free speech is always best, even though the truth there are such morons out there might be painful, it is better to be able to respond to them and hopefully some common sense might dribble in.

although that might be too much to hope for from hairy-palmed harry, but one can always dream...

pugnax
20 August 2007 at 01:50

Jesus Christ what a windbag! I've been poor and now am moderately upper middle class through hard work and intellect. Pilger made some pretty good anti-Clinton points though everything is a matter of degree and Bill (and even his unpleasant wife) are a thousand degrees less vile than the fools in power now. Capitalism(though I enjoy its corrupt fruit) is a dead end demanding endlessly exaccerbated consumption and world destroying population growth along with fairly constant warfare. There is some "freedom of expression" in our country (USA) but< surveying our history and reflectiing on our Constitution, I'm not sure there is a causal relationship; plus "capitalism" seems not to have insulated us from our own historic enslavements and genocides or Europe from its colonial wars or from the capitalistic Third Reich. And wtf does any of this have to do with poor Slick Willie, whom I can't help liking...at least provisionally.

DavidGwilliam
23 August 2007 at 16:07

When did John Pilger last approve of an American President. Younger readers may be surprised he never seems as angry with people like Bin Laden or Castro. Older readers will remember he was never angry with Brezhnev or Khomeini either. Whoever becomes President in 2008 John Pilger will be against them.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

You may enter up to 2000 characters (about 300-350 words)

Characters left:

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

About the writer

John Pilger

John Pilger, renowned investigative journalist and documentary film-maker, is one of only two to have twice won British journalism's top award; his documentaries have won academy awards in both the UK and the US. In a New Statesman survey of the 50 heroes of our time, Pilger came fourth behind Aung San Suu Kyi and Nelson Mandela. "John Pilger," wrote Harold Pinter, "unearths, with steely attention facts, the filthy truth. I salute him."

Read More

Vote!

Should the third runway at Heathrow go ahead?