Bill Bartlett at [log in to unmask] writes:

> I detect a hint of inconsistency in your analysis.

Oh, Bill, there you go again, applying logic to a statement on this list.

> If the American public
> was led uncaringly into this adventure, if they don't mind one way or
> another and can be influenced in any way that the elite pleases and don't
> matter anyhow, then why would Clinton/Gore need to divert attention with a
> war.
Fact of the matter was that the only power blocs of any kind that Clinton
had to deal with at the time was Congress and the media, both of which were
relentlessly hostile, and they weren't about to get on board with war fever,
at least until he was out of office. He already HAD a 70% public approval
ratings throughout the Lewinsky farce, so the idea that he "needed" the war
is like saying he "needed" to be flogged in the town square. In fact, his
approval ratings dropped after the Kosovo campaign began, while brickbats
were thrown from nearly every quarter of the ruling elite.

So much for the Wag the Dog scenario. Not that I expect these inconvenient
facts from deterring the silly Marxist conspiracy theories of Meecham et al.
--
Tresy Kilbourne
Seattle WA