posted on June 19, 2004 07:12:39 PM new
Enough said:
------------------------
The Pastiche of a Presidency, Imitating a Life, in 957 Pages
By MICHIKO KAKUTANI
s his celebrated 1993 speech in Memphis to the Church of God in Christ demonstrated, former President Bill Clinton is capable of soaring eloquence and visionary thinking. But as those who heard his deadening speech nominating Michael Dukakis at the 1988 Democratic National Convention in Atlanta well know, he is also capable of numbing, self-conscious garrulity.
Unfortunately for the reader, Mr. Clinton's much awaited new autobiography "My Life" more closely resembles the Atlanta speech, which was so long-winded and tedious that the crowd cheered when he finally reached the words "In closing . . ."
The book, which weighs in at more than 950 pages, is sloppy, self-indulgent and often eye-crossingly dull — the sound of one man prattling away, not for the reader, but for himself and some distant recording angel of history.
In many ways, the book is a mirror of Mr. Clinton's presidency: lack of discipline leading to squandered opportunities; high expectations, undermined by self-indulgence and scattered concentration. This memoir underscores many strengths of Mr. Clinton's eight years in the White House and his understanding that he was governing during a transitional and highly polarized period. But the very lack of focus and order that mars these pages also prevented him from summoning his energies in a sustained manner to bring his insights about the growing terror threat and an Israeli-Palestinian settlement to fruition.
Certainly it's easy enough to understand the huge advance sales for the book. Mr. Clinton would seem to have all the gifts for writing a gripping memoir: gifts of language, erudition and charm, combined with a policy wonk's perception of a complex world at a hinge moment in time, teetering on the pivot between Cold War assumptions and a new era of global interdependence. Add to that his improbable life story — a harrowing roller-coaster ride of precocious achievements, self-inflicted slip-ups and even more startling comebacks — and you have all the ingredients for a compelling book.
But while Dan Rather, who interviewed Mr. Clinton for "60 Minutes," has already compared the book to the memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant, arguably the most richly satisfying autobiography by an American president, "My Life" has little of that classic's unsparing candor or historical perspective. Instead, it devolves into a hodgepodge of jottings: part policy primer, part 12-step confessional, part stump speech and part presidential archive, all, it seems, hurriedly written and even more hurriedly edited.
In fact, "My Life" reads like a messy pastiche of everything that Mr. Clinton ever remembered and wanted to set down in print; he even describes the time he got up at 4 a.m. to watch the inaugural ceremonies for Nigeria's new president on TV. There are endless litanies of meals eaten, speeches delivered, voters greeted and turkeys pardoned. There are some fascinating sections about Mr. Clinton's efforts to negotiate a Middle East peace agreement (at one point, he suggests that Yasir Arafat seemed confused, not fully in command of the facts and possibly no longer at the top of his game), but there are also tedious descriptions of long-ago political debates in Arkansas over utility regulation and car license fees . There are some revealing complaints about missteps at the FBI under Louis Freeh's watch , but there are also dozens of pointless digressions about matters like zombies in Haiti and ruins in Pompeii.
Mr. Clinton confesses that his affair with Monica Lewinsky was "immoral and foolish," but he spends far more space excoriating his nemesis, independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr, and the press. He writes at length about his awareness that terrorism was a growing threat, but does not grapple with the unintended consequences of his administration's decisions to pressure Sudan to expel Osama bin Laden in 1996 (driving sent the al Qaeda leader to Afghanistan, where he was harder to track) or to launch cruise missile attacks against targets in Sudan and Afghanistan in retaliation for the embassy bombings in 1998 (an act that some terrorism experts believe fueled terrorists' conviction that the United States was an ineffectual giant that relied on low-risk high technology).
Part of the problem, of course, is that Mr. Clinton is concerned, here, with cementing — or establishing — his legacy, while at the same time boosting (or at least not undermining) the political career of his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton. He does a persuasive job of explicating his more successful initiatives like welfare reform and deficit reduction, but the failure of his health care initiative, overseen by Mrs. Clinton, is quickly glossed over, as is the subsequent focus of his administration on such small-bore initiatives as school uniforms and teenage smoking.
Mr. Clinton takes more responsibility in these pages for his affair with Ms. Lewinsky, his lies about that affair and the damage those actions inflicted on his family and his presidency than he has in the past. But he still spends a lot of time — like his wife did in her book — assailing right-wing enemies for his woes over Whitewater, the Paula Jones case and impeachment. In the end, he says, what brought him and his wife back together was weekly counseling sessions and their shared determination "to fight off the right-wing coup." He sheds little new light on his relationship with Mrs. Clinton, simply noting that he always admired her mix of idealism and practicality, and that she initially hesitated over his marriage proposal, knowing that "being married to me would be a high-wire operation in more ways than one." In another passage, Mr. Clinton tries to characterize his impeachment fight as "my last great showdown with the forces I had opposed all of my life" - with those who had defended segregation in the South, opposed the women's and gay rights movements, and who believed government should be run for the benefit of special interests. He adds that he was glad that he had had "the good fortune to stand against this latest incarnation of the forces of reaction and division."
In comparison to these self-serving, often turgid attempts to defend his reputation, Mr. Clinton's account of his youth in Arkansas possesses a pleasing emotional directness. His portraits of life in the raffish Hot Springs and the more sedate Hope (towns that would became the polestars of his Janus-faced personality, what political guru Dick Morris once called "Saturday Night Bill" and "Sunday Morning Clinton" may lack the raw energy of his mother Virginia Kelley's reminiscences, set down in her 1994 book "Leading With My Heart," but he does provide the reader with some telling snapshots of his awkward childhood: a fat, self-conscious boy dressed in a new Easter outfit every year — including, one year, pink and black Hush Puppies and a matching pink suede belt; breaking his leg trying to jump rope wearing cowboy boots; devouring books about Geronimo and Crazy Horse at the local library.
Looking back on those days of living with a violent, abusive stepfather, Mr. Clinton writes like someone familiar with therapeutic tropes. He writes that seeing his stepfather angry and drunk, he came to associate anger with being out of control, and determined to keep his own anger locked away. He writes about experiencing a "major spiritual crisis" at the age of 13, when he found it difficult to sustain a belief in God in the face of his family's difficulties. And he writes about the coping mechanisms he developed — including learning to live "parallel lives" where he walled off his anger and grief to get on with his daily life.
Many events recounted in this book have been chronicled before —- not just by the dozens of reporters and biographers who have swarmed over Mr. Clinton's life, but by people close to the former president, including his wife, his mother, his brother Roger, Ms. Lewinsky, and former members of his administration like George Stephanopoulos and Robert Reich. For the most part, the self-portrait that emerges from this book is not all that different a Bill Clinton from the one the public has already come to know: tireless, driven, boyish, self-absorbed and optimistic, someone riven by contradictions but adept at compartmentalizing different parts of his life.
Mr. Clinton once remarked that he saw character as "a journey, not a destination," and at the end of this book, he cites "becoming a good person" as one of his life goals. Still, the seeds of his adult self can be glimpsed in an autobiographical essay he wrote in high school: "I am a living paradox — deeply religious, yet not as convinced of my exact beliefs as I ought to be; wanting responsibility yet shirking it; loving the truth but often times giving way to falsity." It is only because Mr. Clinton was president of the United States that these excavations of self — a staple of celebrity and noncelebrity memoirs these days — are considered newsworthy.
The nation's first baby-boomer president always seemed like an avatar of his generation, defined by the struggles of the 60's and Vietnam, comfortable in the use of touchy-feely language, and intent on demystifying his job. And yet the former president's account of his life, read in this post-9/11 day, feels strangely like an artifact from a distant, more innocent era.
Lies about sex and real estate, partisan rancor over "character issues" (not over weapons of mass destruction or pre-emptive war), psychobabble mea culpas, and tabloid wrangles over stained dresses all seem like pressing matters from another galaxy, far, far away.
posted on June 20, 2004 03:21:21 PM new
I'd heard remarks about what he was going to title his book. They suggested "ME"...since that's who he focuses on most. Well...the title ended up being close "My Life".
-----------
Bet he's hoping his other book interviews go better than this one did.
taken from the BBC/Telegraph
Clinton rages against Dimbleby in Panorama confrontation over Lewinsky
By chris Hastings and Charles Laurence
(Filed: 20/06/2004)
Bill Clinton's life in pictures
Bill Clinton loses his temper with David Dimbleby during a BBC television interview to be broadcast this week when he is repeatedly quizzed about his affair with Monica Lewinsky.
Visibly angry: Bill Clinton
The former American president, famed for his amiable disposition, becomes visibly angry and rattled, particularly when Dimbleby asks him whether his publicly declared contrition over the affair is genuine.
His outrage at the line of questioning during the 50-minute interview, to be broadcast on Panorama on Tuesday night, lasts several minutes. It is the first time that the former President has been seen to lose his temper publicly over the issue of his sexual liaisons with Ms Lewinsky.
The President initially responds to Dimbleby's questions by launching a general attack on media intrusion. When the broadcaster persists with the question of whether the politician was truly penitent, Clinton directs his anger towards Dimbleby.
David Dimbleby
The atmosphere, which was initially warm, then turns decidedly chilly.
One BBC executive who has seen the interview, which took place in a New York hotel last Wednesday, said: "He is visibly angry with Dimbleby's line of questioning and some of that anger gets directed at Dimbleby himself. As outbursts go, it is not just some flash that is over in an instant. It is something substantial and sustained.
"It is memorable television which will give the public a different insight into the President's character. It will leave them wondering whether he is as contrite as he says he is about past events. Dimbleby manages to remain calm and order is eventually restored."
Mr Clinton agreed to speak to Panorama as part of the publicity campaign for his autobiography My Life.
posted on June 20, 2004 03:38:55 PM new
Well, here go the the sexually pre-occupied righties getting their knickers in a twist all over again.......I just wish they could think of something NEW to say.
Gee everybody, did ya know Clinton fooled around??!! OOOHHHH, we're so surprised ! Men fool around??? I'm astounded!
And since eveybody's sex life (especially the president's) directly affects me and shapes my life and controls my destiny it's SO important that I know every detail!!!!OVER and over and over.....
Clinton was SUCH a bad guy cause he bonked some chippy but St.George is responsible for the death of thousands, committing treason, increasing pollution, condoning and promoting tax evasion and and and and and ..........
But at least he kept his cigar in his pocket. So he must be a very nice man.
PS: There's 900 pages but I bet Republicans just read the "dirty"parts... giggling all the while.
posted on June 20, 2004 04:43:56 PM newI'd heard remarks about what he was going to title his book. They suggested "ME"...since that's who he focuses on most. Well...the title ended up being close "My Life".
Wow, fancy that. An autobiography focusing on the person who wrote it! What gall.
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on June 20, 2004 05:00:43 PM new
Crowfarm I hate to burst your bubble but all men don't fool around. Just men who feel that their manly hood has to be spread around.
posted on June 20, 2004 05:01:55 PM new
Yes, bunni, that's how narcisism usually works.
------------------
here go the the sexually pre-occupied righties getting their knickers in a twist all over again.......I just wish they could think of something NEW to say
Oh so now crowfarm thinks the Telegraph/BBC are pre-occupied righties. That's very funny.
posted on June 20, 2004 05:12:44 PM new
The British press has always thrived on tabloids. My earliest memeories were their tratment of the Profumo scandal.
I love the British press it's about as responsible as the National Enquirer. Fun to read but thats about it.
Their TV is the same.
Anyway everyone on the left knows the only way the right wingers can get off is by thinking of Clinton.
posted on June 20, 2004 05:27:01 PM new Yes, bunni, that's how narcisism usually works.
So your hero Reagan, and George H.W. Bush, were narcissistic? After all, they wrote autobiographies...
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on June 20, 2004 05:30:57 PM new
Just in case someone needed a refresher course on Profumo, here is it.
Profumo Affair
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The Profumo Affair was a political scandal of 1963 in Britain. It is named after the then Secretary of State for War - John Profumo.
Profumo was a well-educated and respected high Conservative cabinet minister. He was married to the actress Valerie Hobson. The scandal was his brief relationship with a showgirl named Christine Keeler. Profumo met her at a party at Cliveden in 1961 organised by the fashionable London doctor Stephen Ward. Their relationship lasted only a few weeks before Profumo ended it. Rumours about the affair became public in 1962 as did the apparently serious fact that Keeler had also had a relationship with Yevgeny "Eugene" Ivanov, an attache at the Soviet Embassy.
Profumo's mistake was to lie in the House of Commons. In March 1963 he claimed that there was "no impropriety whatever" in his relationship with Keeler. In June he confessed that he had misled the House, and resigned on the 5th. The government had an official report from Lord Denning on September 25, 1963. A month later the Conservative Prime Minister Harold Macmillan resigned, his ill-health exacerbated by the scandal; he was replaced by Sir Alec Douglas-Home.
Ward was prosecuted for living on immoral earnings and committed suicide in August. Keeler was found guilty on unrelated perjury charges and sentenced to nine months.
Some of the events of the Profumo Affair are depicted in the 1989 film Scandal, starring John Hurt, Joanne Whalley-Kilmer and Bridget Fonda.
Did you remember the affair because of the movie? At least he resigned. but stated in this article she also had a relationship. The reason for his resignation was not that he had the relationship but because he lied. Does that story sound familiar....
posted on June 20, 2004 05:39:22 PM new
No, bunni - That would be incorrect. This is the way clinton has always been. I wasn't speaking only to his book - which naturally focuses on him, but rather to how others have always seen him and were joking about the title before he even started writing this book.
I understand that it's hard for the left, who worship at his feet, to not be angry that his misconduct and following impeachment will always remain in history and will be a part of his his legacy. But...that's the way it is.
posted on June 20, 2004 05:58:18 PM new
No contest: Iraq-gate trumps Monica-gate
Published June 20, 2004
WASHINGTON -- Former President Bill Clinton is back in the national spotlight to promote his autobiography, just in time to remind us of how trivial his sexual shenanigans with Monica Lewinsky were compared with the Bush administration's spin job concerning its war in Iraq.
After all, no one died in Monica-gate. No one was tortured. Our international allies were shocked or amused, but not alienated.
The Bush White House, by contrast, is in full spin mode to downplay a bracing conclusion of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission that it found "no credible evidence" that Iraq and Saddam Hussein were involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on the United States.
Team Bush turned on the media, insisting it never asserted any such connection. "This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and Al Qaeda," President Bush said. "We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda."
But facts are stubborn things. So are the quotes from Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and others that have asserted not only "contacts" but the active collaborative relationship between Hussein and Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda that the Sept. 11 commission now calls fiction.
Last year, for example, Bush called Hussein "an ally of Al Qaeda" and declared "the battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on Sept. 11, 2001."
In late 2001, Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that Mohamed Atta, who is accused of masterminding the U.S. attacks, had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official. The Sept. 11 commission agreed with the CIA that the meeting probably did not take place.
Later, Cheney called Iraq the "geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
The Sept. 11 panel's report, by contrast, says that there were contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship." Bin Laden tried to get aid from Hussein but the Iraqi president did not respond, the commission found.
By week's end, Cheney was hunkered down in full media-bashing mode, as if there was no significant disagreement between the administration and the commission's conclusions. In fact, most of the administration's evidence of Hussein's ties to "terrorism" related to his well-known ties to Palestinian terrorism against Israel, not Al Qaeda. Either way, Team Bush delivered the Hussein-Al Qaeda message so well that a poll last year found two-thirds of Americans were convinced Hussein was tied to Sept. 11.
That's why the administration is in full spin mode today. After turning up barely a trace of Hussein's purported weapons of mass destruction, the credibility of the White House is at stake over whether Iraq was a bonus in the war against Al Qaeda or the dangerous distraction that the administration's critics have called it.
At one time, the administration tried to blame the photographed prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib on a "few bad apples." More recently disclosed information indicates that some of the bad apples were near the top of the barrel.
For example, Human Rights Watch, a leading international advocacy group, charged in a June 8 report that the Bush administration deliberately "circumvented" Geneva Convention rules, allowed illegal interrogation techniques, then covered up or ignored reports of torture or abuse.
What's the truth? When President Clinton misbehaved, a Republican Congress pressed him for answers. The current Republican Congress has dragged its heels with Team Bush regarding its justifications for the war and the reported abuses of Iraqi prisoners. I am sure Bill Clinton wishes he could have been that lucky.
Clinton sounded properly contrite in excerpts of his Sunday CBS "60 Minutes" interview with Dan Rather. "I did something for the worst possible reason: just because I could," he said. "I think that's just about the most morally indefensible reason anybody could have for doing anything."
As confessions go, that one is a model of concise contriteness. No equivocation. No excuses. He sinned simply because he could.
That would have been an appropriate confession for Team Bush during the same week it faced questions about its use of the "war on terrorism" as an excuse to go around most of our traditional allies to topple Saddam Hussein--and to skirt the Geneva Convention standards of humanitarian treatment in handling Iraqi detainees. They did it because they could. You can get away with a lot when no one holds you accountable.
A presidential election year is an appropriate time to hold a thorough national debate on such thorny issues as these, not just because we can, but because we should.
Re-defeat Bush
------------------------------
June is Gay Pride Month
------------------------------
All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.
Change is constant. The history of mankind is about change. One set of beliefs is pushed aside by a new set. The old order is swept away by the new. If people become attached to the old order, they see their best interest in defending it. They become the losers. They become the old order and in turn are vulnerable. People who belong to the new order are winners.
James A Belaco & Ralph C. Stayer
posted on June 20, 2004 06:05:32 PM new
No crowfarm you took it out of contest. I said all men, not All men and there is a difference in yours and my statement.
Your statement: we're so surprised ! Men fool around??? What could I have answered to that men don't fool around? no I said all men don't fool around, maybe I should correct myself and say some men don't fool around is that better. And I feel it is because of that.
posted on June 20, 2004 06:23:11 PM new
"Former President Bill Clinton is back in the national spotlight to promote his autobiography, just in time to remind us of how trivial his sexual shenanigans with Monica Lewinsky were compared with the Bush administration's spin job concerning its war in Iraq.
After all, no one died in Monica-gate.No one was tortured. Our international allies were shocked or amused, but not alienated."
Great timing his book and the election the same year. Are we supposed to feel sorry for Clinton or even Hillary because he had an affair that didn't hurt anyone. How do you know it didn't hurt anyone. Think of their daughter and how she felt. The embarrassment. She now has had plastic surgery. To use the word trivial is not what I think his relationship was with Miss Lewinsky. Tell us who wrote the article so that we can make our own judgement.
posted on June 20, 2004 07:02:23 PM new
So Clinton did nothing to contribute to the Iraqi war. In fact he did nothing period.
He writes at length about his awareness that terrorism was a growing threat, but does not grapple with the unintended consequences of his administration's decisions to pressure Sudan to expel Osama bin Laden in 1996 (driving sent the al Qaeda leader to Afghanistan, where he was harder to track) or to launch cruise missile attacks against targets in Sudan and Afghanistan in retaliation for the embassy bombings in 1998 (an act that some terrorism experts believe fueled terrorists' conviction that the United States was an ineffectual giant that relied on low-risk high technology).
---------------------------------
Bill Clinton is getting $12 million for his memoirs. His wife Hillary got $8 million for hers.
That's $20 million for memories from two people who for eight years repeatedly testified, under oath, that they couldn't remember anything??
posted on June 20, 2004 07:12:58 PM new
crowfarm - Did you not see my post questioning if you were laughing at your own previous post or had just forgotten which userid you meant to use?
-------------
No, logansdad - What we have here is an ex-president who not only had an affair and lied to his family, friends and staunch political supporters but embarassed them as they believed what he was telling them was true. They went out of their way to defend what he was saying. And he lied to those he was elected to serve. Remember that angry denial speech, where he was shaking his finger at the whole nation?
He also tried to obstruct Paula Jone's guaranteed constitutional right to file a court case by lying to the judge.
For that his right to practice law was taken away for 5 years in the state of Arkansas. For that he paid money to Paul Jones for the injury the judge believed he had caused her. For that he was impeached.
Those facts too will be a part of his legacy. I haven't read that President Reagan was impeached. Nor that he was taken to court for obstructing another citizens right to file for damage.
You are doing what some here accuse me of doing.....a comparison of Presidents when the behavior of only one is the topic issue. But, of course they won't call you on it....it's somehow different when those who left does it.
posted on June 20, 2004 07:28:48 PM new
"Bill Clinton is getting $12 million for his memoirs. His wife Hillary got $8 million for hers. "
I'm sure Bill is broken hearted over a review.
No, Linda I wasn't laughing at my own post ...I was making fun of the way you bumped bear to the top....a little transparent.
But I do have a big secret conspiracy going on so I use many, many IDs...shhh, don't tell anyone....
posted on June 20, 2004 07:34:19 PM new
Clinton lied about extramarital sex, no doubt about that. But the real embarrassment came from Ken Starr & Republicans who shelled out 70 million tax dollars to "investigate" what should have been between Clinton & his wife. It was they who created a three-ring media circus that brought the ridicule of the world. And is lying about sex and impeachible offense. No, it isn't.
Reagan lied about Iran-Contra, and broke many of our laws setting up that little fiasco. No impeachment.
Bush lied--oh, excuse me, exaggerated a lot--to get us into a war. He's driving the country into massive debt. He's tried to change the Constitution to suit his religion. No impeachment.
Sex? OH MY GOD!!! That's a hanging offense!
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on June 20, 2004 07:50:36 PM new
bunni - That's why the two sides will always disagree on what this was all about. Clinton supporters see it only as a sexual issue. It's not ONLY the immoral behavior to those who disagree. It's a pattern of behavior that shows one cannot be trusted. This was not about sex with one willing woman. There were 8 or 9 women that have accused clinton of the same inappropriate behavior...one accused him of raping her. But of course, they were all smeared and not believed...while the perpetrator's actions were totally brushed aside by his supporters.
An honest person can say what he did to these women was wrong. But he had other strengths...and then name them. Most don't...they choose to deny all his negative traits....even excuse them as being unimportant...when even he admits the damage his actions have created.
posted on June 20, 2004 08:10:55 PM newIt's a pattern of behavior that shows one cannot be trusted.
Yep--that describes Bush to a T.
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on June 20, 2004 08:11:33 PM new
Linda: What we have here is an ex-president who not only had an affair and lied to his family, friends and staunch political supporters but embarassed them as they believed what he was telling them was true. They went out of their way to defend what he was saying. And he lied to those he was elected to serve.
I am not trying to defend Clinton and his actions. In fact I would have liked to see him impeached. However, his actions did not do anything to physically harm this country. Bush and Cheney have yet to provide any concrete evidence that ties Iraq to Bin Laden - the entire premise for going to war in Iraq. The 9/11 commission has said there was no proof, but Cheney insists there is. If this is true, then why doesn't he put his money where his mouth is? We will find out sooner or later if Bush has lied about Iraq.
Re-defeat Bush
------------------------------
June is Gay Pride Month
------------------------------
All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.
Change is constant. The history of mankind is about change. One set of beliefs is pushed aside by a new set. The old order is swept away by the new. If people become attached to the old order, they see their best interest in defending it. They become the losers. They become the old order and in turn are vulnerable. People who belong to the new order are winners.
James A Belaco & Ralph C. Stayer
posted on June 20, 2004 08:32:11 PM new
crowfarm, if there is no other way to attack then they must start with the multiple ID theory. Like the clueless wonders who have on more than one occasion accused me and Kraft of being the same ID. Or how about the troll who followed me for over a year here and on the Outlook, accusing me of having someone else writing my posts..... how paranoid! LOL
Do they really flatter themselves thinking that their opinion is so valuable that we have to register a second ID just to converse with them twice? Do they think their opinion is so "deep" that we have to call in someone else to respond to them?
posted on June 20, 2004 09:03:33 PM new
logansdad - That's how you see it. It's not how I see it. I see that had clinton dealt better, in a different way, than he did when our nations interests were being attacked during his administration, we might not be where we are today.
Binladen has stated he saw America as a 'paper tiger'. That came from our lack of doing anything/much about the attacks that took place under clinton.
So...imo, that gave them a false belief that we would NEVER do anything no matter their actions against our nation.
Many believe, and I'm among them, that because clinton DIDN'T deal with the threat of terrorism when it was much smaller....that led to 9-11. The fact that clinton wouldn't accept custody of binladen when he was offered. All the lawyering about could we/should we, etc. That's why I'm so concerned about kerry getting elected. He'll be just like clinton. Discuss the problems/threats from 100 different angles and then take no action.
The fact that his administration re-inforced the 'rule' that our two intelligence agencies weren't ever to appear to be sharing information....didn't help the situation at all.
And many here argue that this President went after Iraq in error. But when asked why clinton also said and passed a bill to remove saddam....they only say...well....he was handling it differently.
My side believes he wasn't handling it at all, but rather posponing taking the action HE said he felt was necessary....because HE didn't want to look bad in the World's eye. HE said saddam needed to be removed, but didn't have the courage of his convictions.
This President felt the same threat from saddam that clinton had. He chose to care more about our national security than about how other nations preceived us. Again, imo, that's what we have to do.....not put some self-described Internationalist in charge of our country. One who says he'll not send US troops anywhere without the UN's approval.
We didn't fight for our freedom from England to turn our ability to protect our nation over to the UN and what so called allies think we should or shouldn't do. France, Germany and possibly Russia had their own reasons they wanted saddam to remain in power. Do you really want those countries...or other smaller Arab countries making decisions about whether we can protect ourselves when our intelligence tells us there's a threat? I sure don't.
Re-elect President Bush!!
This topic is 6 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new
may lack the raw energy of his mother Virginia Kelley's reminiscences, set down in her 1994 book "Leading With My Heart," but he does provide the reader with some telling snapshots of his awkward childhood: a fat, self-conscious boy dressed in a new Easter outfit every year — including, one year, pink and black Hush Puppies and a matching pink suede belt; breaking his leg trying to jump rope wearing cowboy boots; devouring books about Geronimo and Crazy Horse at the local library.
That's very funny.
