You may have heard Drudge characterize Clinton as "losing it" on a BBC reporter. I watched the clip and all I can say is God how I miss having an articulate president.
See what you think:
Does Big dog lose it?
I also miss irrational exuberance.
2 comments:
There are different degrees of lying.
President Clinton's lies hurt the feelings of Hillary Clinton and Chelsea Clinton and embarrassed us all.
President Bush's lies have been responsible for 848 US soldiers dying in Iraq, and 5138 of them being wounded.
It used to be considered polite to lie about sex, but it has never been considered polite to lie to men giving their lives for their country.
Nuclear Response
Often political discussions are nothing more than trash talking. I want to start my response by thanking you for taking the time to write courteously and well. I hope you feel my response is in the same spirit.
I was having fun at President Bush's expense and you're right, it isn't fair. There is no better judge of a man than looking at his honesty, work-ethic, and accomplishments and to poke fun of his demeanor is something I engage in simply to inflate my own ego. When somebody calls me on this, and I feel they are right, I shall say so. If my blog ever becomes widely read I will curb this self-indulgence on the same day that Rush Limbaugh does.
Bill Clinton responds to the WTC bombing and USS Cole bombing in the video clip which generated this discussion. He responds to the Sudan charge in this interview with Dan Rather (on 60 Minutes): Dan and Bill. I don't think I can add anything to his response, but I am pretty sure I can take something away, so I prefer to let Bill defend himself.
I agree that 911 was a declaration of war, but I disagree that Saddam Hussein issued the declaration.
As for pre-emption, North Korea has weapons of mass destruction and a record of proliferation and I don't see the need to deal with credible threats when actual threats are in plain sight.
I also value my privacy and my life. I suppose I would have far less trouble with the Patriot Act if I felt that John Ashcroft felt the same way. Perhaps you would have felt this way if Janet Reno accumulated these kinds of powers? I don't have a problem with security people checking everyone's baggage for bombs. What worries me about the Patriot Act is I've seen human nature at work and it isn't pretty, so I don't like entrusting this kind of power to it. All it takes is one nut with power to make life miserable for millions of Americans, and I'd rather that kind of abuse originated on foreign soil.
I am not surprised that you fear an attack will happen between now and November 2nd, since many politicians have been saying so. My theory is that George Bush would be quick to politicize such an attack by declaring it unpatriotic to vote for Kerry, and that Kerry would attack Bush for failing to protect us.
My solution to this dilema is to vote for whomever I have decided to vote for no matter what kind of terrorist attack comes our way. I feel that to do otherwise would be to give a victory to the terrorists (by letting them influence my vote). In my case I expect to vote for Kerry because I believe that security comes from peaceful relations with neighbors and that peaceful relations are based upon justice. Likewise I believe that insecurity comes from hostile relations with neighbors and that hostile relations are based upon injustice. So, when Bush "had the guts to tell the UN off" I wish he realized his guts are for digesting food and the UN is for building global security. This is why pulling out of Kyoto, the ABM treaty, and the International Criminal Court makes Democrats angry. We see it as actions that alienate allies at a time we really need them. We also see it as corrosive to the rule of law by which we expect thugs like Saddam to abide.
For twenty years I have been registered as an independent voter, but last year I registered as a Democrat to voice my displeasure with the Bush administration. I suppose I shouldn't presume to speak for Democrats the way I do.
Post a Comment