UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (40) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: nole1 Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 1968195  
Subject: Clinton, Usama and Why Integrity Matters... Date: 11/3/2001 10:26 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 39
I've been thinking this for a long time, but it was a link to Bill O'Reilly's interview with Madeline Albright:

http://fireboards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=16044295

that jumpstarted this post...

Before you think I'm jumping back to the past to beat a dead horse, please know that I am doing this to tie together what many of us were saying during the Clinton administration with the terrorist events that have happened.

In short, this post will explain why I believe that character and integrity matter in the President of the United States. It will explain why I was so disgusted at the Democrats for rallying behind Clinton back in his scandal days rather than taking the stand that lying under oath is an impeachable offense and walking down to 1600 to force Clinton to either resign or be fired.

The interview with Madeline Albright linked to above was glaring in the omission of context with regard to the Clinton administration's feeble attempts to get Bin Laden after he had been linked to the Embassy bombings:

ALBRIGHT: And this is a terrible thing to say, but the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania actually were -- we didn't have the support in order to do a larger operation the way this administration has now...

O'REILLY: The support of whom?

ALBRIGHT: The American people and Congress, in order to go further in terms of our attempts to deal with Usama bin Laden...


Could it be, perhaps, that it is hard to rally people behind you when you send cruise missles to Sudan and Afghanistan only three days apart from when you lied to a grand jury and say that it all depends on what the definition of "is" is?

When I did this search in Google: August 1998 Clinton Grand Jury testimony Afghanistan

I came up with two links that are most interesting, one Jewish and one Arab American site...

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/page082498.html

"When a reporter responded to major American military action last week by asking Defense Secretary William Cohen if he had seen the movie "Wag the Dog," the holes in President Clinton's credibility were exposed like the underwear of a clown who had just split his pants.

A year ago it would have been hard to imagine a reporter as respectable as Newsday's Gaylord Shaw raising such a tacky question in a Pentagon news conference.

But, less than 72 hours earlier, the president had confessed to lying about his tacky relationship with former intern Monica Lewinsky, so anything goes.

As soon as Clinton announced missile strikes against suspected terrorist installations in Afghanistan and Sudan, there were those who, as Shaw said, were "going to say this bears a striking resemblance to 'Wag the Dog.'....

....But the skeptical reaction to his military action shows just how wounded his presidency has become. Hardly anyone raised such questions about his actions in Haiti, Bosnia or other places until the Monica story popped into view. Now any time he seeks public support for some pet project, foreign or domestic, even his supporters are likely to wonder whose tail he's wagging"


and the Arab American Institute page from 8/31/1998:

http://www.aaiusa.org/newsandviews/washingtonwatch/083198.htm

"Even the support that many in the press gave to the President for having bombed Sudan and Afghanistan didn't stop the protest. The fact that most commentators questioned the timing of the attacks and wondered aloud whether it had to do with the scandal, reinforced their conviction that the President, having lied for seven months about the Lewinsky affair, could no longer be immediately believed."

You know you have something going for your point of view when both Jewish and Arab organizations agree with you!

While there's nothing we can do about the past, I do think we need to understand that the character of our (the United States') President matters a lot and we cannot afford to have a person that has looked the American people in the eye and lied to them be in charge of operations such as the Bush administration are currently performing.

Madeline Albright's lame attempts to throw blame somewhere else remind me of why I was sickened by her tenure as Secretary of State, as well.

nole1, who believes that character really does matter because you never know when something will happen in which the President will need to rely on the trust of the American people...
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: katinga Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Ticker Guide Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 88255 of 1968195
Subject: Re: Clinton, Usama and Why Integrity Matters... Date: 11/3/2001 10:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 8
Yep, but I'm glad we didn't impeach him, in retrospect.

President Gore. *shudder*

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ericb888 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 88283 of 1968195
Subject: Re: Clinton, Usama and Why Integrity Matters... Date: 11/4/2001 3:17 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
nole1 wrote:

"While there's nothing we can do about the past, I do think we need to understand that the character of our (the United States') President matters a lot and we cannot afford to have a person that has looked the American people in the eye and lied to them be in charge of operations such as the Bush administration are currently performing."



Personally I think this is just a bunch of nonsense by Albright and Clinton. The American people gave Clinton good job approval ratings. A president can take that popularity and use it as the equivalence of the trust you are talking about.

Clinton wasn't paralyzed by his other behavior when it came to military action. The American people accepted his interventions in Iraq and Yugoslavia, and they would have accepted more raids on Al Queda too. Oh sure, a few more people would have complained, but not enough to keep him from doing it if he believed it was a necessary national security issue.

This is not to try to pass judgment on whether or not Clinton did enough. We raided Sudan and Bin Laden left Sudan and went to Afghanistan. And Clinton apparently had talks with the Taliban, thus providing the background for Bush to know it's not worthwhile trying to negotiate with them, Clinton started closer relations with Uzbekistan (which Bush is now able to take advantage of), and apparently he authorized US agencies to kill Bin Laden. He may have done other things which will remain secret for awhile. Maybe he could have done more, but he certainly wasn't completely asleep at the wheel.



Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Vile Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 88301 of 1968195
Subject: Re: Clinton, Usama and Why Integrity Matters... Date: 11/4/2001 8:55 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 19
nole1,
Great post as usual.

"ALBRIGHT: And this is a terrible thing to say, but the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania actually were -- we didn't have the support in order to do a larger operation the way this administration has now...

O'REILLY: The support of whom?

ALBRIGHT: The American people and Congress, in order to go further in terms of our attempts to deal with Usama bin Laden..."


The real problem here was a definate lack of leadership. Clinton was elected by the people to do the people's business. That should have been the end of their voice until he came to re-election. He was chosen to lead and he did not.

What he did was take a poll every time a decision had to be made. This is not leadership. It is a lack of conviction and spinelessness. He failed to do the first duty of any president; lead! We were leaderless for 8 long years. This is why his attempts to get Bin Laden failed. It wasn't because he lacked support. It was because he failed to lead the way. It was because he failed to show the American people this was a valid concern they needed to get behind.

This can be all boiled down to one root:

Bill Clinton failed to lead. Period, end of story.

Vile
NEVER SAY DIE!!!

Print the post Back To Top
Author: redneckjim One star, 50 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 88316 of 1968195
Subject: Re: Clinton, Usama and Why Integrity Matters... Date: 11/4/2001 11:10 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Vile-
Bill Clinton failed to lead. Period, end of story.

You are only partially correct. Unfortunately it is not the end of the story. Such a one dimention view only sees part of the story, unless of course you are a simpleton. So why think as one?

Leadership has to come from the President AND the senate AND Congress (somethlng about war powers and all, ok). When 2 parts join to fued with the other, trying to oust the other, there is no cooperation (read gridlock). No one will let anything happen to allow the other to do their job if it is at all possible. This gridlock is a stubborn greed not to allow one to get any credit in doing their job so as to lend support for the ouster. The cost is borne by the country.

When Clinton did bomb Afghantistan the "wag the dog" crew came out in full bore. To stay in office he could not risk being rebuffed by Congress and the Senage on another issue. What would of happened if 09-11-01 happened early on in Clinton's presidency? We would of forgotten about Monica, Whitewater, Ken Star and would have gotten down to business as the country would of demanded it, and rightly so. We could endlessly speculate what may or may not have resulted with this action, but Clinton's personal failures combined with the gridlock agenda of the Senate and Congress prevented any such focus or possible action. Let this be a lesson to future politicians who wish to play games with the American people, be aware the rest of the world is watching and looking for THEIR opportunity to do their doings.

This IS the rest of the story.


Jim

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: jurbilllover Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 88320 of 1968195
Subject: Re: Clinton, Usama and Why Integrity Matters... Date: 11/4/2001 11:37 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Jim :

There is a little more to the rest of your story.

Our country was in the middle of the best economic times we have ever had. We got complacent with the need to remain vigilant with the "world around us " and its affairs. We were so complacent we could only be concerned about someone getting a few BJ's and meddle with gossip and petty personal accusations. It was fodder for the newsprint so they went along with it.

The ""greatest country on Earth"" essentially went on vacation for most of 8 years because there was nothing more important to do. In the future elect, to ALL offices, only those who will find something important to do.


Remember 09-11-01 !!!!!!!!


Jurbi

Print the post Back To Top
Author: IronFelix Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 88326 of 1968195
Subject: Re: Clinton, Usama and Why Integrity Matters... Date: 11/4/2001 12:15 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4


Clinton either attacked Afghanistan and Somalia to distract attention from the scandal (the "Wag the Dog" theory), or was restrained because of it. It can't be both.

Besides, your argument cuts both ways.

One can just as easily blame the Republican obsession with Clinton's peccadillos for the lack of presidential, if not national, focus on more important matters. Were the Republicans, at the time, clamoring for a more vigorous response?

IronFelix
Who agrees that character matters and who can't stand Albright either

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Vile Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 88330 of 1968195
Subject: Re: Clinton, Usama and Why Integrity Matters... Date: 11/4/2001 12:20 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
redneckjim,
"You are only partially correct. Unfortunately it is not the end of the story. Such a one dimention view only sees part of the story, unless of course you are a simpleton. So why think as one?"

Another veiled flame and a newbie to the board? We'll see.

"Leadership has to come from the President AND the senate AND Congress (somethlng about war powers and all, ok). When 2 parts join to fued with the other, trying to oust the other, there is no cooperation (read gridlock). No one will let anything happen to allow the other to do their job if it is at all possible. This gridlock is a stubborn greed not to allow one to get any credit in doing their job so as to lend support for the ouster. The cost is borne by the country."

You fail to mention that Clinton had a democratic congress for the first year in office. In his first two years in office he did nothing. You also fail to mention that he set one side against the other. Another failure to lead on his part. He was a divider, not a leader.

"When Clinton did bomb Afghantistan the "wag the dog" crew came out in full bore. To stay in office he could not risk being rebuffed by Congress and the Senage on another issue. What would of happened if 09-11-01 happened early on in Clinton's presidency? We would of forgotten about Monica, Whitewater, Ken Star and would have gotten down to business as the country would of demanded it, and rightly so. We could endlessly speculate what may or may not have resulted with this action, but Clinton's personal failures combined with the gridlock agenda of the Senate and Congress prevented any such focus or possible action. Let this be a lesson to future politicians who wish to play games with the American people, be aware the rest of the world is watching and looking for THEIR opportunity to do their doings."

You seem to be offering this up as an excuse to poor behavior. I say it would have been no different. Clinton led by polling at all times during his presidency which isn't leadership at all. I am afraid what you offer up is a red herring. Sorry. I do think you are partially right but not for the reasons you are setting before me.

Vile
NEVER SAY DIE!!!

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: emschulze Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 88336 of 1968195
Subject: Re: Clinton, Usama and Why Integrity Matters... Date: 11/4/2001 12:49 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
nole,

There's another part of that Albright interview that should be noted:

O'REILLY: Continuing now with former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

Fifteen out of the 19 suicide terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, and by all accounts, they have not been helping us, the kingdom hasn't, in tracking the money to Usama bin Laden. A lot of it's been going through Saudi Arabia. Are they our friends?

ALBRIGHT: Well, they're very complicated friends.

But Bill, can I go back to what you asked before, because we pushed the Taliban also to give up Usama bin Laden, and worked on that very hard, and worked on the basis of the intelligence that we had. And this is a terrible thing to say, but the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania actually were -- we didn't have the support in order to do a larger operation the way this administration has now...



__________________



What was this "terrible thing" that she almost revealed, before she, realizing that she was about to embarrass Clinton, caught herself?

That the US had advance notice of the planned bombings, but Clinton failed to act because a preemptive strike would not have been "popular?"

Fairly evident to me that she about to say:

And this is a terrible thing to say, but the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania actually were preventable.

Please, no more draft-dodging commanders-in-chief.




Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: jurbilllover Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 88337 of 1968195
Subject: Re: Clinton, Usama and Why Integrity Matters... Date: 11/4/2001 12:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
enschulze Please, no more draft-dodging commanders-in-chief.

Is the prospect of Dick Cheny as a president the same for you? If not, you better check his "draft status" and his statements that he intended "not to serve" during Vietman.

Remain vigilant,


Jurbi



Print the post Back To Top
Author: OxBeaux Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 88338 of 1968195
Subject: Re: Clinton, Usama and Why Integrity Matters... Date: 11/4/2001 12:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
we didn't have the support in order to do a larger operation the way this administration has now...

Life just never has been fair for Bill.





Print the post Back To Top
Author: redneckjim One star, 50 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 88341 of 1968195
Subject: Re: Clinton, Usama and Why Integrity Matters... Date: 11/4/2001 1:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
Vile (one)-

You fail to mention that Clinton had a democratic congress for the first year in office. In his first two years in office he did nothing. You also fail to mention that he set one side against the other. Another failure to lead on his part. He was a divider, not a leader.

Reagan had a senate majority and did nothing to defer the hundreds of Marines killed in Lebanon, and did nothing to reduce the budget deficit. So is that lack of leadership? It is if you so choose to single it out. Setting one side against the other is an ugly principal objective of politics. Getting someone else to take the blame is routinely played. Reagan got the people to believe that Congress was the problem not Reagan's inability or willingness to lead. It has to cut both ways, don't it?

You seem to be offering this up as an excuse to poor behavior. I say it would have been no different. Clinton led by polling at all times during his presidency which isn't leadership at all. I am afraid what you offer up is a red herring. Sorry. I do think you are partially right but not for the reasons you are setting before me.

No excuse intended, just putting it in a context of reality. You will never be able to learn from history if you don't examine it from all sides and with some contemporary context.
Besides, I am allergic to seafood, no herring for me.

Partilly right, the cup half full...whatever, just wake up and smell the coffee guy.

See ya 'round,

Jim

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: LifeForceDancer Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 88343 of 1968195
Subject: Re: Clinton, Usama and Why Integrity Matters... Date: 11/4/2001 1:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Ahhh...Bill is not President now. Is it OK if we stop fighting the last war already? LifeForceDancer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Vile Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 88345 of 1968195
Subject: Re: Clinton, Usama and Why Integrity Matters... Date: 11/4/2001 1:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
redneckjim,
"Vile (one)-"

Here we go with the flames again. I remain umimpressed. Not even original.

"Reagan had a senate majority and did nothing to defer the hundreds of Marines killed in Lebanon, and did nothing to reduce the budget deficit."

I thought we were talking about Clinton. Typical smoke and mirrors move but I will play just the same.

Reagan had bigger fish to fry. He won the cold war through military spending, thus the large deficit. He also rebuilt a sad military. Of course Clinton dismantled it but that is another story.

Yes, he failed to take more aggressive action. He is at fault here.

"So is that lack of leadership?"

Nope. You are talkking about one failure. I am talking eight years of leadership by polling which is not leadership at all. The point apparently whooshed right over your head.

"It is if you so choose to single it out. Setting one side against the other is an ugly principal objective of politics. Getting someone else to take the blame is routinely played. Reagan got the people to believe that Congress was the problem not Reagan's inability or willingness to lead. It has to cut both ways, don't it?"

I do not lay all the blame at Clinton's feet. We have had a sad policy in regards to terrorists since 1980, maybe earlier. I lay the blame at the feet of many. Reagan, Bush, congress from 1980 (at least) on and also Clinton. Especially Clinton. Why? Well he did many things I have no time to go into but he tied the hands of the intel community, he systematically dismantled the military, he divided the nation and congress, and he put himself above the national interest. If you paid any attention at all to any of my posts you would know I don't just pick on him.

"No excuse intended, just putting it in a context of reality. You will never be able to learn from history if you don't examine it from all sides and with some contemporary context."

Agreed. I am more open minded and critical about my party than most people are able to imagine.

"Besides, I am allergic to seafood, no herring for me."

Bummer, seafood rocks.

"See ya 'round,

Jim"


I doubt it. I am considering leaving here now rather than later.

Cheers,

Vile
NEVER SAY DIE!!!

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: redneckjim One star, 50 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 88346 of 1968195
Subject: Re: Clinton, Usama and Why Integrity Matters... Date: 11/4/2001 1:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
LifeForceDancer
Ahhh...Bill is not President now. Is it OK if we stop fighting the last war already? LifeForceDancer

George W has been elected for nearly one year now and for some they will still blame someone else for the next 3 years.

For those so inclined, Bill C. still has a purpose.

Move on into the now!

Jim

Print the post Back To Top
Author: redneckjim One star, 50 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 88348 of 1968195
Subject: Re: Clinton, Usama and Why Integrity Matters... Date: 11/4/2001 2:09 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
Vile-
I thought we were talking about Clinton. Typical smoke and mirrors move but I will play just the same.

We were talking about the duplicity of blame and how the blame game is played by some. Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Congress, are just some of the players.

Reagan had bigger fish to fry. He won the cold war through military spending, thus the large deficit. He also rebuilt a sad military. Of course Clinton dismantled it but that is another story.
Yes, he failed to take more aggressive action. He is at fault here.


Damn, fish again. He NEVER made any such trade- off public as part of his plan. It is a conceived rationale after the fact. Nice try but that stinks as much as that old fish you are trying to sell.
When Reagan took action like Iran-Contra was that credible? Panama to oust a US placed dictator and dope dealer. Domestic policy like running up the deficit, was that responsible. Broad based poor management if you asked me.

When the Marines were assaulted and killed, if Clinton had left town as Reagan did, what would of been your assessment then?

If you paid any attention at all to any of my posts you would know I don't just pick on him.

I am a newbie remember. You were not on my homework assignment.


jim (sipping at my coffee)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ericb888 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 88361 of 1968195
Subject: Re: Clinton, Usama and Why Integrity Matters... Date: 11/4/2001 3:21 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Vile wrote:

"I thought we were talking about Clinton. Typical smoke and mirrors move but I will play just the same."



If that's the case, then isn't it smoke and mirrors to bring up Clinton in the first place?


Print the post Back To Top
Author: bcairns Big funky green star, 20000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 88367 of 1968195
Subject: Re: Clinton, Usama and Why Integrity Matters... Date: 11/4/2001 4:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Clinton wasn't paralyzed by his other behavior when it came to military action. The American people accepted his interventions in Iraq and Yugoslavia, and they would have accepted more raids on Al Queda too. Oh sure, a few more people would have complained, but not enough to keep him from doing it if he believed it was a necessary national security issue.

In fact, it is a truism that a Democrat President has an easier time doing Republican things and vice versa. For example, a Democrat can more easily reform welfare and a Republican can more easily increase social spending.

Hawkish foreign policy is a Republican thing so Clinton would have had an easy time of it.

-Bruce

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bcairns Big funky green star, 20000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 88379 of 1968195
Subject: Re: Clinton, Usama and Why Integrity Matters... Date: 11/4/2001 5:42 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
Fifteen out of the 19 suicide terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, and by all accounts, they have not been helping us, the kingdom hasn't, in tracking the money to Usama bin Laden.

I am starting to think that Saudi Arabia is the source of problem within Islam.

-Bruce

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bcairns Big funky green star, 20000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 88380 of 1968195
Subject: Re: Clinton, Usama and Why Integrity Matters... Date: 11/4/2001 5:48 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I doubt it. I am considering leaving here now rather than later.

Why? Because a few liberal "terrorists" took some pot shots at you? You should be used to that by now. ;)

-Bruce

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bcairns Big funky green star, 20000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 88382 of 1968195
Subject: Re: Clinton, Usama and Why Integrity Matters... Date: 11/4/2001 5:50 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
George W has been elected for nearly one year now and for some they will still blame someone else for the next 3 years.

Unfortunately, the ignorant masses do not realize that the effects of a Presidency begin to kick in well after the President has left office and can endure for quite a long time. This makes "results" based voting very problematic.

-Bruce

Print the post Back To Top
Author: redneckjim One star, 50 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 88395 of 1968195
Subject: Re: Clinton, Usama and Why Integrity Matters... Date: 11/4/2001 7:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
bcairns Unfortunately, the ignorant masses do not realize that the effects of a Presidency begin to kick in well after the President has left office and can endure for quite a long time. This makes "results" based voting very problematic.

Ok, good logic. So Reagan has Carter to thank. And Carter has Ford/Nixon to blame.

Now where are we?


Jim

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ericb888 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 88413 of 1968195
Subject: Re: Clinton, Usama and Why Integrity Matters... Date: 11/4/2001 9:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
bcairns wrote:

"Because a few liberal "terrorists" took some pot shots at you? You should be used to that by now. ;)"



Maybe it's because a few conservative "terrorists" such as B-"government-workers-are-unproducive"-CAIRNS are now joining in the fun. ;)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Goofyhoofy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 88414 of 1968195
Subject: Re: Clinton, Usama and Why Integrity Matters... Date: 11/4/2001 10:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 27
Before you think I'm jumping back to the past to beat a dead horse, please know that I am doing this to tie together what many of us were saying during the Clinton administration with the terrorist events that have happened.

Don't be silly. He's been out of office for a year and you're still obsessing about it. Why would you think we might draw the conclusion that you're beating a dead horse?

Could it be, perhaps, that it is hard to rally people behind you when you send cruise missles to Sudan and Afghanistan only three days apart from when you lied to a grand jury and say that it all depends on what the definition of "is" is?

Yes, or it could be that the intelligence community found that time, and that time only when they had a positive ID on where he was, and he chose to go ahead, even knowing that the obsessive right-wingers would accuse him regardless. And they did. And they still are.

Madeline Albright's lame attempts to throw blame somewhere else remind me of why I was sickened by her tenure as Secretary of State, as well.

How is it that she's throwing blame elsewhere? By correctly assessing that there wasn't domestic or international support for a full scale invasion or bombing campaign of Afghanistan? I am agog at the naivete displayed at the accusation.

If I am wrong, then I am also agog that George W Bush didn't immediately launch an invasion and bombing campaign when he took office last January, or is that somehow different? Was he afraid to show his leadership for some reason? Or was it that there was a big threat during the Clinton administrtation, but it went away last January and suddenly reappeared on September 11?

I am further agog that George the Senior didn't think the American public had the stomach to follow through in Iraq when we had the advantage and the war infrastructure in place to continue up through Baghdad and kill Saddam Hussein, but I suppose that's somehow different too. Or did I miss something and that was Clinton's fault too?

Funny thing is, I find with the right-wing that it's always different. It's different that Newt, Henry, and Helen were all having affairs with people not their spouses, but the only thing that mattered was that Bill did.

It's different that the Supreme Court isn't supposed to muck around when States have issues, but when the election comes down to Florida and the Florida State Court interprets its own Florida state law, the Federal Supreme Court decides the State Court should be overruled, and the right wing loves it.

And it's different when they want the government out of their lives with all those pesky regulations, but they want the government IN everybody else's lives, like with restrictions on choice for women and compulsory prayer in school.

But anyway, please feel free to continue to bash Clinton for his his misdeeds, actual and imagined. As a proud member of the obsessive right, I figure you have at least another decade's worth of drivel to spew before you're finished.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: doezidotes Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 88448 of 1968195
Subject: Re: Clinton, Usama and Why Integrity Matters... Date: 11/5/2001 2:48 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
Why? Because a few liberal "terrorists" took some pot shots at you? You should be used to that by now. ;)
-Bruce


Basically, what redneck said was, "Oh yeah? Well, well, well... So's your old man!!! So there!" Now then, how does one argue with such brilliance?

-Angela

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bcairns Big funky green star, 20000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 88480 of 1968195
Subject: Re: Clinton, Usama and Why Integrity Matters... Date: 11/5/2001 9:48 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Ok, good logic. So Reagan has Carter to thank. And Carter has Ford/Nixon to blame.

Now where are we?


Closer.

-Bruce


Print the post Back To Top
Author: bcairns Big funky green star, 20000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 88481 of 1968195
Subject: Re: Clinton, Usama and Why Integrity Matters... Date: 11/5/2001 9:57 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Maybe it's because a few conservative "terrorists" such as B-"government-workers-are-unproducive"-CAIRNS are now joining in the fun. ;)

I hope this is not the case. For one thing, my post was not even directed at him. For another, he is still one of my favorite fools. I have fundamentel differences with many of my favorite fools. I think it was LurkerMom who almost handed me my head for my position on unions. ;)

-Bruce

Print the post Back To Top
Author: nole1 Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 88618 of 1968195
Subject: Re: Clinton, Usama and Why Integrity Matters... Date: 11/5/2001 5:41 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
Goofy,

Rather than actually responding to my post, you simply took an obscure word and used it a few times in between name calling people who are right of center. Here's what your post condenses down to:

obsessive right-wingers...I am agog...I am also agog...I am further agog...As a proud member of the obsessive right, I figure...

Given your fascination with that "agog" word, I've coined a new term just for you:

Democratagogue

With the definition of demagogue being:

A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace

I think this new word fits you nicely.

BTW, since you've labeled me a "proud member of the obsessive right" and stated that "they want the government IN everybody else's lives, like with restrictions on choice for women and compulsory prayer in school.", I suppose you can reconcile your post with the fact that I am a pro-choice atheist.

If you would bother to read my post and respond to what I actually said, I might respond with the same courtesy.

In the meantime, I've made up a (clean) limerick just for you:

Goofyhoofy sat on a log
Reading a post that made him agog,
He replied with such venom,
I wonder what got in him,
You'd think I called the old mule a dog.

Cheers,

nole1

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: JDCRex Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 88674 of 1968195
Subject: Re: Clinton, Usama and Why Integrity Matters... Date: 11/6/2001 12:08 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Rather than actually responding to my post, you simply took an obscure word and used it a few times in between name calling people who are right of center.

Complete garbage.

Did you read the post? I mean really read it rather than scan it for point-scoring purposes?

If so, why not answer this question from Goofy's post?

"If I am wrong, then I am also agog that George W Bush didn't immediately launch an invasion and bombing campaign when he took office last January, or is that somehow different? Was he afraid to show his leadership for some reason? Or was it that there was a big threat during the Clinton administrtation, but it went away last January and suddenly reappeared on September 11?"

What is so lacking in substance here? How is this not on-topic?

And what is your answer?





Print the post Back To Top
Author: nole1 Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 88679 of 1968195
Subject: Re: Clinton, Usama and Why Integrity Matters... Date: 11/6/2001 12:38 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Complete garbage.

Did you read the post? I mean really read it rather than scan it for point-scoring purposes?

If so, why not answer this question from Goofy's post?


Yes, I did. Did you happen to read my post that Goofy was responding to?

If so, you'd see why I didn't answer Goofy's post seriously...it was that he didn't answer the point I was making. Instead, he tried to subvert the point of my post into mere "obsessive right" Clinton bashing.

If you've read many of my posts, you'd know that I don't mind getting into a good debate. I just choose not to engage Goofy when he answers me with such an insulting post.

In fact, JDCRex, "I am agog at the naivete displayed at the accusation."...



Print the post Back To Top
Author: JDCRex Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 88680 of 1968195
Subject: Re: Clinton, Usama and Why Integrity Matters... Date: 11/6/2001 12:59 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
Yes, I did. Did you happen to read my post that Goofy was responding to?

Of course I did.

If so, you'd see why I didn't answer Goofy's post seriously

Nope, you are wrong. As I have already said, I did read your post and I still can't see why you didn't take Goofy's seriously. I agree it was strident, but it wasn't lacking in pertinence.

If you've read many of my posts, you'd know that I don't mind getting into a good debate.

With the post in question it appears to me as though you don't mind playing to the peanut gallery either. Putting "Clinton <insert evil, real or imagined, here>" in a subject line is virtually guaranteed to get a tumult of back slapping around here. Of course the same goes for evoking the Bush name in other places. As I've said before, no one political camp has a monopoly on blinkered vision.

But, if you won't answer Goofyhoofy, will you answer me? I'll ask the question again:-

If it was apparent that Bin Laden was such a threat, why didn't Bush take immediate action the day he assumed power? Is your thesis something like: Clinton had so demolished the intelligence network that by the time Bush took office he wasn't aware of all the relevant facts?


Print the post Back To Top
Author: bcairns Big funky green star, 20000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 88734 of 1968195
Subject: Re: Clinton, Usama and Why Integrity Matters... Date: 11/6/2001 10:22 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
If I am wrong, then I am also agog that George W Bush didn't immediately launch an invasion and bombing campaign when he took office last January, or is that somehow different?

It is different. The response is more effective and politically feasible when it is close to the event. We don't know what Bush's response would have been, but we do know what Clinton's was.

I do fault our political leaders (including Bush) for not focusing harder on security before the attacks. OTOH, eight years of Clinton had set the tone on this issue. I suspect that President Bush would have turned things around even had 9/11 not happened. JMO, of course.

-Bruce

Print the post Back To Top
Author: dmayes Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 90478 of 1968195
Subject: Re: Clinton, Usama and Why Integrity Matters... Date: 11/12/2001 2:43 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
My lurking at the board is reduced these days to the point that when I return there are thousands (thousands!) of posts to go through...posts like this one make the journey worthwhile...thanks for the research Nole.

dmayes

Print the post Back To Top
Author: readyteddy Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 90483 of 1968195
Subject: Re: Clinton, Usama and Why Integrity Matters... Date: 11/12/2001 3:26 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Great post, nole1. Thanks.

While I don't disagree with what you say at all, let's sniff a little glue and wind the clock back to the early 1960's and let's pretend the press has the same aggressive approach to elected leaders vis-a-vis their character as they do now, and let us further assume partisan politics then were as they are now, which is to say one party would rather relentlessly pursue the leader of the opposition party for his perceived breaches of character than unite with him on foreign policy, to say nothing of submitting a budget!

Now, in this milieu, suppose a Republican congress got wind of a certain young Democratic President who like to have trists with two secretaries known as "fiddle and faddle" when his wife was out of town...this in the White House swimming pool, no less.*

Nor were these his only peccadilloes...this guy was arguably the peccadillo champion of the Western world!

Meanwhile, the Soviet Union is moving nuclear weapons delivery systems 90 miles off the coast of Florida into Cuba.

Not to worry...just as the Soviets had predicted, the "loyal opposition" in the U.S. would rather argue about "who peccadilloed who" than take care of business.

There you go. You can argue that our responses to terrorism under President Clinton were the result of his flawed character making it impossible for him to effectively convey the message "we have to agressively respond to terrorism because those terrorists really, really REALLY aren't kidding". The response to these pleas "yea, sure, you are just rying to take our mind off your troubles" was something Clinton brought on us...and on himself.

You could also argue that if congress had felt they had a mission to do the people's business rather than spending 8 years looking under every rock for dirt on Clinton, they might have looked under those rocks Bin Laden was hiding under and Clinton Administration calls for more a aggressive response to terrorism might have been taken more seriously by a world that didn't know things about him that were arguably none of their business anyway.

* The tale of Fiddle and Faddle can be found in Seymore Hersch's The Dark Side of Camelot. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0316360678/qid=1005596583/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_10_1/002-0505700-4479247 Given what we now know about JFK from many other sources, there is little reason to doubt this story.





Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: bcairns Big funky green star, 20000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 90499 of 1968195
Subject: Re: Clinton, Usama and Why Integrity Matters... Date: 11/12/2001 4:15 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Nor were these his only peccadilloes...this guy was arguably the peccadillo champion of the Western world!

I was thinking about the Kennedy-Clinton connection the other day. It proves my point about Clinton. No one cares about Clinton's womanizing; this has always been a straw man put up by the left. The problem with Clinton is that he is totally devoid of character. I notice that many on the left believe this is true of all or most politicians (or at least they say this as they defend Clinton). I don't believe this. In fact, Clinton is the only President who has demonstrated such a complete absence of character. In my unprofessional opinion, the man is literally a sociopath.

-Bruce

Print the post Back To Top
Author: slipz Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 90520 of 1968195
Subject: Re: Clinton, Usama and Why Integrity Matters... Date: 11/12/2001 5:27 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
In my unprofessional opinion, the man is literally a sociopath.

Which is a very good llustration I don't think much of your opinions. They're mostly a wee bit over the top. A small element of truth buried beneath a pile of ideological poop.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: dmayes Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 90541 of 1968195
Subject: Re: Clinton, Usama and Why Integrity Matters... Date: 11/12/2001 6:42 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
RT makes an excellent point.

I think very likely that if the events of 9/11 had occured during the Clinton Administration that the country would have rallied behind him in a fashion similar to what we've seen happen with Bush.

Events of that magnitude have a way of clarifying what's important to everyone, including partisan politicians.

You could certainly argue that petty partison witch-hunting hobbled the Clinton presidency to the detriment of the country.

I would disagree, though.

I was never very concerned about Clinton's various sexual escapades. While its great to have a President you can admire in all respects, Presidents are, after all, human. One needs to focus on what they do in an official capacity.

And that was what concerned me. His incredible abuse of administrative powers to squash the Whitewater and related investigations led me early on to conclude that his lack of regard for the rule of law had the potential for inflicting significant damage on our political system. The low point in my entire life in my pride of citizenship, and confidence in our government came during the hearings regarding the Resolution Trust Corporation hearings, long before Paula Jones surfaced. It was extremely discouraging to see high-ranking government officials trot one after another to official hearings and lie (no, I'm telling the truth now, in my diary I was lying). And not lie in a convincing way so that it was possible to maintain the idea that well, perhaps this fellow is telling the truth, but to lie with a sneer so's to say, "yeah, I know I'm lying and I know you know that too, but you can't do a damn thing about it now, can you, so stuff it...". I won't rehash all of the various episodes but it was clear to me that the President would use whatever means necessary without regard for law, morality, ethics, or the good of our Republic and institutions to cover whatever tracks he deemed needed covering at any given time. Basically, the President behaved like a mobster, right down to witness tampering (no reasonable, informed person can conclude othersise in my opinion), and witness intimidation (most probably). Even more disheartening was the lack of response on the part of so many folks in important places to the quasi-criminal behavior that so marked the Clinton administration.

It wasn't the fiddling and faddling that bothered many of us, RT.

Nice to see you, by the way :).

dmayes

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: hammer89 Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 90558 of 1968195
Subject: Re: Clinton, Usama and Why Integrity Matters... Date: 11/12/2001 7:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
It's this kind of liberal wrong thinking that drives me nuts!!!!!!

While I don't disagree with what you say at all, let's sniff a little glue and wind the clock back to the early 1960's and let's pretend the press has the same aggressive approach to elected leaders vis-a-vis their character as they do now, and let us further assume partisan politics then were as they are now, which is to say one party would rather relentlessly pursue the leader of the opposition party for his perceived breaches of character than unite with him on foreign policy, to say nothing of submitting a budget!

Now, in this milieu, suppose a Republican congress got wind of a certain young Democratic President who like to have trists with two secretaries known as "fiddle and faddle" when his wife was out of town...this in the White House swimming pool, no less.*

Nor were these his only peccadilloes...this guy was arguably the peccadillo champion of the Western world!




As Lloyd Benson told Dan Quayle…….I knew Jack Kennedy……and you're no Jack Kennedy.

Bill Clinton is no Jack Kennedy, or Dwight Eisenhower, or any other Great Leader that has had an affair……….that wrong thinking Liberals use to try and justify Bill Clinton lying under oath…………….Yeah!! Bill Clinton had extramarital sex……the rub was……He lied under oath about it!



I digress. I remember the day that President Kennedy died. I was in second grade. All the teachers were called to the office……it was a general announcement over the P.A. system. Mrs. Blanton, (Who was as tough an old broad as I'd ever butted heads with) came back to class crying……..it was all she could do to tell us our President had been assassinated.

I remember playing PT-109 when I was a kid. What guy my age hasn't? Those dirty Japs may have cut my boat in half…….but I'm going to save my crew…….It's my responsibility. Don't worry men! I'll see you through this and then we'll get a new PT Boat and go get those Japs….and we'll show them! President Kennedy's Dad was a very powerful man……and two of his sons served on the front lines….and he lost one of them. Harry Hopkins, Roosevelt's Special Assistant and close friend lost his son in the Marshall Islands (Stephen was a Marine and was killed on his first day of combat). A lot of the rich and powerful took their citizenship seriously back then.



President Kennedy had numerous affairs with some of the most beautiful women in the world……..But nothing has been unearthed to remotely suggest that he sexually assaulted a one of them.

Maybe that thread about Manly Men really does apply. Women found President Kennedy a Manly Man. President Kennedy didn't have to grab their breast……or expose himself and make lewd suggestions……….……….President Clinton is not a Manly Man…….he's an empathetic chameleon willing to do or say anything to stay in the spotlight. I still remember him standing in Church with Reverend Jackson confessing his sins……..asking for forgiveness.



Thousands of young boys like myself wanted to be just like President Kennedy. We were Captains of our own boats fighting America's enemies…….sometimes we died gloriously in defense of our country.

And those little boys like me who are now grown men…………still get emotional when we think of President Kennedy's distinguished courage during WWII. Captain of an armed racing boat……….engaging in deadly combat with the Imperial Japanese Navy………….


Today's little boys?

Let's look in on little Billy and Suzy. Billy says, “Hey Suzy!, Let's play the “Whitehouse”, OK?”

“OK Billy, How do we play “Whitehouse?””

Billy bites his lower lip and says seriously, “I'm the President and you get to be my Intern”.

“OK Billy, What next?”

“Now I do this.”……zippppp……..”and you have to……….”

“Yeewwwuuuuuuu!!!!! I'm telling my Mommy!!!!!”


Like I said……….Bill Clinton is no Jack Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhower………or any other Great Leader………..That wrong thinking Liberals want to use to justify President Clinton's lack of moral fiber.



Lurker Babe……Hope all went well. You were in my thoughts today.


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: mcemerson Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 90577 of 1968195
Subject: Re: Clinton, Usama and Why Integrity Matters... Date: 11/12/2001 10:09 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
My lurking at the board is reduced these days

Life is good!! Another one of my favorite fools resurfaces. Good to see you again Dan.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Springtex Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100271 of 1968195
Subject: Re: Clinton, Usama and Why Integrity Matters... Date: 12/19/2001 11:38 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
I just rec'ed your post, hammer--well done. I would like to spin off your post to point out another aspect of the Jack Kennedy phenomenon. You said you were in second grade when he was assassinated--and the experience had a profound impact on you--as it did on everyone. I was a freshman in college.

The shock and tragedy of that event impacted people of all ages and political persuasions in America and around the world, caused many people to re-examine their positions on certain issues, and served as a catalyst for the institution of needed reforms, particularly in the area of civil rights in America.

However, from my perspective, and based on what I have observed over susequent decades, attitudes about Jack Kennedy, the man, as opposed to martyred President, were never as universally positive and supportive as his portrayal in the popular media. This was especially the case among the generation ahead of me--those who were already into their careers, paying taxes, taking responsibility, during the time Kennedy served. On the contrary, there were many in that generation ahead of me who maintained negative views toward Kennedy, on a personal level, throughout their adulthood. These were my immediate elders in the business and professional world, and I used to have a hard time understanding why they felt the way they did--as I was, lets say, "neutral" on the issue, not knowing much about Kennedy "the man" in real time, and not having to spend a dozen or more years in school being indoctrinated with "Kennedy lore" in the aftermath of his tragic death.

It was not until Bill Clinton came along that I began to understand the source of those older peoples' attitudes toward Jack Kennedy. They knew things about him--in real time--that were not being reported on and became completely eclipsed after November, 1963. We all got the full picture of Clinton, pretty much in real time, during the '90s.

Demographers--and I am not one of them--know a lot about these contrasts of opinion among the generations. The demographers are pretty much "value-neutral" about it, I guess, their main goal being to develop information to sell or exploit. But it was quite a revelation to me, upon developing an understanding of Bill Clinton, to reflect on and develop a new understanding of the attitudes about Jack Kennedy among those senior to me. I suspect it is entirely possible that, in time, that cycle may repeat itself. We must be cautious about that.

/s/ S.T.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (40) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement