Wow - this guy says it all Actually he says quite a bit more than "it all."I have no problem if people want to criticize, even vilify Clinton. It would be good, however, if they were at least somewhat factually accurate when doing so:thus ending the most disgraceful and scandal-ridden Presidency of the past two hundred and twenty-four years of our nation.Actually, the honor of having "most disgraceful and scandal-ridden Presidency" would go to Warren Harding, by far. (Harding himself was above board but quite detached in his management, leading to all sorts of mischief at many levels throughout his administration.) For instance, over half of his cabinet was found to have been soliciting - and receiving - bribes, influence peddling, and selling favors to corporate America and friends of the administration. And it was all so blatant that they didn't even need to fund a Special Prosecutor to prove it.Perhaps another one the writer might consider is the administration of Richard Nixon, wherein the CIA was instructed to interfere and obstruct an investigation by the FBI, where the IRS was counseled to use their powers of audit to harass citizens which that administration didn't like, and where 'breaking and entering', issuing false material in the name of political opponents, illegal wiretapping and lots more were approved throughout the chain of command in the White House.Some might even note that Ronald Reagan's administration approved funding of an extra-government revolutionary army in Nicaragua because they didn't like the then government in power. That wouldn't normally be particularly unusual for this country, except that the Congress has passed a law specifically prohibiting such funding. The military, of which this writer is such a proud member, was not only complicit, but actively involved in breaking that law.Never again will Bill Clinton have the power to conduct an eight year "social experiment"The writer may be correct here. Of course I am reminded that "integration of Negroes" was thought to be a social experiment as late as World War II, and the "inclusion of women" was also so labelled, even just 20 years ago.Well, anyway, it's clear that the writer has an abject hated of Clinton, his wife, his policies, his failings, and everything else about the man. That's OK. That's his right. That's what "freedom" is all about.By the way, I also went to Lehigh University. There were morons, geniuses, and people of both political extremes in attendance as well as, as you might expect, a broad swath of people in the politial mainstream. I'm not sure what including where this fellow went to school has to do with anything, but hey, whatever floats your boat.I might point out that Lehigh's is known by far as an Engineering school, and while it also has small divisions in Business and Liberal Arts, those schools are not nearly so widely known nor respected. I suspect this writer might have profited from a few more courses in political history, particularly if he is going to go making statements about the field which are inherently incorrect.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. M