Religions > Atheism > Liberals So Proud of Ted Kennedy. Liberals like killers! Liberals Hate America!
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Liberals Are Numb-Nuts" |
| Date: |
13 Aug 2004 03:04:51 AM |
| Object: |
Liberals So Proud of Ted Kennedy. Liberals like killers! Liberals Hate America! |
Liberals So Proud of Ted Kennedy. Liberals like
killers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By now you've heard of Ted Kennedy's interview with the Associated
Press. It was an anti-Bush, anti-war tirade loose on facts and high on
leftist rhetoric.
Kennedy told the AP that "This was made up in Texas, announced in
January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place
and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud."
Is there any basis in fact for this claim? Kennedy cites none ... he's
just satisfied to make the charge. Some analysts believe Kennedy is
alluding to a meeting in Texas in January of 2002, not 2003. Carl Rove
was talking to Texas Republicans and told them that the public trusts
the Republicans to do the right thing in fighting terrorism. Was that
Kennedy's announcement "that the war was going to take place and was
going to be good politically?"
Kennedy also says that foreign leaders are being bribed with taxpayer
money: "My belief is that this money is being shuffled all around to
these political leaders in all parts of the world, bribing them to
send in troops."
Nobody has made this claim before Kennedy. There are no US taxpayer
funds being paid to foreign leaders for support in the war in Iraq.
Could Kennedy possibly be talking about the U.S. paying the
transportation costs for foreign troops going to Iraq?
This bloated sot shouldn't even be in the Senate. The very fact that
he is a respected member of the democRATic leadership is testament to
the moral depravity of the democRATic Party and its supporters. Here
is a man who allowed a woman, widely believed to be his paramour, to
die inside his partially submerged car while he paced up and down the
roadside worrying about his political future. He then used his
family's wealth and fame to virtually escape any responsibility for
his cowardly actions. He should have
had the decency to disappear behind the walls of the Kennedy compound
years ago. Instead, he's one of the most powerful democRATs in the
Senate, orchestrating filibusters against conservative appointees to
federal courts and lying about the motivations behind the war on
terrorism.
democRATs should be so proud.
boortz.com
.
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Neo-cons So Proud of Laura Bush. Neo-cons like killers! Neo-cons Hate America! |
13 Aug 2004 08:54:02 AM |
|
|
Go to google.com and do a search on the following:
"Laura Bush" "boyfriend"
(Hint for neo-cons: press the <enter> key when you're
done typing)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pete Lewis" |
|
| Title: John Kerry Is Always On The Enemy's Side |
13 Aug 2004 10:18:11 AM |
|
|
John Kerry Is Always On The Enemy's Side
The record is clear: from his anti-Vietnam war activities, to
hissupport of the brutal Sandinista regime in Nicaragua and his
participation in the Soviet created and supported "nuclear freeze"
movement, John Kerry has most always been on the other side,
campaigning vigorously for anti-American causes. Indeed, had he
succeeded in his various attacks on the interests of his country, a
defenseless U.S. would have faced a grim future of living under Soviet
nuclear blackmail. And the people of Nicaragua would still be captives
of a communist dictatorship once run by a murderous child molester
with whom Kerry had hobnobbed.
Tragically, Kerry succeeded brilliantly in one of his signature
campaigns, helping to condemn the people of South Vietnam to the
horrors of life under a communist dictatorship which today still
honors him as one of their war heroes.
As he preens himself in the glow of misplaced admiration for his
alleged heroism during his four months in combat in Vietnam, he
carefully shies away from any real discussion of his sordid
anti-American activities. He doesn't like to discuss how he slandered
his comrades still fighting in the jungles and rice paddies in
Vietnam, calling them war criminals and baby killers. For his valiant
service on behalf of the Communist Vietnamese government, Kerry was
awarded a special commendation as a "Hero" of communist victory in
1983 when he was Lt. Governor of Massachusetts. The record of Kerry
and fellow pro-Communist North Vietnam comrades was cited by General
Vo Nguyen Giap, the military commander of North Vietnamese forces, in
his 1985 memoir. Giap wrote that, "if it were not for the disunity
created by... stateside protests, Hanoi would have ultimately
surrendered."
Kerry earned the award, having aided and abetted the enemy, helped to
prolong the war, and create more American casualties. Today, a
photograph of Kerry being greeted by Do Muoi, General Secretary of the
Communist Party of Vietnam, is displayed in a room dedicated to the
anti-war protesters in the Vietnamese Communist War Remnants Museum
(formerly known as the "War Crimes Museum") in Ho Chi Minh City.
During the Reagan administration, Kerry got another chance to turn on
his country.
In the fall of 1983 the KGB launched an all-out "peace offensive"
through a welter of front organizations in the U.S. and Europe. A
nuclear freeze at that moment would have meant permanently freezing
the Soviet advantage in troops and weapons - precisely the Kremlin's
main objective.
As Kenneth Timmerman wrote in "The French Betrayal of America," in the
United States "the nuclear freeze movement won the support of key
Democrats in Congress as well as that of political gadfly Jesse
Jackson. Jackson's Operation PUSH joined forces with the Communist
Party USA and the Soviet-backed U.S. Peace Council in demanding
nothing less than the unilateral dismantling of the entire U.S.
Military."
The entire nuclear freeze moment was a Soviet initiated and financed
attempt to undermine President Reagan's nuclear strategy, which even
then was beginning to drive the Soviet Union into an arms race that it
could not win and would eventually bankrupt them. And John Kerry
reported for duty in the movement.
In 1985, Kerry, elected to the Senate with the help of a nuclear
freeze PAC, spoke at a nuclear freeze conference in Geneva. There he
pandered to European pacifists with the absurd claim, "if it were not
for the freeze movement, I am confident that the government of the
United States would not be in Geneva today talking with its Soviet
counterparts."
As an early backer of the nuclear freeze movement, Kerry climbed into
bed with European leftists who denounced Reagan as a reckless cowboy
for daring to counter Soviet SS-20 missile emplacements in Eastern
Europe with U.S. Pershing IIs.
In 1985 Kerry introduced The Comprehensive Nuclear Freeze Bill, and
sponsored two amendments to freeze the Strategic Defense Initiative-
related nuclear development. All of this was in complete opposition to
the policies of the Reagan White House, which was actively pursuing a
strategy of keeping the pressure up on the evil Soviet Empire. This
strategy ultimately succeeded despite Kerry's and the KGB's efforts to
derail it. If Kerry's legislation had passed it would have completely
undermined the policies being pursued by the White House, prolonging
the Cold War very likely to this very day.
Had Kerry been in charge of fighting the Cold War against Communism,
the Soviet Union would still exist. Once again he ended up backing the
other side at one of the most crucial moments in the Cold War. This is
the man who wants the American people to put the conduct of the War on
Terrorism into his hands. This is the man now backed by the Communist
Party USA.
Throughout his career Kerry's attitude towards communism has been as
wooly minded as his current approach to terrorism. Communist
terrorists, such as the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, could always count
on his liberal gullibility, as when Daniel Ortega met with Kerry in
Managua. Ortega promised to obey the Contadora Act for Peace and
Cooperation in Central America, and then a few days after meeting with
Kerry flew off to Moscow to get a check for $200 million from his
Soviet masters. Incredibly, even as Ortega was pocketing his Soviet
check, Kerry was on the Senate floor telling his colleagues that they
didn't need to support the Contras since Nicaragua was free of Soviet
influence.
For a full account of Kerry's shameful conduct see Dave Eberhart's May
20, 2004 story in NewsMax.com Kerry Went to Extreme Lengths to Back
Communist Ortega and Undermine U.S. It's no wonder that Kerry has been
endorsed by Tómas Borge, a terrorist-friendly Sandinista leader
notorious for his brutality when
his old communist regime still ruled Nicaragua. "The most eye-popping
Kerry endorsement last week came from Tómas Borge, one of the nine
commandantes of Nicaragua's famed Sandinista revolution and perhaps
the most feared," reported the Wall Street Journal's Mary Anastasia
O'Grady just hours after Kerry accepted his party's nomination in
Boston.
During a 25th anniversary celebration of the Sandinista revolution
last week, Borge declared that President Bush was "demented, crazy and
paranoid." But Kerry, on the other hand, is somebody he looked forward
to doing business with as president of the United States, calling him
"a more sensible and balanced man, [who] would improve relations
between the U.S. and us."
Borge's warm feeling toward Kerry undoubtedly emanates from the trip
Kerry and Sen. Tom Harkin made to Nicaragua in 1986, to urge
then-Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega not to knuckle under to Reagan
administration pressure on their communist regime. A week later,
Ortega traveled to Moscow to get his marching orders from the
Politburo.
In 1998, Ortega's stepdaughter accused him of sexually molesting and
raping her since she was 11 years old. She said the abuse began in
1979, when Ortega and the Sandinistas took power. Years after the
Sandinstas were voted out of office in U.S.-backed elections, Borge
was still arming for a return to power and was discovered with a cache
of surface-to-air missiles in 1993, in apparent preparation for a new
war. The new Kerry backer also ran a kidnap ring and has ties to
Basque terrorists in Spain, the Wall Street Journal reported.
When Kerry went to Managua, Nicaragua, with Senator Harkin to offer
his personal support to Ortega on April 18, 1985 a congressional vote
on aid to the Contras was just days away. Kerry wanted to negotiate
with the communists in Nicaragua and "give peace a chance." Like
Neville Chamberlain waving a printed statement hailing "peace for our
time" with Hitler, Kerry brought back a peace proposal to derail
Reagan's request for Contra aid.
John Kerry has been accused by his critics of being a "flip-flopper."
But in one respect you can always count on his consistency - to
support America's enemies over America. It's no wonder the Communist
Party is backing him - he tends to flip in their direction.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/8/3/160248.shtml
Kerry: Service Should Not Be "Litmus Test" For Leadership. Mr.
President, you and I know that if
support or opposition to the war were to become a litmus test for
leadership, America would never
have leaders or recover from the divisions created by that war. You
and I know that if service or
nonservice in the war is to become a test of qualification for high
office, you would not have
a Vice President, nor would you have a Secretary of Defense and our
Nation would never recover from
the divisions created by that war. (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional
Record, 10/08/92, p. S17709)
But Now Kerry Constantly Challenges The Stature Of His Democratic
Opponents Over Their Lack Of Military Service. And more than ever,
Mr. Kerry is invoking his stature as a Vietnam veteran as he
challenges the stature of his Democratic opponents -- none of whom, he
frequently points out, have ‘worn the uniform of our country’ -- to
withstand a debate with Mr. Bush on national security. (Adam
Nagourney, As Campaign Tightens, Kerry Sharpens Message, The New York
Times, 8/10/03)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kermit" |
|
| Title: Re: John Kerry Is Always On The Enemy's Side |
14 Aug 2004 10:59:25 AM |
|
|
Pete Lewis <pdlewis375@N0THING.N0SPAM.0RG> wrote in message news:<msmph093mbbnrabee8q7u4ctteri1sf5tu@4ax.com>...
John Kerry Is Always On The Enemy's Side
The record is clear: from his anti-Vietnam war activities, to
hissupport of the brutal Sandinista regime in Nicaragua and his
participation in the Soviet created and supported "nuclear freeze"
movement, John Kerry has most always been on the other side,
campaigning vigorously for anti-American causes. Indeed, had he
succeeded in his various attacks on the interests of his country, a
defenseless U.S. would have faced a grim future of living under Soviet
nuclear blackmail. And the people of Nicaragua would still be captives
of a communist dictatorship once run by a murderous child molester
with whom Kerry had hobnobbed.
**************************************
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/S/Sandinist.asp
Sandinistas
members of a left-wing Nicaraguan political party, the Sandinist
National Liberation Front (FSLN). The group, named for Augusto Cesar
Sandino , a former insurgent leader, was formed in 1962 to oppose the
regime of Anastasio Somoza Debayle . In 1979 the Sandinistas launched
an offensive from Costa Rica and Honduras that toppled Somoza. They
established a junta that nationalized such industries as banking and
mining, postponed elections, and moved steadily to the left,
eventually espousing Marxist-Leninist positions. The
Sandinista-dominated government was opposed by U.S.-supported
guerrillas known as contras (see Nicaragua ). In 1984, Sandinista
leader Daniel Ortega Saavedra won the Nicaraguan presidency in an
election that was boycotted by some opposition groups. In 1990 the
opposition candidate, Violeta Barrios de Chamorro , defeated Ortega,
but Sandinistas continued to hold important positions in the police
and army. In the mid-1990s a rift in the party led many moderates to
form the Sandinista Renovation Movement (MRS). Although Ortega again
lost a bid for the presidency in 1996, the Sandinistas became the
major opposition party in the national assembly; the MRS only won one
seat.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/S/SomozaA1.asp
Somoza Debayle, Anastasio, 1925-80, president of Nicaragua (1967-72,
1974—79). The younger son of dictator Anastasio Somoza , he was
educated in the United States. He assumed command of the national
guard at age 21 and was elected president in 1967. Barred from
immediate reelection, he resigned (1972), nominally yielding power
until the 1974 elections; however, as commander of the corrupt and
brutal national guard, he effectively retained power. As president, he
dealt ruthlessly with opposition. By the late 1970s, his regime was
denounced by human-rights organizations and by the U.S. government,
and support for violent insurrection spread. Somoza fled Nicaragua on
the eve of the revolutionary victory in 1979. He was assassinated in
Paraguay.
*********************************************
Somoza was a brutal dictator, whom the Reagan administration supported
becasue he was "anticommunist". Wwhen the Nicaraguan people elected
Daniel Ortega, Reagan sold weapons to Iran, and with the money,
supported teh Contras, a group of former National Guard
revolutionaries, known for murder and rape. I'm sure they refrained
from child molesting.
Danieal Ortega was selected a second time, and was then replaced with
another president. He ran again a third time but lost, in 1996. Our
illegally (by US law - remember Ollie North?) supported Contras *did
lose, and Nicaragua is doing OK. A lot better than when they were n
the middle of a civil war.
Kerry, like many of us, support democratic governments around the
world, even if they elect someone we don't like. Reagan and the neocon
precursers wanted to set up various pupper dictators around the world
- Viet Nam, Iran, Nicaragua, etc. and it has caused no end of grief.
Tragically, Kerry succeeded brilliantly in one of his signature
campaigns, helping to condemn the people of South Vietnam to the
horrors of life under a communist dictatorship which today still
honors him as one of their war heroes.
As he preens himself in the glow of misplaced admiration for his
alleged heroism during his four months in combat in Vietnam, he
carefully shies away from any real discussion of his sordid
anti-American activities. He doesn't like to discuss how he slandered
his comrades still fighting in the jungles and rice paddies in
Vietnam, calling them war criminals and baby killers. For his valiant
service on behalf of the Communist Vietnamese government, Kerry was
awarded a special commendation as a "Hero" of communist victory in
1983 when he was Lt. Governor of Massachusetts. The record of Kerry
and fellow pro-Communist North Vietnam comrades was cited by General
Vo Nguyen Giap, the military commander of North Vietnamese forces, in
his 1985 memoir. Giap wrote that, "if it were not for the disunity
created by... stateside protests, Hanoi would have ultimately
surrendered."
So the reason we lost in Viet Nam was because of the hippies? <snort>
Kerry was also described in glowing terms in his evaluation reports,
and reccommended for several medals (you may have heard of this). Were
his commanding officers lying? Or incompetant? Does this mean we
should not trust any vet's medals, 'cause look how easily the evil
Kerry manipulated the system, over and over?
<snip>
So many lies, so little time. It is so quick tosnip and paste a lomun,
but takes solong to find the cites to refute or to clarify the spin.
Kerry has shaken hands with evil people? I suppose that's possible.
Shall we bring up Cheney's business dealings with Saddam? Sheesh. I
have to go to class.
Kermit
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ed Moise" |
|
| Title: Re: John Kerry Is Always On The Enemy's Side |
06 Sep 2004 09:39:41 AM |
|
|
Pete Lewis <pdlewis375@N0THING.N0SPAM.0RG> wrote in message news:<msmph093mbbnrabee8q7u4ctteri1sf5tu@4ax.com>...
John Kerry Is Always On The Enemy's Side
For his valiant
service on behalf of the Communist Vietnamese government, Kerry was
awarded a special commendation as a "Hero" of communist victory in
1983 when he was Lt. Governor of Massachusetts. The record of Kerry
and fellow pro-Communist North Vietnam comrades was cited by General
Vo Nguyen Giap, the military commander of North Vietnamese forces, in
his 1985 memoir. Giap wrote that, "if it were not for the disunity
created by... stateside protests, Hanoi would have ultimately
surrendered."
This is entirely false. Kerry was not given any such award in 1983,
or in any other year. Giap did not write any 1985 memoir, and the
statement quoted does not appear in any memoir by Giap, of any date.
Ed Moise
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: John Kerry Is Always On The Enemy's Side |
14 Aug 2004 04:57:13 AM |
|
|
Six months before 9/11...
|A senior State Department official told CNN that the U.S.
| government made a mistake last year by focusing too tightly
| on bin Laden and "personalizing terrorism ... describing parts
| of the elephant and not the whole beast."
| http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/04/30/terrorism.state.dept/
.
|
|
|
| User: "John" |
|
| Title: Re: John Kerry Is Always On The Enemy's Side |
14 Aug 2004 09:16:01 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
Six months before 9/11...
A senior State Department official told CNN that the U.S.
government made a mistake last year by focusing too tightly
on bin Laden and "personalizing terrorism ... describing parts
of the elephant and not the whole beast."
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/04/30/terrorism.state.dept/
Kerry isn't even mentioned ignorant *****. Is that the best you can come up with?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Yang Phd n.a." |
|
| Title: Kerry's Self-Woven Foreign Policy Web - Kerry speaks fluent French, a mentality of surrender |
14 Aug 2004 09:31:48 AM |
|
|
Kerry's Self-Woven Foreign Policy Web - Kerry speaks fluent French, a
mentality of surrender
Kerry's Self-Woven Foreign Policy Web
David Limbaugh
Monday, August 16, 2004
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/8/13/91936.shtml
Poor John Kerry. He has finally nuanced himself into foreign policy
schizophrenia. It may not matter to the unconditional Bush-hater
segment of his base, but it ultimately might matter to the less rabid
and to swing
voters. The times we live in are too dangerous to entrust our national
security to this man.
Kerry's latest troubles began when he responded to pressure from
President Bush to tell us whether he would have voted to authorize
military action against Iraq even knowing what we do now about Iraq's
apparent absence of weapons of mass destruction.
Kerry said, "Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it
was the right authority for a president to have." On what basis, one
wonders, would Kerry have voted to give the president that authority
in light of the many other conflicting statements he has made.
Consider his convention speech, when he said, "America never goes to
war because we want to, we only go to war because we have to." It's no
secret Kerry was referring to Iraq there.
Kerry continued, "Before you go to battle, you have to be able to look
a parent in the eye and truthfully say: 'I tried everything possible
to avoid sending your son or daughter into harm's way. But we had no
choice. We had to protect the American people (and) fundamental
American values from a threat that was real and imminent.' So lesson
one, this is the only justification for going to war."
Shouldn't Senator Kerry explain to us why "we (would have) had no
choice" and how the "threat (would have been) real and imminent" if we
would have believed there were no stockpiles of WMD, especially
considering Kerry's insistence that there was no significant linkage
between Iraq and Al-Qaeda?
To reconcile these inconsistencies we must conclude that Kerry didn't
believe the threat from Iraq was real and imminent a few weeks ago but
does today. There's no wiggle room here for the senator.
Yet he continues to wiggle. He says that in voting for the resolution
he understood the president would only exercise military action as a
last resort, would make a better effort at building an international
coalition and would have had a plan to win the peace.
How can anyone possibly believe that Kerry, given his abiding distrust
of George Bush and his judgment, would ever vote to delegate such
carte blanche authority to President Bush concerning if and when to
wage war?
Regardless, none of these things would have had anything to do with
whether the threat was clear and imminent. Neither building a stronger
coalition nor adopting a fail-safe plan for "winning the peace" would
have altered the nature of the threat posed by Iraq. So Kerry failed
his own test.
Moreover, can you imagine the futility of trying to persuade these
recalcitrant nations to join our coalition if they believed Iraq
didn't have WMD, when they wouldn't join us even when they believed
that he did?
There's more. Kerry has repeatedly accused President Bush of
misleading us into war by distorting the intelligence and exaggerating
the WMD threat. And Kerry said, "They were wrong, and soldiers lost
their lives because they were wrong."
Isn't Kerry saying that he wouldn't have gone along with putting our
troops in harm's way if President Bush hadn't misled us on the WMD
question? If not because of Iraq's presumed WMD, then on what basis
would he have voted to put our soldiers' lives on the line?
Also consider Kerry's statements after it appeared that we were not
going to find stockpiles of WMD. When President Bush reminded his
detractors that WMD was not the only reason he led us into war against
Iraq, Kerry accused him of changing his story. "Now the president is
giving us a new reason for sending people to war."
Hold on now. President Bush always offered multiple reasons for our
military action against Iraq. But since Kerry raised the issue,
perhaps he should give us his reasons for retrospectively supporting
the resolution, even assuming there were no WMD stockpiles. It won't
suffice for him to tell us yet again that he expected Bush to attack
only as a last resort. He has to offer an underlying reason he would
have supported the resolution even if he expected the president not to
act on it immediately. And that underlying reason must satisfy his
convention speech test of an imminent threat.
Finally, if Kerry thinks the cause against Iraq was required with or
without WMD, why is he so anxious to precipitously withdraw our troops
and jeopardize all that our soldiers have died for? Ah yes, how
history
(Vietnam) does repeat itself.
----------
Liberals Hate America!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Marxist Moore" |
|
| Title: Moby's *****! The Story Of Bill Clinton! |
13 Aug 2004 09:27:45 AM |
|
|
Moby's *****! The Story Of Bill Clinton!
Ann Coulter
June 23, 2004
According to the front page of The New York Times -- so it must be
true! -- the release of Bill Clinton's latest round of lies, "My
Life," has "many of his old antagonists ... gearing up again." Among
many others, MSNBC's Bill Press said the book was "bringing all the
Clinton haters out from under their rocks. I mean, they're salivating
because they get another chance to get into all of these issues."
We're not salivating with anticipation -- that's drool as we fall into
a coma.
Since Clinton was impeached, liberals have been trapped in a time
warp. They just can't seem to "move on." Books retelling Clinton's
side of impeachment -- only since the decadent buffoon left office --
include: Joe Conason's and Gene Lyons' "The Hunting of the President:
The Ten-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton" (endorsed
by America's most famous liar!), David Brock's "Blinded by the Right:
The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative," Sidney Blumenthal's "The
Clinton Wars," Joe Eszterhas' "American Rhapsody," Joe Klein's "The
Natural: The Misunderstood Presidency of Bill Clinton," Hillary Rodham
Clinton's "Living History," and now, the master himself weighs in with
"My Life."
As far as I know, conservatives have produced one book touching on
Bill Clinton's impeachment in this time: In 2003, National Review's
Rich Lowry decided it was finally safe to attack Clinton and thereupon
produced the only Regnery book with Bill Clinton's mug on the cover
that did not make The New York Times' best-sellers list. That's how
obsessed the Clinton-haters are.
Now there's even a documentary version of liberals' Vast Right-Wing
Conspiracy fantasy, "The Hunting of the President." O.J. had more
dignity.
If we're so obsessed with it, why do they keep bringing it up? OK,
uncle. You win, Mr. President. If I buy a copy of your book, will you
just shut up once and for all, go away, and never come back? It will
cost me $35, but, judging strictly by weight, that isn't a bad price
for so much cow manure. At 957 pages, this is the first book ever
published that contains a 20-minute intermission. Readers are advised
to put it down and read a passage from Clinton's 1988 D.N.C. speech
nominating Dukakis just to stay awake. This thing is so long, he
almost called it "War and Peace." Or, I suppose, more properly, "War
and a Piece."
Considering how obsessed liberals are with turning their version of
Clinton's impeachment into the historical record, it's interesting how
these books spend very little time talking about Clinton's
impeachment. In lieu of discussing the facts of his impeachment,
Clinton simply makes analogies to grand historical events - events
notable for bearing not the remotest relationship to his own sordid
story.
Clinton claims, for example, that conservatives decided to target him
in lieu of the Soviet Union after the Cold War ended and conservatives
needed a new villain. In other words, Clinton is equating himself, in
scale and importance, to the Soviet Union, the global communist
conspiracy and the Marxist-Leninist Revolution. Nope, no ego problem
there. ("My Life" was Clinton's second choice title, after the
publisher balked at naming the book "I Am God, and You Are All My
Subjects.")
Alternatively, Clinton claims conservatives hated him because he
represented "the '60s." As is now well-known, four lawyers, toiling
away after hours and on weekends, worked quietly behind the scenes to
propel the Paula Jones case to the Supreme Court and bring Monica
Lewinsky to the attention of the independent counsel. All four of us
were 5 to 8 years old when Bill Clinton graduated from Georgetown in
1968. (Actually, it was the '70s that I really hated, but that's
another column for another day.)
So I'm pretty sure it wasn't our anger about "the '60s" that inspired
feelings of contempt for Bill Clinton. It must have been something
else -- some ineffable quality. Let's see, what was it again? Ah yes!
I remember now! It was that Clinton is a pathological liar and
sociopath.
If Clinton wasn't the Soviet Empire or "the '60s," then he was Rosa
Parks! Clinton actually compares his battle against impeachment to
civil rights struggles in the South. Haven't blacks been insulted
enough by the constant comparison between gay marriage and black civil
rights without this horny hick comparing his impeachment to Selma?
And that's when Clinton is even talking about his presidency. From
what I've heard, roughly half of Clinton's memoir -- hundreds and
hundreds of pages -- is about every picayune detail of his life before
becoming president. Through sheer force of will I shall resist the
urge to refer to this book as a "blow by blow" account of Clinton's
entire miserable existence.
Most presidential memoirs get right to the president part, on the
assumption that people would not be interested in, for example, Harry
Truman's deal-making as Jackson County executive or Jimmy Carter's
initiatives as a state senator in Georgia -- let alone who they took
to their junior high school proms. When Ulysses S. Grant wrote his
memoirs, he skipped his presidency altogether and just wrote about
what would be most interesting to people -- his service as a Civil War
commander.
But Clinton thinks people are dying to read 900 pages about his very
ordinary life. He views being president as just one more episode in a
life that is fascinating in all its stages because he is just so
fascinating as a person -- at least to himself. In a perverse way,
it's utterly appropriate. What actually happened during the Clinton
presidency? No one can remember anything about it except the bimbos,
the lies and the felonies. Fittingly, in the final analysis, Clinton
will not be remembered for what he did as president, but for who he
did.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
