Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Still a Clinton hater. And loving it.
Oak Lawn (IL) Reporter ^ | 4/11/02 | Michael M. Bates

Posted on 04/09/2002 5:15:38 AM PDT by mikeb704

I don’t care how long it’s been since Clinton dragged his sorry carcass – and anything else he could swipe – out of the White House. I don’t want to forget the Clinton years. I don’t want to move on. I don’t want to put it all behind me.

I hate Clinton as ardently now as when he energetically defiled the Nation on a daily basis. I hate his wife, and his daughter, too. And I won’t be satisfied until everyone hates them as much as I do.

That, you may argue, isn’t feasible, despite the multitude of excellent reasons to hate them. My answer is that in a country that could elect a deceitful sleaze like Clinton, anything is possible.

For years I gave Chelsea a pass. After all, it wasn’t her fault that she was born into a family of crooks. She’s grown up now, though, and is her own person. So what did she do immediately after the terrorist attacks of September 11th? She’s written that she was "expounding on the detriments of Bush’s tax cut as we approached Grand Central Terminal . . ." Quite clearly, she’s a developing basket case, one deserving the same scorn and derision as the unfit parents who inculcated her with socialist nonsense.

What’s especially preposterous are Clinton’s incessant attempts to rewrite history. A few months ago he rounded up some of his bootlicking apologists and urged them to publicize all his supposed accomplishments as president. More recently, he permitted the Monica Lewinsky of newsmagazines, Newsweek, to interview him. Clinton claimed that giving Marc Rich, former regular on the FBI’s Top Ten Most Wanted List, was a mistake because – hold your breath here – "It wasn’t worth the damage to my reputation."

His reputation? His reputation? What a knee lapper. Clinton’s got a reputation, all right. But it’s certainly not one that could be damaged. Here’s a guy who was:

Fined $90,000 for lying under oath and obstructing justice. Forced to pay an $850,000 settlement in the Paula Jones lawsuit. Disbarred in Arkansas. Prohibited from practicing law before the U.S. Supreme Court.

He ran the White House like a Motel 6 for Democrat fat cats. He took campaign contributions from Chinese communists. He entertained felons, including drug peddlers and arms smugglers, in the Executive Mansion.

Remember how the Clintons managed to get their hands on 900 FBI files they weren’t supposed to have? Or the puzzling reappearance of subpoenaed billing records?

Then there were the last minute pardons. Susan McDougal, Roger Clinton, and Clinton’s former secretary of Housing and Urban Development were pardoned. So were Weather Underground radicals, murderers, drug dealers, and a bunch of folks who stole tax dollars. Hillary’s brothers, seeing how well Roger Clinton was doing by peddling influence, jumped on the pardon bandwagon themselves.

And what of Clinton and terrorism? In 1993 bin Laden’s thugs exploded a bomb in the World Trade Center, killing six and injuring hundreds of others. In 1995 they bombed a military headquarters in Riyatdh, Saudi Arabia and killed five Americans. In 1996 they bombed military barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia and killed 19 Americans. In 1998 they bombed U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and killed 224 people, including 12 Americans, and injured more than 5,000 others. In 2000 they bombed the U.S.S. Cole and killed 17 Americans. What did Clinton do about all this? Not much. He was too busy lying, obstructing, denying, obfuscating, stonewalling, and, of course, traveling.

Clinton whines about how much money has been spent on investigating him. But how much would have been spent if he had only told the truth?

So much to hate, so little time. Yet there’s reason to think that finally, finally, more Americans are recognizing the true Clinton legacy.

A recent Gallup poll rated the last eight presidents in terms of job approval. In the poll, the first one taken since he left office, Clinton ranked sixth, ahead of only Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon.

Not bad for a start. In the meantime, let the hating continue.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: clintonscandals; crimes; legacy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-157 next last

1 posted on 04/09/2002 5:15:38 AM PDT by mikeb704
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: mikeb704
Nice rant.
2 posted on 04/09/2002 5:25:58 AM PDT by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mikeb704
A recent Gallup poll rated the last eight presidents in terms of job approval. In the poll, the first one taken since he left office, Clinton ranked sixth, ahead of only Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon.

I hate him too. I won't be happy until it's like in ancient Egypt - I want his name struck from every official document, every column, every roledex, every book and every man's (and woman's) mind.
I won't be happy until someone by chance comes across a mistake, his name left in writing somewhere, and says, "Hey Joe. Who was this guy Clinton, anyway?".
I don't want him remembered as the piece of crap that he is; I don't want him remembered at all!

3 posted on 04/09/2002 5:29:17 AM PDT by grobdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lilynn
Bump...
4 posted on 04/09/2002 5:29:25 AM PDT by mugsaway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mikeb704
Bravo.
5 posted on 04/09/2002 5:32:17 AM PDT by Lizzy W
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mikeb704
RANT ON!
6 posted on 04/09/2002 5:37:48 AM PDT by texson66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mikeb704
So eloquently stated.
7 posted on 04/09/2002 5:38:13 AM PDT by stevio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mikeb704
My long-term goal is that Clinton is ranked below both Richard Nixon and Andrew Johnson as the worst president ever.

His administration was more corrupt than Harding's or Grant's, which was perhaps the most corrupt administration since Jackson's. But both Jackson (whom I detest) and Grant (whom i admire) were genuine war heros and men of courage and personal honor. Their naivete led them to trust corrupt "friends" and to be used by them - shame on the corrupters not on the men they misled.

Clinton on the other hand was the chief corrupt boil on the body politic, the master prestidigitaror and mountebank, the source of the putresence that permeated the government during his vile rule.

But, I don't want to get started and tell you how I really feel about Slick....

8 posted on 04/09/2002 5:38:30 AM PDT by CatoRenasci
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mikeb704
Was Jonathan Alter really wearing Monicas kneepads during the NewsWeak interview? I'm sure he was. He probably has a stained tie to prove it.
9 posted on 04/09/2002 5:39:40 AM PDT by Ron in Acreage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lizzy W
If this man isn't a Freeper I'd like to know why?

Cogent and insightful piece of work. Long enough to cover some of the major crimes of the Clinton's, yet short enough to read over morning coffee.

10 posted on 04/09/2002 5:44:17 AM PDT by CT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: mombonn
This column has "you" written all over it!
11 posted on 04/09/2002 5:48:07 AM PDT by The Energizer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mikeb704
More recently, he permitted the Monica Lewinsky of newsmagazines, Newsweek, to interview him.

Good line...I get mail from Newsweek regularly asking me to subscribe and tear it up. Remember when they put Gingrich on the cover and titled it "The Loser"? They never put Clinton on the cover with a title "The Liar."

12 posted on 04/09/2002 5:51:36 AM PDT by Dr. Scarpetta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CatoRenasci
actually, in terms of indictments/convictions of members of an administration, Ronald Reagan's counts as the most corrupt of the last century. U.S. Grant's as the most corrupt ever. if you're interested in facts. Clinton's administration may have been greatly "investigated", but that means little, as none of the investigations turned up proof of actual indictable crimes, and in the U.S., you are innocent until proven guilty.
13 posted on 04/09/2002 5:51:53 AM PDT by chicago charlie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: chicago charlie
...none of the investigations turned up proof of actual indictable crimes,...

There's still time!

14 posted on 04/09/2002 6:06:31 AM PDT by scholar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: mikeb704
Good stuff...The worst thing about Clinton for me is that he kind of robbed me of 8 years...The Clinton years were such a nightmare that they nulled out good memories and left visions of ugly, hateful democrat accusactions of making my 'ol mom eat dog food and Monica on her knees under the oval office desk
15 posted on 04/09/2002 6:07:39 AM PDT by B.O. Plenty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mikeb704
LOL!!! I like the author's style!!
16 posted on 04/09/2002 6:10:25 AM PDT by RooRoobird14
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chicago charlie
.....none of the investigations turned up proof of actual indictable crimes, and in the U.S., you are innocent until proven guilty.

no indictable crimes, -but indelible ones on blue dresses..the rest got washed down the sink.

17 posted on 04/09/2002 6:14:33 AM PDT by prognostigaator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: chicago charlie
actually, in terms of indictments/convictions of members of an administration, Ronald Reagan's counts as the most corrupt of the last century. U.S. Grant's as the most corrupt ever. if you're interested in facts. Clinton's administration may have been greatly "investigated", but that means little, as none of the investigations turned up proof of actual indictable crimes, and in the U.S., you are innocent until proven guilty.

Except for independent prosecutors (a screw-up on klinton's part), klinton's regime was investigated and prosecuted by klinton's own inJustice Department. Janet Reno proclaimed the unique doctrine of "no prosecution unless absolute proof of guilt". We also had a lot of "cases under federal investigation" that went on forever.

Reagan and his people were often charged in the media with "the hint of the appearance of impropriety". The democRATS of that era treated that as the equivalence of a felony conviction. The most solid stuff was things like $100 cufflinks and vague accusations of insider trading.

Stuff like that was nickel-dime for the klintons. Instead, we heard about heavy-duty felonies like perjury, obstruction of justice, bribery, and treason. And that was just the stuff that couldn't be suppressed by a corrupt and cooperative media and justice system.

18 posted on 04/09/2002 6:24:38 AM PDT by 300winmag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: chicago charlie
Ahem....I think it depends on the meaning of "crime" and "indictable".....
19 posted on 04/09/2002 6:24:41 AM PDT by goodnesswins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: grobdriver
I don't want him remembered as the piece of crap that he is; I don't want him remembered at all!

Gotta disagree with you on that; THOSE WHO CANNOT REMEMBER THE PAST ARE CONDEMNED TO REPEAT IT.

20 posted on 04/09/2002 6:25:16 AM PDT by Izzy Dunne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-157 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson