WHILE CLINTON SLEPT (AND DID OTHER THINGS)

9-12-03 | DICK MORRIS

[grumple]

Good...then I believe some of the assumptions about Bill Clinton are completely warranted. If you have someone that's interested in converting a free, capitalist society into a nanny-state government-run, socialistic imposed commonplace, then wouldn't you want them to admit it?

Would you care to take a chance at explaining the pardon of terrorists, when you are apparently already worried about fighting terrorism politically?

Ever served in the military to the point where you witnessed first hand the social playground it was used for? Not to mention the purposeful destruction of morale and welfare?

I could go on and on...

[Fawnn]

[Bush Sr. not taking out Saddam] had everything to do with the fact that the UN resolutions on the Iraq-Kuwait situation didn't authorize it. Doing anything more than liberating Kuwait from Iraqi occupation and establishing sanctions on Iraq would have been an international relations disaster.

Taking out Saddam was not an option. Had GHWB tried, the whole world would have gone nuts over his exceeding his UN authority.

Exactly!

[Doe Eyes]

Character counts. Republicans were correct to call Clinton on his lack of it.

Was Larry Flynt also correct for exposing the lack of character of several Republicans?

[Quilla]

Are you people serious? Clinton should have been executed as a traitor? The Clintons complicit in terrorist activity?

You can consider it insanity, but I believe it with all my heart. You may want to read Betrayal by Bill Gertz to get a better grasp of Clinton's monumental failure towards national security.

[soothsayer99]

I could suggest you read "The Clinton Wars" by Sydney Blumenthal to get a clear pitcure on how great the Clinton Presidency was, but I have a feeling you won't do it.

I'm going to sign off now, but I leave you with a heavy heart. There is obviously little chance that things will change. And I am certain that like the Roman Empire, we will destroy ourselves from within and every basher on both sides is a part of it.

Hope your day goes well.

Peace

[cyncooper]

I notice it is the "tolerant" left that wields outing of homosexuals (is there anybody who didn't know that about Koch?) as a triumphant card to play to undermine them if they don't toe the official line.

[RightRules]

<> I guess it never occurred to you that the same could be said for the Repubs during the impeachment scandal. Maybe seeing neocons mock the President, call him a murderer and a rapist and put him on a sham trial, helped enbolden them.

Republicans didn't call him a rapist. His accusers did. The trial was a sham only because the sworn president committed perjury.

Impeachment scandal? Nooooo, you're not a Clinton defender. You're a journalist, right? Objective, fair, balanced?

Did not the scandal -- and WJC's subsequent perjury -- lead to the impeachment?

Your assertion that Clinton based important policy decisions on how those mean, nasty republicans might do to him is silly drivel.

The Clintons and their ilk were most successful in marginalizing their political opponents just as they marginalized the FBI and CIA.

[cyncooper]

I could suggest you read "The Clinton Wars" by Sydney Blumenthal to get a clear pitcure on how great the Clinton Presidency was, but I have a feeling you won't do it.

Oh, my! You are going to cite Blumenthal to buttress clinton as a "great" president?

What a joke.

[rootntootn]

Dick, I wouldn't plan any hunting trips to Arkansas for a while. Particlarly if you're flying in a light aircraft.

[bevlar]

Please take your medication!!!

[cyncooper]

Was Larry Flynt also correct for exposing the lack of character of several Republicans?

Was he, Doe?

I presume you refer to Hyde, Livingston, and Gingrich.

How does their activity compare to clinton? Gingrich was shameful in the affair with the staffer, though they are now married that is not an excuse to carry on in that fashion. But he did have to step aside.

I'll never forget Bob Livingston stepping up to speak at the impeachment and the dems yelling out "Resign! Resign!"

And he did!

As to Hyde, his affair was ancient history, and as is often noted on the California recall threads, there is every difference in the world between someone who behaves a certain way early in their lives who then changes for the better, and someone who is mired in corruption and depravity.

I don't protest exposure of poor character, but Larry Flynt is scum in every way and I wouldn't be proud to associate with the likes of him.

[SolutionsOnly]

The moral relativism game doesn't work here.

But seeing as how you want to play it, One big difference is that the disgraced Republicans did do the honorable thing and resigned their positions. They don't deny, twist, spin, and attempt to weasel their way out of it.

One cannot expect people to be perfect. But we can expect them to be accountable. Avoiding accountability is what the Clintons were all about.

Was Larry Flynt right? No. He was not. Why? Because his
intent was purley malicious. What makes that any different from the Impeachment, you ask? Well, Impeachment came to be after a very long series of character failures on the part of the Clintons - from whitewater, Travelgate, and Chinese espionage, to sexual harassament and rape. It adds up after a while.

Yes, character counts. And yes, we all have character failures. The difference is that some strive to rise above them, while others embrace corruption.

[Doe Eyes]

The moral relativism game doesn't work here.

I see. So there are different morals applied to the opposition (the Democrats) than to the Republicans. Just making sure that was the case.

[bray]

Clinton and the rest of the dirtyRats prefer the Vietnam dibacle over Iraq. They love it when the military is humiliated and America is put on it's knees. They need us to be equally humilited in Iraq to defeat their evil military industrial complex.

Pray for GW and Our Troops

[cyncooper]

I see. So there are different morals applied to the opposition (the Democrats) than to the Republicans. Just making sure that was the case.

No, you don't see, as that is not what SolutionsOnly said.

You best make sure that you understand that, but evidently from your tone and comments, you won't.

[ModelBreaker]

I disagree. Character only counts when you don't like the guy in the other party. I think the proof is in the bashing of Wes Clark. You may not think he'd be a good president, but he served his country well, is about as honorable as they come, and might be a good leader for us, just like Powell. But what do I read on these forums about him? Trash about how he "almost started WW3" and related garbage. He deserves on honest hearing if for no other reason than he served us all with bravery and distinction. But no, he is bashed. It's not about character, it's about his joining the democrats.

Why do you think the accusations about almost starting WWIII are about character? Seems to me they are about judgment. He ordered troops into Pristina Airpart, where an armed confrontation with Russian troops was almost inevitable.

Then you speak about the 'honor' with which he served his country. Seems to me you are raising the character issue. That is, he has honor (you claim) so he would be a good president.

Seems to me character is as important as judgment. Based on what I have seen, Bill and Hill have execrable character. The disasters of their presidency directly resulted from their character defects. So why should character be off the table?

The nearest historic comparison is Nixon. Like Clinton, a real smart guy with deep and serious character problems. Those problems convulsed our nation as much or even more than did Clinton's.

The difference in the historic comparison lies in the reaction of Clinton and Nixon's respective supporters. When Nixon's lies and obstruction of justice were exposed, Republicans stopped supporting him. When Clinton's were exposed, Democrats just clung to Clinton harder.

Seems to me one real dividing line is between Conservatives and Liberal supporters here. Conservatives think character counts and will abandon their president when he is exposed. Liberals think character doesn't count and will defend their president no matter how execrable his behavior.

Seems to me the other is between the moral relativists and absolutists. After the 60's, most folks who bought into the moral relativism of the 60's became democrats. Thus the stock of potential candidates for the dems is comprised of folks who think there are only shades of gray. And thus, the democrats have more 'character challenged' candidates than the republicans.

So taking character off the table would help the democrats.

Is it possible you don't like assessing character type issues because you are a liberal and understand, correctly I think, that since the breakdown in morals in the 60's, character is more often a problem for Democrat presidential candidates than it is for Republicans?

[RinaseaofDs]

Sorry, but in both cases you have examples of poor leadership. Bush, Sr. and Clinton.

Kennedy had his faults, but Profiles in Courage is a classic. It ought to be dusted off and read again by R's of all stripes.

[Doe Eyes]

It just seem to me that if "character counts" we should welcome those that expose the character weaknesses of all our politicians, not just Democratic politians.

[Bob]

I notice it is the "tolerant" left that wields outing of homosexuals (is there anybody who didn't know that about Koch?) as a triumphant card to play to undermine them if they don't toe the official line.

Actually, I didn't know it. But, then again, I don't really care either. He never made an issue of it as far as I know.

[ModelBreaker]

Now, c'mon. Should we say Reagan "cut and ran" from Beruit? Simplistic and unfair, just like accusing Clinton of the same thing.

Yes, we can. Beruit was probably the lowest point of the Reagan administration.

Alas, Somalia was NOT the low point of the Clintons.