Replies

A few months ago I tried a google search on-- Africa, Clinton, Arkansas, diamond mines -- with no results. It seems to me within the last 5-7 yrs there was lots to be said re diamond mines and the clintons. Tell me if I have my facts wrong (please).

Now with Mandela's connection with the Clintons and aids $$$ being raised and US sending over billions - I smell rats!!! Big time!!!! Not one cent would I send.

Your comment--" . . . not one cent would I send."

But G.W. proposed sending $billions to fight AIDS in Africa. So yes, more than a cent you would send--as a U.S. taxpayer, you would be part of sending billions.

This seems an ongoing theme for this administration. Where Clinton was all fluff and no stuff, Bush has substance and character. Examples: Clinton put on a great show of supporting minority involvement in his administration, just not in any significant posts (plus their survival--political and otherwise--wasn't too good); Bush's top two foreign policy advisors are African American. Advantage-Bush. Clinton goes to South Africa and puts on a show of courting Mandela to fight AIDS (what, Clinton didn't know there was a problem when he was president?); Bush uses the forum of the State of the Union to push for a huge investment in fighting AIDS in Africa. Advantage-Bush.

Clinton was constantly hiding behind Hillary's skirts--accused of nepotism during the Democrat debates, he avoided the question and warned the questioner (Brown, I think), "How dare you drag my wife into this." Caught and wriggling about Flowers, he dragged Hillary onto national T.V. to be the dutiful wife and show everyone that it was all okay. Lewinsky was another reason for Hillary to leap to her man's defense--the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, the soulful description of a young Bill being torn between two domineering women who wanted to raise him. It was like a bad, cheap paperback story.

So now Clinton's hiding behind someone else to poke at the administration? Yawn. What else is new?