Clinton-Bashing, Etc.
Follows a bit of debate on the state of America. It was set off by an email Fwd I received,
one of a small handful of Clinton-bashing forwards I started getting in July,
2003. George W. Bush had just
started to come under fire for his misleading pre-war statements of Iraq's
capabilities. And here, suddenly,
were all these emails bashing the former president Clinton. . . .
OUR PRESIDENT CLINTON
Bill Clinton registers for the draft on September 08,
1964, accepting all contractual conditions of registering for the draft.
Given Selective Service Number 3 26 46 228.
Bill Clinton classified 2-S on November 17, 1964.
Bill Clinton reclassified 1-A on March 20, 1968.
Bill Clinton ordered to report for induction on July 28,
1969.
Bill Clinton dishonors order to report and is not
inducted into the military.
Bill Clinton reclassified 1-D after enlisting in the
United States Army Reserves on August 07, 1969 under authority of Col. E.
Holmes.
Clinton signs enlistment papers and takes oath of
enlistment.
Bill Clinton fails to report to his duty station at the University
of Arkansas ROTC, September 1969.
Bill Clinton reclassified 1-A on October 30, 1969, as
enlistment with Army Reserves is revoked by Colonel E. Holmes and Clinton now
AWOL and subject to arrest under Public Law 90-40 (2)(a) "registrant who
has failed to report...remain liable for induction".
Bill Clinton's birth date lottery number is 311, drawn
December 1, 1969, but anyone who has already been ordered to report for
induction is INELIGIBLE!
Bill Clinton runs for Congress (1974), while a fugitive
from justice under Public Law 90-40.
Bill Clinton runs for Arkansas Attorney General (1976),
while a fugitive from justice.
Bill Clinton receives pardon on January 21, 1977, from
Carter.
Bill Clinton (FIRST PARDONED FEDERAL FELON) ever to
serve as President.
All these facts come from Freedom of Information
requests, public laws, and various
books that have been published, and have not been refuted
by Clinton.
After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed
six and injured 1,000; President Clinton promised that those responsible would
be hunted
down and punished.
After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed
five U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be
hunted down and punished.
After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia,
which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that
those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa,
which killed 224 and injured 5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible
would be hunted down and punished.
After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17
and injured 39 U.S. sailors;
Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
Maybe if Clinton had kept those promises, an estimated
3,000 people in New York and Washington, D.C. that are now dead would be alive
today.
AN INTERESTING QUESTION:
This question was raised on a Philly radio call-in
show. Without casting stones, it is a legitimate question.
There are two men, both extremely wealthy. One
develops relatively cheap software and gives billions of dollars to
charity. The other sponsors terrorism. That being the case, why was it that the Clinton
Administration spent more money chasing down Bill Gates over the eight years in
office, than Osama bin Laden?
THINK ABOUT IT!
It is a strange turn of events. Hillary gets $8
Million for her forthcoming memoir. Bill gets about $12 Million for his
memoir yet to be written. This from two people who spent 8 years being
unable to recall anything about past events while under oath!
Sincerely,
Cdr. Hamilton McWhorter USN (Ret)
P.S. Please forward this to as many people as you
can! We don't want this woman to even THINK of running for President.
*****
REPLY FROM E.M.-L.:
THE USE OF SLICK WILLY
The above forward about Clinton's moral failings is
charmingly predictable. After
Baghdad fell to U.S. troops I'd noticed that all the pro-Bush, pro-Republican
and Clinton-bashing emails ebbed away.
But then, just as Americans were starting to face up to the fact that
the Bush Administration was being fingered for lying to Americans and the world
about intelligence on Iraq, all of a sudden I'm getting these Clinton-bashing
emails again.
It seems that when the Bush government comes under
criticism, the best thing to do is remind people of Clinton and Monica
Lewinsky, or Clinton and his shameful military record.
If Bush cannot find WMD in Iraq, the best thing to do
is use your email account to bash Hillary.
The entire educated world knows damn well by now that
the Iraq war was not about any perceived threat from Iraq but was rather about
Iraqi oil and control of it. Most
of the world knew this long before the war even began, but now it has become so
clear that even starry-eyed Bush supporters have to face the fact that in the
lead-up to war they were being brainwashed by misinformation and rhetoric.
Debating the question of whether or not the war was
about an Iraqi threat to American security is like debating whether the sun
rises in the east or west. If you
want the answer all you have to do is turn off your TV and look out your
window.
The American public has been deceived into going to
war. That's a fact, and I'll
repeat it with a slight addition: The American public has been deceived into
going to war in order to pour billions into the pockets of a handful of oil
conglomerates. The American
soldiers now in Iraq are there to oversee the new Iraqi government, which will
in its turn oversee that everything goes the way American CEOs want it to go.
Clinton was a womanizer and a liar: a man who lied
about his womanizing. Bush is a
man who lies about war and peace.
But many of the people who support Bush seem to think lies leading a nation
to war are not as serious as lies about blowjobs. I find this amazingly immoral.
Three times as many people around the world today hate
America (the selfish, imperialist, air-polluting America of Bush) as did under
Clinton, who had far more respect in the international arena than Bush has.
Blaming 9/11 on the Clinton Administration could only
be done by someone who willfully ignores all the warnings of 9/11 that the Bush
Administration got in the months before the attack. And if the entire educated world knows that the Iraq war was
about oil, much of the educated world suspects that 9/11 was in itself not
exactly what it seemed to be on CNN.
More than anything now America needs a thorough investigation of the
"failure" that allowed 9/11 to happen.
All of this becomes clearer and clearer as time goes
on. Bemoaning the Clinton years
(which are now part of the past) will do little to make the unpleasant truths
of the present go away. And the
truths of the present are getting more unpleasant all the time.
More unpleasant all the time? Yes. For
example, this email has probably been scanned for certain words or phrases that
could be seen to be "anti-American." The government project that has begun such scanning of
emails is entirely un-Constitutional and thus illegal and thus--the irony--the
most un-American thing now happening in America.
The Constitution is being undermined by Bush appointee
John Ashcroft. The Bush
Administration is introducing policies likely to have a very un-American future. We are now seeing the sorts of things
the Founding Fathers did their best to make impossible in our country.
But most Bush supporters don't seem to know much about
the Constitution. And in any case,
it's obvious that in their minds the Constitution isn't nearly as interesting
as Bill Clinton's sex life.
Eric Mader-Lin
*****
REPLY FROM JIM WOOD:
Here Here Eric!!
And to put a finer point on your points, let me make
an additional suggestion:
When we consider politics in general, we must take
into account the mindsets that permeate the administrations that are in charge.
Many Americans do not know of the teachings of Leo
Strauss, a University of Chicago mind. Most Americans have some idea of who
Machiavelli is, but only because he was one of the guiding principles behind
Nixon. Of course, many also know Thomas Jefferson, who was the political
ideologue behind Clinton's administration, but most would not agree with
Jeffersonian ideals. They would think of Alexander Hamilton, who was the
basis for the Reagan political philosophy.
Every politician that becomes president in the US has
been faced with some type of challenge that his predecessors did not have to
meet. As such, it is more a job that required a POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY to
guide their actions than a "can do" sort of person that would be the
guide. The upshot: you don't become President by not being "can
do", but "can do" has resolved very little in the last 100
years. On the other hand, politics
guided by a "philosophy" has actually made huge impacts, because it
is deeper than the latest deal that can be cut.
Following are some of the fundamentals of these three
guiding political philosophies:
1. Nixon and Machiavelli.
"The End Justifies the Means."
Machiavelli's "The Prince". But was that all? There is
more, yes. "It is easier to control the dark emotions (hate and
fear) then the light emotions (love and respect), so even though being loved as
a leader is more desirable, a great leader only works to strengthen his skills
of fear (to gain respect) and hate (to unify purpose), as it is these emotions
that are more easily determined by the ruler, than the folly of other peoples
opinions."
Results? Watergate, where one party used governmental
power to "derail" the so-called natural two-party system, so
democracy was a victim to political expedience.
2. Reagan and Hamilton/Clinton and Jefferson
I was a big fan of Reagan. Yep. Hamilton
was raised poor. Worked his whole life to make ends meet, and then become
highly influential in determining the "type of capitalist" system we
would have. It is essential that you know that his "opponent"
was Jefferson. The basis of the debate was what was "more
valuable", capital or labor?
Hamilton, poor, and having to work to get everything,
believed Capital was king. Jefferson, rich, having been given most
things, large estates, and massive numbers working for him, believed Labor was
king.
In Jefferson's perspective, Capital was necessary to "hire"
the minds and "hands" that make any great undertaking possible.
Further, capital was necessary to create the gathering of people or places or
things, but it was the gathering of people, places and things that MADE the greatness
possible. With no people, capital had no purpose. It was simply an idea,
or a construct. This type of thought permeated the Clinton
Administration. That is why he hired Ivy League people.
In Hamilton's perspective, Labor was required to do
the work that capital needed. But without Capital, there were no
"gatherings". There were no "great undertakings"
there were just poor, uneducated people that didn't give a whit for things
beyond filling their belly. And it was capital that gave the poor a
reason to get up, a reason to build, to create, to make better lives for
themselves, and most importantly, gave the poor something larger than
themselves to strive for. Hamilton
believed that labor could be gotten cheaply, and could be thrown back into a
pool, and new labor could be found, but only if capital was there. And
Reagan believed this at a fundamental level. The importance of capital as
generative principle explains the Reagan Administration's "trickle-down
economics".
For Jefferson, a concept of Labor was the basis on which
the political theories were built.
Hamilton's political theories were organized around a concept of
Capital.
3. George W. Bush and Leo Strauss
This match is one that few understand. And most,
when confronted with who and what Leo Strauss taught, are somewhat taken
aback. Leo Strauss was not an economist. His political philosophy
was formed in the "Nazi Germany" world. And he is a
philosopher, not a politician.
His tenets? Fairly basic, but
undemocratic. And Strauss was vehement about his
"anti-democratic" stance. Strauss taught the greatest weakness
of democracy was its "consistent battle with itself." Where
"great nations" were able to focus on a single theme and move
forward, democracies had endless and needless debates, and second guessing,
which prevented the more efficient use of a nation's most important tool: Focus
on Purpose.
Additionally, Strauss believed that the
"people" were a helpless, sad, stupid mob that was not to be treated
with any respect, nor to be informed or knowledgeable about any subject.
Nor had it actually ever been "educated". It was to be
controlled, told what was and what wasn't, and to be dealt with as a
"child". And that nations ought to select powerful and strong
leaders from the elite, who should govern with power and "lead/rule"
the world. Making it a better place for the elite. And, if it was
necessary or appropriate, the leader could, at times, give back to the people,
just to keep them appeased. But, the people were a problem that
leadership needed to deal with as efficiently as possible.
Eric, your note on the "Clinton Bashing" is
accurate. But we must keep in mind that as long as Americans don't
believe that "it matters" to vote, the Right Wing will be
served. And that is the main purpose of these Clinton-bashing
emails. It is to remind us that during Clinton's time, the greatest
prosperity in the History of the United States, and the greatest run of peace
in the 20th century, was uhhhh....bad. And now, the worst economics in
history, and the most warlike administration in 100 years, is uhhhh
better. And the main reason is: Clinton dodged the draft. And
uhhh....yeah. Clinton dodged the draft.
That is why things are better now.
Jim Wood
*****
An angry response to my remarks about the political use of recent
Clinton-bashing came from someone unknown to me: Jerry Cox. His initial letter didn't reveal much
other than the usual furious contempt for the Democrats, but he followed with a
more detailed explanation of his thinking. I sent him a copy of the now-famous article by Gore Vidal on
9/11. ("The Enemy Within," published in the Observer, London, October
27, 2002; available online at the following URL:)
http://www.9-11congress.netfirms.com/Vidal.html
Some time back I'd sent this article to others
in my mailing list with a brief preface.
The preface outlines why I consider the article important. As follows:
The following article, written last year, poses the
kinds of questions about 9/11 that the American mainstream media haven't dared
pose. These problems are not
raised on Fox News or CNN, nor will Time magazine be taking them up any time soon. But given that we still live in a
country that protects free speech, a country whose strength is founded in its
freedom, the questions remain valuable and citizens have the right to consider and
debate them. I would go further:
citizens have an obligation to carefully consider these questions, as they
involve the future of America, where it is headed.
I do not believe the article is without its
flaws. For one, the final argument
made as to which organization was behind 9/11 is not supported with enough
evidence.
Of particular interest to me are two aspects of the
article. First, the sections that
deal with the many unanswered questions about the initial U.S. response to the
hijackings on 9/11. I mean the
response to warnings about coming attacks, but even more pointedly the almost
total lack of appropriate response on the morning of the attacks. Response was nearly zero until the
attacks had been successfully completed.
Second, the sections that lay out the
background of U.S. policy toward Afghanistan and Eurasia in general. The portrait is one of a government
that had already decided to begin a military campaign or series of military
campaigns in these regions. What
was lacking, of course, was a justification for beginning the campaign: a
suitable provocation that would give the U.S. government adequate grounds for
undertaking what it had long been planning.
Gore Vidal, who wrote the article,
does not spell out in simple terms what he is getting at. The reader is meant to connect the
dots. I am not sure his
conclusions are valid. I do
believe, however, that careful consideration of the kinds of issues he raises
is necessary for Americans. The
Bush Administration has brought about radical changes in our government's
comportment toward the world community: the unilateralism, the doctrine of
pre-emptive strike, etc. All these
changes were possible because of the seriousness of the attacks on 9/11. But difficult questions remain about
those attacks themselves. How many
Americans are willing to ask such questions?
One thing is certain, though I'm afraid most
Americans don't realize it: Trying to understand the modern world merely
through watching Fox News or CNN is like trying to understand marine biology
through watching Walt Disney's The Little Mermaid. Watching The Little Mermaid over and over again.
As the article is lengthy, I will
send it in sections. It was sent
to me by a friend and I believe even this version has been abridged in
places. Apologies to those who
have already read the article elsewhere.
Eric Mader-Lin
This was the forward I initially sent out with
Vidal's article itself. For a
critique of Vidal's article, see below, under the name Ron Rosenbaum, or go directly
to:
http://www.nyobserver.com/pages/story.asp?ID=6571
Jerry himself thought Vidal's article was
unconvincing, and our correspondence followed from there:
Jerry:
Reading through your comments I find that I agree with you on
around half of what you're saying.
For example, I also detest the culture of political correctness in the
universities. I consider
multiculturalism a good thing, but one that has been pushed too far in Western
academies. I was a supporter of
Allan Bloom when his book The Closing of the American Mind came out.
(I'm aware that supporting Allan Bloom and criticizing the Bush team may
be seen by many to be self-contradictory, but it is a question here mainly of
supporting Bloom's thinking on the function of the university.)
By the way, I think the word liberal is incorrectly used to describe Democrats. Liberal is a term that refers to Enlightenment
political positions in general, and in scholarly literature Republicans in the
U.S. are considered to be more right-wing liberals, the Democrats more
left-wing liberals. I'm a liberal,
yes, and I suspect you are too.
For example, if you believe in (more or less) free market economics,
free speech, and elections, you are a liberal.
The problem with the Bush team is that they are
almost not really liberals, not even right-wing liberals. They are leaning toward what I would
call fascism. I'm not saying they
are fascists, but they are pushing in that direction. Nationalism, aggressive militarism, decreased government
protection of individual liberties, massive state subsidies for certain
industries (i.e., in this case, the ever-more-massive U.S. military), contempt for
international agreements. All
these things characterize the Bush team, and they've only just started
(assuming, which I hope doesn't happen, they get a second term).
One thing that particularly dismays me: many Americans who support
the Bush team, based on what I read of their writing, seem the types who'd
willingly allow America to drift into fascism without, along the way, waking up
and smelling the coffee. In other
words, though they believe themselves to be great Americans, their writing shows
at every turn that they don't know all that much about what it is that makes
the United States different from, say, Nazi Germany.
I am thus concerned about where the Bush style of leadership is
taking America. I'm concerned that
Americans don't realize what can happen once certain liberties are given
away. Do you know of TIA (Total
Information Awareness)?
I'm also convinced it is very possible there was some level of
conspiracy behind what happened on 9/11.
The American system has been seeking a viable enemy ever since the breakup
of the Soviet Union. If a viable
enemy doesn't arise on its own, the "responsible" leader, according
to this kind of Realpolitik, will have to cultivate one.
How do you discount the array of evidence laid out by Vidal? Are you supposing these are all just
coincidences? Why do you suppose
he is a "left-wing nut"?
I think you'd be surprised to learn what Vidal's politics really are. He's a man very concerned with what the
Founders intended America to be.
He's not in any sense a "left-wing nut," but rather a
no-nonsense advocate of liberty.
I'm very interested to watch what unfolds in the Philippines. It might offer a kind of distant mirror
of what might ultimately unfold in the U.S.
Sincerely,
E.M.-L.
In a message dated 7/27/2003 5:50:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
inthemargins03@hotmail.com writes:
>>>Dear Jerry:
>>>Reading through your comments I find that I
agree with you on around half of what you're saying. For example, I also detest the culture of political
correctness in the universities.
I detest it everywhere.
>>>I consider multiculturalism a good thing, but one that
has been pushed too far in Western academies.
Multiculturalism is destroying the cohesiveness of this
nation and there will be serious consequences somewhere down the
road.
>>>I was a supporter of Allan Bloom when his book The
Closing of the American Mind
came out. . (I'm aware that
supporting Allan Bloom and criticizing the Bush team may be seen by many to be
self-contradictory, but it is a question here of supporting aspects of Bloom's
thinking on the function of the university.)
I'm not familiar with that book but I don't have the
time to read every book I'd like to read.
But I can well imagine what the book might be getting
at. There's no doubt the American mind is closed or that common sense is
mostly a thing of the past. I consider common sense to be the consequence
of hard times, when one lacks sufficient resources for every need or desire,
and therefore, must make choices. Life has become so easy for many and we
have become such an affluent society, that hard choices are no longer necessary
for many; consequently, the death of common sense.
>>>I think the word liberal is incorrectly used to describe Democrats.
I don't. I think the two words are virtually
synonymous, although there are a few exceptions. Following this, I'll
send you a newspaper column about Daniel Patrick Moynahan that makes references
to the radical leftward movement of the Democratic Party.
>>>Liberal
is a term that refers to Enlightenment political positions in general, and in
scholarly literature Republicans in the U.S. are considered to be somewhat
right-wing liberals, the Democrats more left-wing liberals.
That may be so in the classical sense but that is no
longer the meaning in current usage, just as gay used to mean light-hearted,
but no longer means that.
>>>I'm a liberal, yes, and I suspect you are
too: for example, if you believe in (more or less) free market economics, free
speech, and elections, you are a liberal.
I agree with a comment Dennis Praeger made in one of his
books--that the Democratic Party has moved so far to the left since Harry
Truman's time that a liberal of that age who hasn't moved leftward with the
Democrats is today considered a hard right conservative.
As I mentioned previously, both Ron Reagan and George H.
W. Bush were once Democrats but I'm sure that's what happened to them.
They failed to move left with the Democrats and thereby became
Republicans.
Yes, by 1950 standards, I'm a liberal but by today's
liberal standards, I'm way to the right of Rush Limbaugh. I frequently
think that I'd like to tease Rush that the biggest problem I have with him is
that he's too damned liberal.
>>>The problem with the Bush team is that they are almost
not really liberals, not even right-wing liberals. They are leaning
toward what I would call fascism. I'm not saying they are fascists, but
they are pushing in that direction.
I don't agree with this. I believe Bush just understands
that some things are worth fighting for. Liberals never think anything is
worth fighting for. During the Cold War, they wanted to unilaterally
disarm to show the Soviets what good guys we are. If we'd been stupid
enough to do that, we'd be speaking Russian today.
Ron Reagan's hard-nosed attitude is what defeated Soviet
Communism, thank God.
I'm basically a red neck (and proud of it) from the
Ozarks and I'll fight in a New York minute for the right cause. Liberals
never seem to recognize evil but I damned well know there is evil in abundance
in the world, and it must be fought.
>>>Nationalism, aggressive militarism, decreased
government protection of individual liberties,
Nationalism is simply love of one's own country.
I'm definitely in love with the United States of America, the greatest country
God ever put on the face of the earth. No other country even comes close,
except possibly England, from whom our culture is descended but I think we even
have them beat.
As for aggressive militarism, I don't know what that
means. A military force must be aggressive. Their function is to
win wars. As General Patton said, "There is no substitute for
victory." Imagine the consequences if we had lost the Second World
War.
As for the infringement of individual liberties, that's
a consequence of big government, which is what liberals believe in. True
conservatives believe in small government, which is what our Constitution
intended. Unfortunately, no one has been paying much attention to our
Constitution for many decades.
I'll send you a something on that, too, in a separate
e-mail.
It does seem to me, though, that as the population of
our country increases, some infringement of individual liberties is
necessary. I just haven't quite decided yet how much.
For instance, an old saying is that my right to swing my
fist ends where your nose begins. That may be so in an uncrowded room but
once the room becomes crowded, my right to swing my fist must be more
limited. It becomes too intimidating for others in a crowded room.
I'm almost 68 years old and have complained bitterly for
3 decades about all the freedoms we've lost since I was a kid. As a kid,
I used to enjoy shooting fireworks on the 4th of July. Now almost all
personal fireworks are banned. Where I grew up, in Missouri, the only
speed limits were in town. Now, of course, there are speed limits on
every highway.
I used to have a customer, until he died a few years
ago, who was well into his 80s and he and I used to talk about our loss of
freedoms. Jake told me when he first started driving, he didn't need a
driver's license. It must have felt to him like a serious infringement on
his freedom when the states began requiring driver's licenses.
As I said, as the nation becomes more crowded, some
infringements on our freedoms probably are necessary. The difficulty is
in deciding how much. But I suppose that's really a moot issue. The
politicians have already made that decision for us and now, ours is not to
reason how much, ours is simply to live with their decisions.
But I think some of the most serious infringements of
our freedoms come from state and local laws. I consider zoning laws and
building codes an absolute infringement on my Constitutional rights. A
town near where I live has made it illegal to park a vehicle in your
driveway. Your own vehicle must be in your garage and if you have guests,
they can't even park in your driveway.
Many communities now are banning the parking of vans and
pickup trucks with commercial lettering on the sides in residential
neighborhoods. Some even ban pickups without commercial lettering.
Hurricane Andrew blew a few shingles off the roof of my
sister's house and she had to have her roof reshingled. But first, she
had to get a permit from the county. A permit means permission.
Who owns these houses, anyway? The people making
the payments or the government? My attitude is that if I'm making the
payments, it's my house and I can do anything I damned well please on my own
property but of course, that attitude leads straight to jail today, if you
don't toe the line.
The bans on pickups and vans parked at residences smacks
of discrimination against tradesmen who make their living with tools and need a
vehicle to carry them in. At the end of the day, why shouldn't they be
able to park in their own driveways? We can't all work in offices and
drive sedans to and from the office.
A friend of mine from years ago used to say that cops
are the have-nots who are employed by the haves to keep the other have-nots in
line. When I look at where we seem to be headed, I find that outlook hard
to refute.
We definitely are becoming a fascist society but local
governments are the worst perpetrators by far. I'm hardly a modern day Al
Capone, I've worked all my life, I don't drink excessively, I don't use illegal
drugs and before I moved to this county, a cop had never been to my
house. But since I moved here, it seems that they're here all the
time. I can't raise my voice without a cop showing up, wanting to know
what the problem is.
Yes, this is definitely not the home of the brave and
the land of the free that I grew up in, and what it's become is really hard to take
for an old timer like me, but it seems that I have no choice but to live with
it.
I'm even expected to wear a seat belt that I don't
believe in. In 1979, while driving a semi, I had an accident that would
have killed me if I'd been belted in. Wearing a seat belt should be a
personal choice. A proper function of government is to protect you from
me and me from you but when they start protecting me from myself, it's really
hard to consider this the land of the free any longer.
>>>massive state subsidies for certain industries (i.e.,
in this case, the ever-more-massive U.S. military),
See, that's an indication of your liberalism, which you
deny. I wholeheartedly support a strong military. A strong military
keeps the peace. A weak one is an invitation for a foreign power to push
us around.
In the early grades of school, I was
an average sized kid and had to fight frequently to avoid being pushed
around. Then when I was about 12, the growth hormones kicked in and
almost overnight, I grew to 6 feet and almost 200 pounds, and I had to fight
only once after that. My size just looked too intimidating to would be
aggressors. The same principle applies between nations.
>>>contempt for international agreements.
Again, here's your liberalism showing. We don't so
much show contempt for international agreements as international agreements
show contempt for us. As a sovereign nation, we must look after our own
best interests. No one else is going to.
I suspect you're referring to such things as the Kyoto
Accords. We would have been damned fools to agree to that. That
thing stacked the deck against the U.S. We are about the only nation
whose economy would have been hamstrung by that agreement, which was the whole
idea from the standpoint of the other nations.
The U.S. is an economic powerhouse and the rest of the
world resents that. They'd love to bring us down to their level.
Rush Limbaugh frequently says the aim of liberals is to make everyone equally
miserable. I find that viewpoint hard to refute.
The economic freedom of the U.S. allows every person to
rise to the highest level hard work and his talents will allow but liberalism
seems intent on bringing the high achievers down to everyone else's level.
>>>All of these things characterize the Bush team, and
they've only just started (assuming, which I hope doesn't happen, they get a
second term).
Who would you rather see become president? As I've
said, I have some serious doubts about some of Bush's domestic agenda but I
don't see anyone on the horizon who will do better, by my definition of better,
and I'd damned sure rather have another 4 years of Bush than any of the
Democrats who've announced their candidacy.
>>>One thing I really don't like: many Americans
who support the Bush team, based on what I read of their writing, seem the
types who'd willingly allow America to drift into a kind of authoritarian
fascism without, along the way, waking up and smelling the coffee.
I don't see it that way at all and don't really know
where you're coming from on that issue. I agree absolutely that our
government is becoming an 800-pound gorilla that does as it damned well pleases
but I don't see that Bush is particularly furthering this along.
I consider what happened at Ruby Ridge and at Waco
absolutely outrageous but these occurred under two different administrations,
one Republican and the other Democratic. So the general drift of our
national government seems to be in that direction. The problem really
comes from a huge bureaucracy which even the President can't control and this
is part of the problem when government becomes too large. It needs to be
whittled down to size but I don't see that happening. And liberals would
be broken hearted if it did.
>>>I am concerned about where the Bush style of leadership
is taking America.
I don't understand your concerns. I'm not nearly
as concerned about where we're going as I was when Bill and Hillary Clinton
were co-presidents. They wanted to socialize our health care system, one
seventh of our economy. Bill Clinton told his driver when he was governor
of Arkansas that he never saw a tax he didn't like. Burdensome taxes are
a drag on the economy, yet liberals always want to raise taxes.
Look what happened when George Bush, Sr. raised
taxes. The liberals always want to "sock it to the rich," so
part of that tax increase was a tax on luxury boats, which destroyed our
domestic boat building industry and threw everyone employed in that industry
out of work. The Democrats (liberals) claim to be the friend of the
working man (I can refute that from now until hell freezes over) but with
friends like these, the working man sure doesn't need any enemies.
I have ambivalent feelings about labor unions but I
believe Jimmy Hoffa did far more for the workingman that Bobby Kennedy ever
did, yet Bobby Kennedy hounded Hoffa until he finally sent him to jail.
Kennedy was a Democrat, supposedly the workingman's friend. So what did
he ever do for the workingman, compared to what Jimmy Hoffa did?