The New York Times eviscerated Bill Clinton's autobiography with a censure that would have finished off any other author.
Posted on 7/15/2004, 12:12:02 AM by SJackson
The unbearable likeness of being Shmuley Boteach gives us his personal review of what he calls the "shockingly dull memoirs of Bill Clinton."
The New York Times eviscerated Bill Clinton's autobiography with a censure that would have finished off any other author.
"Sloppy, self-indulgent, and often eye-crossingly dull -- the sound of one man prattling away... self-indulgence and scattered concentration... hodgepodge of jottings... hurriedly written and even more hurriedly edited... psychobabble mea culpas," are just some of the unflattering descriptions used by the paper's veteran book reviewer, Michiko Kakutanito, to describe the presidential memoir.
Bill Clinton is a fascinating man of profound contradictions, and it takes a special talent to transform such an intriguing life into such a boring book. But tedium is the least of Clinton's sins in his dull tome. There is, for instance, his strange respect for the "brilliant" Hafez al-Assad. Clinton writes that his success in bringing the Syrian dictator closer to the negotiating table with Israel resulted only partially from their "personal chemistry" and had more to do with the fact that Assad realized he had to stop supporting terrorism in the Middle East, "which would be easy to do if he made an agreement with Israel that succeeded in giving back to Syria the Golan Heights."
Passages like these are surreal at best, and frightening at worst. Did Clinton demand that Assad give up terror only if he got back territory he had lost in an aggressive war? Later, Clinton is critical of Ehud Barak for not being more flexible in the Syria negotiations, as if one could blame Barak for being wary of a Stalinist dictator who crushed thousands of his own people with tanks.
But then, Clinton is the man who, until virtually his last day in office, believed that Yasser Arafat was sincere about peace.
Then there is the Lewinsky affair, which Clinton laments he undertook "because I could." The confession is puzzling at best. Does a man pick up a gun and shoot a stranger "because he can"?
Surely, men cheat because of ego gratification, thrill-seeking, or because they have lost an erotic attachment to their wives. Is Clinton saying that utter nihilism rather than pleasure-seeking propelled him into the arms of another woman, itself frighteningly indicative of a total lack of moral restraint?
I am not a Clinton-hater. Rather, my increasing disenchantment with this supremely gifted man has everything do with my principled opposition to his erroneous policies in refusing to adequately fight the evil of terrorism, overlooking the genocide of the Rwandans, and the misguided pressure he exerted on Israel to make peace with murderers that ultimately led to the permanent erosion of Israel's security.
Bill Clinton is the product of a 1960s generation which believed authentically in love and goodness but whose intentions ultimately brought no permanent, positive change to the world. Virtually all of the great '60s initiatives petered out with little to show for it. For all the talk about universal love and global peace, most of that generation's idealism was jettisoned just as soon as they entered the workforce. Even Clinton ended up dismantling the welfare state once he became president, which went against the grain of the socialist idealism of his youth.
Why didn't it last? Because it was rooted in emotion rather than conviction. It was founded on a bedrock of feelings rather than morality. The '60s generation created a world of good and bad that accorded with personal sensibilities rather than absolute standards of right and wrong.
They talked about love, but not in the context of marriage or family. Love became free love, a convenient euphemism for sexual indulgence. They decried the "excesses" of the American military in Vietnam, but not the evils of communism.
But while right and wrong are eternal, emotions are fleeting.
The '60s generation discovered when they got older that it was more convenient to make money than to save whales, so they dumped their romanticized view of the world and moved to suburbia. It was left to moralists like Ronald Reagan, whose idealism was rooted in biblical notions of good and evil, to continue fighting the Cold War until its triumphant conclusion.
And herein lies the tragedy of Bill Clinton, who came of age in the '60s. Having rejected religious morality, his generation never internalized the idea of right and wrong or moral restraint.
Liberalism once stood for such virtuous goals as human rights, the dignity of the human person, a woman's right to vote, and protecting children from exploitation. Today, of course, the word "liberal" has become a pejorative. It is liberals who have ironically fought America to try to keep the regime of Saddam Hussein in power. It is liberals who defend the grotesque misogyny of the culture's sexual exploitation of women as "female empowerment." And it is liberals who have remained tragically silent as our children have been turned into nothing more than a market to whom thongs, condoms, and violent video games are sold.
Indeed, it is conservatives who today fight for all the things that liberals once championed.
Had liberalism been rooted in religious morality, I doubt it would have ever drifted so far from its original intent. And had Clinton internalized religion's ancient hatred of evil, I doubt he would have ever given al-Qaida a pass because of his generation's essential discomfort with militarism.
On the contrary, he would have sent troops to defeat the Taliban as they beat women with whips in the street, and he would have found even more exciting amorous pleasures with the intelligent and attractive woman that is his wife.
"I did not have sexual relations............"
re: "drugs and rock & roll"
...and he would have found even more exciting amorous pleasures with the intelligent and attractive woman that is his wife.
yechhh.....< shudder >
She's scary, but she's his wife, and he picked her out. And from the pics I've seen and her opinions I've read, she was scary then. Kerry had better sense in that department.
Teresa Heinz Kerry, who supports far left of liberal causes and always shows up on tv looking stoned to the gills is not scary? Consider, please, that with all of her money, she's no doubt very much in charge of him. To put it bluntly, she owns his shorts. If he's elected (God forbid), he'll undoubtedly have to kowtow to her wishes.
Check out the organizations her Tides foundation backs. A Mexican-American (hah) organization that wants CA AZ and NM returned to Mexico, for example. And read the names of members of boards she heads. The fellow who penned the Kyoto accords, for one.
Hitlery isn't half as scary. Come to think of it, H may not be speaking at the DemonRat convention because Tereza won't let her. Two alpha females, you know. No love lost, great hostility, knives in backs.
Hillary's very smart, very dangerous, and like her husband can be thoroughly ingratiating in a snakelike way.
If I had to choose between them, I might become a monk
" I'm not sure she's an alpha beyond her money."
She does indeed own Kerry. He'll do what she wishes. Check out Kerry Arranges Tax Loophole For Heinz thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1171573/posts
Her money gives her power, and she's using it, the US Senate, and God forbid the presidency to further her own interests. Money, of course, and what she can do with it. Like supporting radical leftist causes. Teresa is no simpering society woman. She's lethal. Hitlery might be just as lethal if she had as many bucks. But her millions in "contributions" are no match for Teresa's astounding pile of cash.
I believe that Teresa's "bumbling stoner, don't-ask-me" routine is an act geared to covering up her true grasping, greedy, power-mad self.
What is a puzzlement is his supporters refer to Clinton as extremly intellegent, supremely gifted. In realty this man does not show any of this. Most of what he has done shows extreme stupidity. I would say he has been a disappointment over and over.
Good Gosh! There should have been a warning before we opened this article. I would have liked to have had my eyes closed. That picture of Clinton was a shock!!
But while right and wrong are eternal, emotions are fleeting...
It was left to moralists like Ronald Reagan, whose idealism was rooted in biblical notions of good and evil, to continue fighting the Cold War until its triumphant conclusion.
And herein lies the tragedy of Bill Clinton, who came of age in the '60s. Having rejected religious morality, his generation never internalized the idea of right and wrong or moral restraint.
Religion has absolutes that are based on truth. Emotion comes and goes, so that what is right today may not be right tomorrow. Or what is right for me, may not be right for you.
It is so frustrating to try to have a reasoned argument with someone who can lie about their position and with the circumstances just because it "feels" right to them. That is what the Democrats do.
And how does Bush fight that. He is principled and mannered. Truth is on his side, I just hope it wins out.
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.