He will be considered a whole lot more than simply dubious.
The truth hurts, doesn't it?
Humor me if you have a minute and drop Mr. Ruth a note of your own. His email addy is: DRuth@tampatrib.com.
My original email:
Horse hooey. Bush isn't taking terrorists to court and ignoring the nations that breed and harbor them. Clinton did. Why? He had "other" things on his mind.
*Your* logic doesn't hold up.
The "author's" resonse to me:
You stilllllllllllllllll don't get it.
My follow up:
Well, one of us doesn't.
Clinton never went after the roots of terrorism. He chopped away at the tail of the snake, but was too timid to go after the head. It does no good to incarcerate flunkies without making a serious effort to stop the state-sponsorship of terrorism.
Plus, in another major faux pas, all he managed to do was get the weapons inspection program stopped in Iraq, helping Saddam achieve Iraq's goal.
Clinton was a "personality," not a leader. And you, sir, are a groupie.
By this standard, nothing needs to be done about 9/11, since the hijackers are all dead. Were WJC President, we might be hearing that explanation.
I can just just picture hin sitting on WhiteHouse floor in the last night of his administration saying, "There goes eight years of the Presedency right down the drain. I guess I'll have to join the frigking peace corps."
On so many levels this is good news.
Then, we'll know that the landslide has started.
The author's attempt at sarcasm misses the boat, and further reveals his liberal bias. Here is a simple example, drawn from real life:A pro football team is mired in mediocrity. They have finished 8-8, 9-7 and 7-9 the previous 3 years. They go out and hire a new man to run the club. He is given full responsibility for draft choices, trades, and the overall running of the club. Indeed, he is given two titles--general manager and coach. His record for the three years--7-9, 7-9, 6-10. He is replaced by a new leader with the same powers and responsibilities. In his first year, the new leader goes 5-11. Can you blame the previous guy for your poor season? Of course you can. Most of the players on the team were his choices.
The world George W. Bush is working in is the one he inherited from William Jefferson Clinton. Clinton's decisions and policies over those years established the framework that Bush is now dealing with. These include immigration policy, funding of the military, and foreign policy, to name just a few. Why were inspections halted in Iraq? Why were nuclear secrets leaked to, sold to, or allowed to be stolen by the Chinese? Clinton's search for a legacy involved getting signatures on pieces of paper from untrustworthy enemies whose signatures were never worth the paper upon which they were affixed.
George W. Bush had fewer than eight months to clear up a mess that had taken eight years to create. Yes, some of the blame can be attributed to former presidents, from FDR to George H.W. Bush. But, Clinton was the most recent occupant of The White House, and he was there for two full terms. Most of the blame is his.
Just wanted to repeat this sentence for the record.
Clinton did a good enough job, all on his own, tainting his presidential legacy, without his detractors adding blood splatters.
This, ultimately, is the best his defenders can do for him. I hope he lives to be 120 and hears Chelsea's grandkids ask him if all the awful stuff about him in the history books is true.
But what would you call TRIPOTUS being "serviced" by a twenty-one year old intern while discussing the deployment of American Troops on foreign soil?
By always making certain what the paper is one's reading, & making note of who is actually writing the piece (look for li'l *AP* etc...)?
One can tell more about the message than anything appearing in the *article* itself.
Which I'm sure is a detail most already understand; but, it's still worthy of repeating.
Mr. Ruth, there's nothing "revisionist" about it. By his own admission he was, indeed, prancing around in the Oral Oval Office. Face the facts man, lose the kneepads, and change your meds. If you cannot comprehend how X42 actions are responsible for the 9/11 incidents, then you should stick to something you do know a lot about - how to cast your vote properly er, Bingo.
No. Some people just can't be reached.
Clinton is a criminal who sold his willful negligence towards national security and criminal activity in exchange for money, sex, and willful negligence on his own criminal activities. Where was he willfully negligent?
Let's count the ways:
Pardons: FALN terrorists, major drug trafficers and several others that go well beyond the description of being dubious cases or reformed criminals. Not to forget: Marc Rich, the biggest tax cheat in history who sold oil to Iran during the hostage crises -- I thought the dims didn't want to give tax breaks to the rich.
Nuclear secrets: Multi-warhead w/multi-targeting capabilities. Missle technology including 3-stage boosting and advanced targeting. Proliferation of these techs to and from China, Russia, North Korea, Pakistan and possibly Iraq.
Bin-Laden: Should have been FAR more aggressive going after 1st WTC, Africa, Saudia Arabia, OKC ( Bin-Liden's involvment was covered up ), USS Cole and Sudan. All of these events should have triggered a very aggressive man hunt for BL's head. But he willfully neglected to do so. Instead, he lauched a $1M missle to stike a $10 tent to hit a camel's butt. He also spent a lot more time and money going after MS than going after BL.
There is much much more -- browsing Alamo-Girl's links will overwhelm the reader. In a nutshell, clinton's willful negligence amounts to treason. History is just starting to prove without a doubt that this is the case. There will be nothing revisionist bozos can do about it. The die is already cast. It is only a matter of time that it will cool down enough for the mold to be broken. Then clinton will be forever casted in history for his willful criminal negligence that amounted to treason.