CLINTON: THE PORTRAIT OF DORIAN GRAY

Dqban22 | November 10, 2001 | Dqban22

[keri]

Tell me, friend, did you bother to understand Clinton's speech before you posted a link to the disgusting thing?

Idiot. Never use slander and Clinton in the same sentence. It's impossible to accuse him of any crime or treasonous act he hasn't committed.

[Semper]

I read your linked speech. Do you agree with: "Those of us who come from various European lineages are not blameless."? What did we do to influence those referenced events? How are we responsible for what happened in a passed society at a passed time? Even if he got his history correct - which he did not - it is impossible to influence past events from the future.

What we are NOT blameless about is the decay of our society to such an extent that Bill Clinton could become president, sell national security for campaign money, disgrace his office and this country, escape conviction for impeached actions he clearly took, etc., etc, and people still think his voice is worth hearing.

[Dqban22]

There friend, I believe that it is you who should read Clinton's diatribe again, and I quote him "Here in the United States, we were founded as a nation that practiced slavery and slaves were, quite frequently, killed even though they were innocent. This country once looked the other way when significant numbers of Native Americans were dispossessed and killed to get their land or their mineral rights or because they were thought of as less than fully human and we are still paying the price today. Even in the 20th century in America people were terrorized or killed because of their race. And even today, though we have continued to walk, sometimes to stumble, in the right direction, we still have the occasional hate crime rooted in race, religion, or sexual orientation. So terror has a long history." The case is closed.

[Dqban22]

AMEN!

[Dqban22]

It seems that the Jesuit adoption of moral cafeteria and Marxist Liberation Theology have resulted in the abandonment of traditional Catholic values. Make your own judgment based on facts.

[wingnuts'nbolts]

Clinton can't get an audience of adult Americans of drool and faint when he speaks, only children. If his nose is any indication I'd say he belongs in detox with his also red-nosed brother.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

Excellent. This sums up Clinton for me:

FR thread on Clinton's speech.

This is at least how often blubba used each of the following words in the first ten paragraphs. I may have missed some. Use of "we" as noted here is when blubba is claiming victory or identification with a group, such as his administration, rather than making a general statement.

Watch Bill Clinton refer to himself in the first ten paragraphs:

---

I = 44 times
me = 5 times
my = 7 times
we = 12

It stood out that he often uses "I" when it is totally unnecessary; for example, where a factual statement could be made, he begins it by saying something like, "I want to tell you about how I handled this situation."

25 posted on 11/8/01 11:16 PM Pacific by GretchenEE

---

In contrast to the times the impeached, disgraced boy president used personal pronouns, I counted this many uses of "I, me," and "my" in President Bush's speech in Atlanta Thursday night. Just the first ten paragraphs. I didn't count the uses of "we" because Bush uses the word overwhelmingly to refer to us as a nation when using this word, rather than the giants on whose shoulders he might claim to stand within his administration.

Watch President Bush refer to himself in his November 8 speech:

---

I = 1
me = 0
my = 0

32 posted on 11/8/01 11:26 PM Pacific by GretchenEE

---

Check also Pythonic Cow's #42, he counted all of the words.

[Von Rex]

Semper, no, I don't agree with that statement. I think that atrocities of the past, regardless of the color of those who committed them, should be viewed as warnings and lessons, but I don't think we personally bear responsibility for them. You and I haven't owned any slaves. I think Clinton was laying it on thick there, as he often does, and it was a sentence he should have edited out of his speech. But I do agree with the larger point he was making, that campaigns of terror don't succeed because they create more problems than they solve. Again, not a controversial or terribly profound point, but this whole uproar was a tempest in a teapot to begin with.

[christine]

I wish we could just strap them all to an A-bomb and drop it on Bin Laden.

clicking my heels, clicking my heels....

[Snow Bunny]

Carolina thank you so much for pinging me to this thread.

WOW !!!!!!! Dqban22 are you ever a great writter. Thank you for writing this. It is excellent.

[Von Rex]

Case closed? What did you prove, DQban22? You haven't backed up any of your original allegations, which were:

1. Clinton said that the US "deserved" the Sept 11 attack.
2. Clinton attempted to cast division on the war effort
3. Clinton's speech could have been written by Osama bin Laden

In reality, Clinton offerred his unconditional support for the war and for Bush's direction of it. He spoke long and eloquently of the need to carry this war to it's final conclusion. Most of you have attacked Clinton as a godless liberal bent on creating a hegemonic world government. Do you really think he and Osama bin Laden share the same goals?

And the "pay the price" comment was a shameless lie on the part of the Washington Times. In his speech he mentioned first the Crusades and said the west still pays a price for what happened there. And that is true. Then he went into the bit about America having a history of slavery and genocidal acts towards the Indians. Which is also true, though of course times have changed for the immeasurably better.

But look at what the Washington Times story did. They reversed the order of the comments, starting with the remarks about slavery and then following it by saying "and we still pay the price", making it look like he was referring to his remarks about slavery, when in fact he was referring to Crusades and only speaking of the West in a general sense, not talking about the USA specifically at all. This isn't a mistake, or a misquote. This was a lie, deliberately engineered to stir you all up. I don't have much respect for the Moonie Times in any case, but this is pretty low, even for them.

And I don't think his speech was rambling or incoherent. Here were his two main points.

1. Technology creates new dangers as it gives us new benefits. Since we're not willing to give up the benefits, we'd better find ways to work together to lessen the dangers.
2. Almost all societies today are broken into two groups of people -- those who focus on the attributes we share, and those who focus on the attributes that are different.

He did NOT say anywhere that the USA deserved to have 5000 of its civilians murdered by nutcases from the Middle East. If you want to retract that allegation, DQban22, then the case is closed.

[Lady_Marmalade]

Maybe, but did you read the speech?

[Revolting cat!]

Excellent analysis DQ as was the original Washington Times report. One can't get away from the stink, as the apologists would like us to do. At best, this speech could be considered incoherent if it came from somebody else's mouth. In particular, the bit about the "nature of truth" is a hoot, ain't it?! But after 68 years of incoherent foreign policies this hillbilly halfwit is posing here as an uninvolved observer, a philosopher, and sorry, but by bringing up these unrelated historical occurrences, he clearly implies or infers the things he is accused of on this forum and elsewhere. Note the politically correct self flagellation: it's only those of European heritage who are guilty of various sins. I'd say to the apologists, that if you think your hero is trying to bring historical perspective to the issue, he just ain't qualified to do it and it shows in this sorry attempt. A fool on the hill at best.

[Revolting cat!]

68 years=8 years you fool dumbie!

[victim soul]

To consider Clinton, who was the second president in the history of U.S. to be impeached, disbar for lying under oath, and who disgraced and dishonored the office of the Presidency, as “the most respected and admired” by students formed by the Jesuits, reveals the moral decay of today’s Jesuit education and is quite an indictment against an institution that once enjoyed the highest academic and morals standards.

For Shame: GEORGETOWN!

[LibKill]

Well done.

[tuesday afternoon]

This country [looks] the other way when significant numbers ... [are] killed ... because they [are] thought of as less than fully human and we are still paying the price today. Even in the 20th century in America.

[operation clinton cleanup]

"Time will heal all facts" William Jefferson Clinton, October 1998.

[NewRecruit]

To answer your question,Clinton was stoned.

Showed up something like 45 minutes late, rambled like a jackass, eyes lit up like a jack-o-lantern.

[Dqban22]

My friend when you wrote, “Clinton said that the ‘U.S.’ deserved the Sep 11 attack”, those were your words, not mine. Perhaps you were having a Freudian slip, or perhaps you know Clinton complex mind better than I.

For Clinton, to bring up the Crusades, that happened over 700 hundred years ago or the crimes committed against Blacks and the American Indians over a hundred years ago, is trying to link those unrelated occurrences with the 11 Sep. terrorist attack diluting the monstrosity of the coward attack. Clinton was, in fact, establishing a moral equivalence and giving the enemy justification for their acts. That was a very powerful propaganda tool given to the enemies of our country that not even bin Laden’s propaganda machine could better.

Please don’t try to defend what is indefensible, Clinton actions have been bordering in treason since he went to Moscow right after the Soviet bloodbath in Prague. He gave aid and support to the communist henchmen at the peak of the Soviet brutal expansionist drive, while organizing public rallies against our country in Oslo and London while our men were dying in Vietnam.