Brookins at the RTD
Posted on 11/10/2001 8:18:25 AM PST by Dqban22
CLINTON: THE PROTRAIT OF DORIAN GRAY
It was pitiful the spectacle of former president Bill Clinton addressing his Alma Mater, Georgetown Jesuit University, where he graduated in 1968. Was he stoned or was he brutally battered by his wife the previous night? Or was his disfigured face, swollen read nose and blotted eyes, that reminded me of the Portray of Dorian Gray, the product of a life of vice, lie and deception?
The master communicator was rambling, incoherent and certainly divisive in his speech to an audience composed by Jesuit students who were raised to an emotional delirium by the words of the former president. While President Bush was uniting the nation and raising the spirit of the American people, Clinton was trying to divide the country with a peroration that could well have been written by Usama bin Laden’s speechwriters.
In his address Clinton accused the U.S. of a long history of terrorism against Blacks and the slaughter of the American Indians in order to rob their territories and mineral rights, terrorists actions for which, according to Clinton, we are still paying for. Behind those historical divagations, Clinton was in fact implying that those terrorist allegations were the roots cause for the terrorist attack of September 11 with the sequel of over 5,000 innocent victims being cowardly murdered. Clinton preferred to ignore that the U.S. is today one of the most fair and free nations in the world.
The fact is that such alleged horrors occurred more than a century ago and that hundreds of the victims that died on September 11 attack were from more than 80 countries around the world, including Muslims, and that none of the Americans who died had any responsibility for the alleged horrors, never have deterred Clinton from making scurrilous allegations against our country.
Or was Clinton just trying to deviate the public’s attention away from his own responsibility? President Clinton emasculated and demoralized the Intelligence Services, the Justice Department, and dangerously undermanned and under-funded our Arms Forces leaving the countrywide open for terrorist attacks. Clinton also aided and abetted the international terrorism by freeing the Puerto Rican terrorists responsible for the murder of policemen, bombings, and bank heists in the U.S.
Clinton, who complained about the mistreating of the American Indians, has responsibility for defrauding millions of dollars from the Indian Reservations Funds during his administration while they were under the care of Clinton’s Interior Department.
The main culprits for the terrorist attacks of September 11, were Usama bin Laden and the Islamic terrorist network that declared war upon the U.S., Christianity, the Jews, the Western civilization and all the other world religions, as was demonstrated by the destruction in Afghanistan of giant Buda statues, that were sculptured on a mountain, invaluable religious and artistic treasures of humankind lost for ever by the fanaticism and hatred of Islamic zealots.
One of the students of Georgetown University, said in the O’Reilly’s program that the main reason for Clinton invitation was that “he was most respected and admired” by the students of that prestigious Jesuit institution. In fact many students spent the night waiting queued for the precious privilege of hearing this president product of Jesuit education, and during and after the Clinton’s address the students erupted with such an enthusiastic expressions of approval that seemed more appropriate for hysterical pre-teen girls toward a rock star than for men formed and educated by the Jesuits.
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.
And you stated: "Would that statement imply that William Jefferson Clinton represents the best that a Jesuit education can produce?"
Apparently, that is the opinion of most Jesuit students in Georgetown University today. It seems that the Administration and the Jesuit professors share the same opinion; otherwise they would have already spoken expressing their disapproval.
Pathetic for reading the speech and not just the chosen tidbits? Yes, Virginia, I guess I am that pathetic then.
Based on your response, it's clear that you haven't read it. You read the parts that appeared in your narrow media universe. Since ignorance is bliss, you must be the happiest guy on earth.
For having had my country sold out by a traitor who was President Of The United States?
Yes, I read this miscreant's speech, which was little more than piling on for the sake of "establishing" the base from which he would continue to attack the United States.
There is no defense for a traitor...of any stripe.
"Yes, Virginia, I guess I am that pathetic then."
Thank you for at least that honest an answer.
sigh... you're too Shakespeare -- full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Come one, admit it, you really didn't read the full text of the speech. If you did, you would realize the gist of it doesn't support the thesis of the posted article. But, I'm sure that won't stop you.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell1.asp
Yeah, I'm not a Clinton fan, either, never voted for him, have been commenting negatively about him for years on FR but I'm not going to be a yahoo just to comfort myself and cling to disliking Clinton as some kind of emotional security blanket in the face of terrorists. Be honest; don't be lazy; read the speech. Its not a controversial speech and you have been lied to about it.
Don't bother to reply to me unless you read the speech.
ANOTHER OUTRAGE
NOTHING is an outrage when the reigning fad is being non-judgmental. So perhaps it is not surprising that there has been no nationwide chorus of condemnation of Bill Clinton's anti-American speech at Georgetown University. According to the former president, America is "paying a price today" for slavery in the past and for that fact that "native Americans were dispossessed and killed."
In fairness, I am pretty sure he had nothing to with the murdoer of Nicole Brown Simpson.
Sowell's article is pathetic. He didn't read the speech either. He's working off the little excerpt and dishonest spin from the original Washington Times article. And he's got it all bass ackwards. This guy is not an intellectual.
Read the speech. Its long but cogent. It obviously wasn't delivered by someone who was drunk, so that alone should cause you to distrust the pundits who told you Clinton was drunk. I mean, this is not Dan Quayle turning the motto of the UNCF into "What a terrible thing it is to lose one's mind." Clinton's message is hopeful one, if you read it with an honest mind.
Wow! Neither Clinton nor you can fill Sowell's shoes. Professor Sowell, is a brilliant economist of the Chicago School, Fellow at the Hoover Institution, a historian and scholar, philosopher, humanist, prolific writer and one of the most powerful and clear minds in America. Disparaging him because he does not agree with your ideas or intellectual reach, is really pathetic; it shows the baseless of your arguments.
In fact, I disagree with Clinton's remarks, but not on the silly, petty, partisan-baiting grounds that Sowell does. Clinton's message to those students was to be confident that we'll get a handle on the terrorists and the countries and peoples who currently sympathize with the terrorists will change. It was a hopeful, optimistic, pro-western civilization message. I'm less optimistic. September 11 was a new kind of warfare that used our own resources against us and I don't see the possible limit to that. Every terrorist organization in the world must have sleeper operatives here in the US already. I had to make 4 NYC area bridge crossings last weekend; I was apprehensive.
Must I lay the whole text out for you, line by line, (commentary added, of course) to demonstrate my voracity? What might you say then, to the effect that I hadn't read this "sensitive rapist's" diatribe? (for what obvious little it would mean to you anyway.)
For an excellent article that needs exposure and a reminder of what he is all about.
Personal responsibility is an anathema to the disbarred one.
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.