Replies

"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."

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.

Hey! I'm not disparaging him because I don't agree with his views nor he with mine. I disparage him because he clearly didn't read the speech but there he is using a dishonest Washington Times column about the speech as the basis for his syndicated column. He's not only unintellectual, he's lazy.

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.

There's a lot more of value in Sowell's article than in The Traitor's so-called speech...whether he read it or not.

Personal responsibility is an anathema to the disbarred one.