While I have Republican leanings I do not belong to the party. I have voted for conservative candidates from both major parties, mainly because I am against government waste in spending and excessive taxation ( A major concern since my take-home pay is around 27,000 a year!).
As far as any criticism of Bill Clinton is concerned, let me simply say that he brought much of it on himself. I can feel some of you bristling already, so before I go any further let me state that I am from Arkansas, I have been keeping track of the man for far longer than most of his supporters who live outside of the state, he and I have a few mutual friends, and that the explanation for many of his scandalous actions requires a knowledge of the Arkansas political scene.
Why would a man of Clinton's obvious talents allow himself to be sucked into a scandal that would threaten his presidency? The answer is really quite simple; he is a product of the "good-ole-boy" political system of Arkansas politics. Many of you are unaware that the Democratic party has controlled Arkansas' State Legislature without interruption since the end of the Reconstruction Period. Even in the years when public opinion turned from the Democrats to other parties they managed to retain control of the state government. You are not able to do this by playing fair. You do it by making ballot boxes from opposition districts disappear. Or digging up dirt on your opponents. Or employing financial muscle to to turn the tide of the election. You do it by covering up scandals and standing up for fellow party members of questionable character (He may be the scum of the universe, but he's OUR scum!)
In recent decades the situation has begun to change...but old habits die hard.
In 1990, in his last election for the office of governor, in a race he had to win if he wished to run for president in 1992 without having egg on his face, Clinton was rapidly losing ground in the polls to his Republican opponent, Sheffield Nelson. Some years before this, Nelson had been embroiled in a scandal involving his chairmanship of a public utility commission. The company which the commission regulated had moved its headquarters out of Little Rock to Texas. The State Legislature appointed a committee to investigate the commission's actions and reached the conclusion that Nelson had had no direct connection with the company's decision to relocate outside the state and was innocent of any wrongdoing. Case closed.
Or it should have been. With two weeks to go in the election of 1990, and with the race rapidly becoming a dead heat, Clinton had the Attorney General's office reopen the case against Nelson. John Robert Starr, editor of the state's largest daily newspaper, and a supporter of Clinton, was flabbergasted that he would attempt something this brazen. In a telephone conversation with Clinton, Starr asked him if he understood the meaning of the phrase "abuse of power." Clinton merely laughed.
Starr withdrew his support of Clinton. Immediately after the election, which Clinton won, the investigation of Nelson was ended.
Clinton's foibles with the ladies while governor were also well known. Campaign workers had to cover for him when Hillary made surprise visits to his campaign headquarters while Bill was there with the local "talent." Such events may be amusing when they involve a mere governor, but such actions by a President are reckless, foolish, and potentially dangerous. If memory serves, JFK was involved at one point during his administration with a blond bombshell who later turned out to be an agent of an East German intelligence agent. Monica wasn't a foreign agent, but she might have been.
For those who have trouble believing Paula Jones' accusations because she fits the "trailer trash" image I would like to point out the following;
1. Clinton prefers oral sex.
2. For that purpose, a mouth is a mouth.
3. If caught, he uses the argument..."Who are you going to believe...me or Her? How can you possibly believe that I would become involved in any situation with her?" His defenders have used the same argument. "Just look at her. Why would he become involved with someone so unattractive?"
Leaving his political actions out of the discussion for the moment I would like to argue that these are major character flaws, unworthy of the President of the United States. Sure, he had some successes as President. All Presidents do. But should the man be defended no matter what? Damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead?! Forget about the FBI dossiers of Republicans in Congress that were turned over to the Clinton administration for no legitimate purpose? Allow him to continue the same dirty tricks he engaged in as governor of Arkansas?
One of my dearest friends is an elderly lady who was one of Clinton's secretaries while he was governor of Arkansas. He and her son were friends during their college years. Clinton sometimes came home with him to visit on the weekends. She has always been one of his staunch supporters. But she told me that she couldn't defend some of the things he was doing as President.
Leaving all of that aside, let me now say that the one action by Clinton I consider to be the most indefensible was his slashing of the budgets for the military and our intelligence services. This indicated to me that he didn't understand that the main duty of the Federal Government is to maintain the security of the nation and its people. At times his foreign policy seemed to consist of good feelings, gossamer wings, and fairy dust. The terrorist threat had existed for some time before he became President, but the threat grew to maturity during his watch and reached its fullest potential in the ninth month of a new President's first year in office.
Why should Bush be held accountable for 9/11? Nine months is barely enough time to begin to gather the reins of power into one's hands, much less gain insight into all the potential threats to the nation's security.
I reiterate what I said in my earlier post...given the information available to him in the month before the 9/11 attack, Bush reacted in the only way open to him... he alerted the appropriate agencies and then trusted them to do their job.
To have been able to do more he would have had to be clairvoyant.
For the critics I repeat what I said before...
20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing!
Regards, Shuckins
