Clinton Marriage is Front Page News

[Huckleman2000]

The New York Times today had an extensive, front-page story full of anonymous speculation about the state of Bill and Hillary Clinton's relationship, and whether it is an issue in Hillary's hypothetical Presidential ambitions. The story asserted that their marriage is "Topic A" for "many prominent Democrats." Who these Democrats are, and why they feel this way is not covered. But there are 50 sources who give their opinions on the state of the Clinton's intimate relationship, almost all anonymously.

I can't name a single Democrat that I know, or that I've read about, who has expressed a strong concern about the Clinton's intimacy as a dominant issue in whatever Hillary's political ambitions are.

for that matter, I can't recall a single Republican voicing concern about Newt Gingrich's marital history as in issue in his Presidential aspirations. Newt has been twice divorced. He began dating his first wife when she was his high school geometry teacher. He later served divorce papers to her when she was in the hospital being treated for cancer. He divorced his second wife after it was revealed, during the Clinton impeachment proceedings, that he had been having a long-standing affair with a staffer 23 years younger than him.

Rudi Giuliani's marital difficulties during his mayoral terms involved court restraining orders.

Why is there a perception, at least in the press, that purely idle speculation about the Clinton's relationship, which has endured public scrutiny in the past above and beyond any other political couple since Antony and Cleopatra, is fair game while other more salacious and seamy relationships, especially among Republicans, get overlooked for similar treatment?

Is this fair? Is it even relavent?

 

[matriarch]

'Tis obvious. The opposition is running scared, they see her as a real threat, so out come the mud slingers.

 

[Guest]

'Tis obvious. The opposition is running scared, they see her as a real threat, so out come the mud slingers.

Of course. And how dare that uppity woman even think of running in the first place?

Like ami has said, "I have had little to no respect for network or cable news since they began using women for straight news. . ."

Heaven help us if she achieves an even higher office than senator.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I think you are mising a point Huck. People either love Bill-hil, or they hate them.

There are very few in the middle. So they make "news" simply by being who they are now.

I couldn't care less about their marital staus and I live in Hil's district. At the same time, I think they are both the kind of folks I wish would just go away.

I don't think Hil can win the presidency. If she does, I'll be just as morbidly despondant as many Dems were when Bushy-clause won his second term.

 

[rgraham666]

I've often wondered about that, Colleen. How absolutely non-neutral people's feelings about the Clintons are.

Could someone please explain it to me?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I've often wondered about that, Colleen. How absolutely non-neutral people's feelings about the Clintons are.

Could someone please explain it to me?

If the country has become exceptionally polarized, then Bill-Hil are sort of like Pecos Bill, riding the tornado. In the eight years they were in the white house, the real nasty divisions opened further and the lines were drawn. It sort of put them at the top of the list, wether the top of the list of what was wrong with the nation or the top of the list of what was right, depending on your political leanings.

Bill forced Dems to adopt a stance that left them very open to charges they were morally bankrupt. And the GOP took it and ran with it.

Since "values" have become a key in campaigns, and since Bill represented an absolute lack of values, he became the poster child for the Democratic "strawman" arguments that vaulted Dubya into the white house. A liar, a felon, a philanderer, a man who would say or do anything to stay in power.

He's still the person the GOP loves to hate. And for liberals, who have seen a strong attempt to undo their polices during the Dubya's administration, he's the one they have to look back to for "the good old days" analogies and slogans.

In some ways, they are still at the eye of the hurricane. And would probably be so, even if Hil didn't have political aspirations. The fact that she does, just serves to keep them right there.

 

[rgraham666]

Thanks Colleen.

I find this polarization more than a little strange. Clinton will never in my opinion be one of the great presidents.

He did good things; helped Mexico when they needed it, refused to install tariffs for political purposes, worked to keep a bipartisan support going.

He did bad things; nearly started a trade war with the Caribbean, pushed NAFTA through, got a blow job from an intern, perjured himself about it.

Shrugs. So he's human. But some people speak as if he's Stalin reincarnate. I find that odd.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Thanks Colleen.

I find this polarization more than a little strange. Clinton will never in my opinion be one of the great presidents.

He did good things; helped Mexico when they needed it, refused to install tariffs for political purposes, worked to keep a bipartisan support going.

He did bad things; nearly started a trade war with the Caribbean, pushed NAFTA through, got a blow job from an intern, perjured himself about it.

Shrugs. So he's human. But some people speak as if he's Stalin reincarnate. I find that odd.

I think Rob, you would have had to be a conservative when he won his second term to truely understand. I honestly lost faith in the electorate at that point. It was that devestating.

I didn't turn to the religious far right in despair, but a lot of my conservative breather did, or at least decided making a deal with the devil was better than another Clinton-clone in the white house.

I don't really care that he got a BJ from an intern. It's one thing to be unfaithful. It's another to commit felony perjury. While neither shows you to have much in the way of integrity, one shows you to be a criminal.

Have you considered the incongruity there? The man charged with upholding the law, in charge of the branch of government that is charged with upholding the law, has so little respect for it he will lie in court. In a country where the legal system rests on the idea that people who take an oath will tell the truth in court, proving that you won't makes a mockery of the system you are responsible for upholding.

And then to watch people excuse it. Publicly. And vociferously.

It was not a very good time to be around, if you held many of the values I do. And you remember the disappointment, and the loathing and the stark disillusionment. And it all attaches to one man. It's a bit like the person who told you there was no Santa Clause. The first time you heard it and believed it.

 

[Huckleman2000]

If the country has become exceptionally polarized, then Bill-Hil are sort of like Pecos Bill, riding the tornado. In the eight years they were in the white house, the real nasty divisions opened further and the lines were drawn. It sort of put them at the top of the list, wether the top of the list of what was wrong with the nation or the top of the list of what was right, depending on your political leanings.

Bill forced Dems to adopt a stance that left them very open to charges they were morally bankrupt. And the GOP took it and ran with it.

Since "values" have become a key in campaigns, and since Bill represented an absolute lack of values, he became the poster child for the Democratic "strawman" arguments that vaulted Dubya into the white house. A liar, a felon, a philanderer, a man who would say or do anything to stay in power.

He's still the person the GOP loves to hate. And for liberals, who have seen a strong attempt to undo their polices during the Dubya's administration, he's the one they have to look back to for "the good old days" analogies and slogans.

In some ways, they are still at the eye of the hurricane. And would probably be so, even if Hil didn't have political aspirations. The fact that she does, just serves to keep them right there.

I sort of see your points - and I totally agree that they will probably always be in the eye of the hurricane, and I don't think Hil would be a good President. A hell of a lot better than Jeb, if it all comes down to Dynasty in D.C., but I've kind of had it with all her political calculation. If there's one thing the Bushies do well, it's keeping the political machinations below the waterline. I think that's why Bush never cozied up to Tom Delay - you never get too close to the help (to put it in patrician terms).

But I just don't see why there's this obsession with their personal relationship that leapfrogs the tabloids and winds up masquerading as serious news. True, there's people who love to hate them, but why is it okay to pander to those people?

 

[Pure]

demurrer

Colly: //I think Rob, you would have had to be a conservative when he won his second term to truely understand. I honestly lost faith in the electorate at that point. It was that devestating.

I didn't turn to the religious far right in despair, but a lot of my conservative breather did, or at least decided making a deal with the devil was better than another Clinton-clone in the white house.

I don't really care that he got a BJ from an intern. It's one thing to be unfaithful. It's another to commit felony perjury. While neither shows you to have much in the way of integrity, one shows you to be a criminal//

P: Rob, I would not agree with a lot of Colly's explanation, except for the first sentence. Clinton was a vote getter, not only among Blacks but among southern and even evangelical whites. That is a kind of Republican nightmare, given the 'southern strategy' of the GOP and the courting of the 'religious right.'

The idea is simply to throw something and see if it will stick. "blow job" or alleged perjury (not proven, no conviction) are simply beside the point, given the lying and fornicatin' around those parts. It's a bit like a marijuana bust. When someone is busted it is often political, since police can get marijuana busts anytime they want.

I suspect there is some idea the Hillary may be a strong candidate, so the mud machine has to get amped up. The efforts with so called 'travelgate' are an example from a little while back. Again, I'd say the issue is not relevant. She pushed for some type of national health care, and some very big interests do not want that to happen.

A democrat with Southern strength is going to cause hysteria in the Republican National Committee. The hatred is because of a sense of entitlement to those votes and because they're needed (now) to retain office.

In short Rob, in national politics, no party truly has the moral high ground, so it's all an effort to spin and manufacture the news. Whoever succeeds in painting the other black will win.** The coming federal election in November is said to be planned to focus on 'gay marriage.' With that, Republicans hope to 'get out the base' (win evangelicals who think marriage is being attacked). It's of course a state issue that no 'small government' person would get the federal government involved in, but politics trumps all.
===

**Besides morals, character is the othe big issue. The idea is to portray onself as resolute and principled (strong in values), and the other fellow weak [flip/floppy] , sypathetic to Osama, and unprincipled. It is an irony of history that the Republican machine had to (and did!) sell GWB as resolute and principled (having values!).

 

[Huckleman2000]

...
**Besides morals, character is the othe big issue. The idea is to portray onself as resolute and principled (strong in values), and the other fellow weak [flip/floppy] , sypathetic to Osama, and unprincipled. It is an irony of history that the Republican machine had to (and did!) sell GWB as resolute and principled (having values!).

That's exactly what really bugs me about this whole thing. For a non-Establishment candidate to reach prominence, the political instincts have to be their own. For Bush, his father, and Reagan before him, there is a machine that selects them as credible candidates and manufactures a campaign around them.

By any reasonable assessment of character, Clinton's story of coming from white trash, becoming a Rhodes Scholar etc., and then Governor at a very early age shows a lot more determination and resourcefulness, and guile (which can be interpreted as 'slick', than Bush's story of privlege, inept management and maliciousness. Even the apocryphal account of his 'conversion', after a personal meeting with Billy Graham, reeks of social advantage.

So this dissolute who spent his college years branding fraternity pledges with coathangers, snorting coke, and not bothering to show up for the National Guard service that his father's connections set up for him, then managed several businesses into bankruptcy before finally landing a position as the public face of the investors in the Texas Rangers, is somehow the paragon of virtue.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

But I just don't see why there's this obsession with their personal relationship that leapfrogs the tabloids and winds up masquerading as serious news. True, there's people who love to hate them, but why is it okay to pander to those people?

Cause they buy newspapers?

I think this might be an Occam's Razor moment. It's all right to pander to them, because they will shell out 2.50 or 3.50 or whatever you are chargeing for your paper to read about Bill and Hil. Even if it's just speculation, maybe especially if it's just salacious speculation.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colly: //I think Rob, you would have had to be a conservative when he won his second term to truely understand. I honestly lost faith in the electorate at that point. It was that devestating.

I didn't turn to the religious far right in despair, but a lot of my conservative breather did, or at least decided making a deal with the devil was better than another Clinton-clone in the white house.

I don't really care that he got a BJ from an intern. It's one thing to be unfaithful. It's another to commit felony perjury. While neither shows you to have much in the way of integrity, one shows you to be a criminal//

P: Rob, I would not agree with a lot of Colly's explanation, except for the first sentence. Clinton was a vote getter, not only among Blacks but among southern and even evangelical whites. That is a kind of Republican nightmare, given the 'southern strategy' of the GOP and the courting of the 'religious right.'

The idea is simply to throw something and see if it will stick. "blow job" or alleged perjury (not proven, no conviction) are simply beside the point, given the lying and fornicatin' around those parts. It's a bit like a marijuana bust. When someone is busted it is often political, since police can get marijuana busts anytime they want.

I suspect there is some idea the Hillary may be a strong candidate, so the mud machine has to get amped up. The efforts with so called 'travelgate' are an example from a little while back. Again, I'd say the issue is not relevant. She pushed for some type of national health care, and some very big interests do not want that to happen.

A democrat with Southern strength is going to cause hysteria in the Republican National Committee. The hatred is because of a sense of entitlement to those votes and because they're needed (now) to retain office.

In short Rob, in national politics, no party truly has the moral high ground, so it's all an effort to spin and manufacture the news. Whoever succeeds in painting the other black will win.** The coming federal election in November is said to be planned to focus on 'gay marriage.' With that, Republicans hope to 'get out the base' (win evangelicals who think marriage is being attacked). It's of course a state issue that no 'small government' person would get the federal government involved in, but politics trumps all.
===

**Besides morals, character is the othe big issue. The idea is to portray onself as resolute and principled (strong in values), and the other fellow weak [flip/floppy] , sypathetic to Osama, and unprincipled. It is an irony of history that the Republican machine had to (and did!) sell GWB as resolute and principled (having values!).

On what grounds would you disagree with my expkanation? Given that you aren't a conservative or if you are, you have never evidenced it on these boards. And given that you are still defending him, right up to this post.

I think you have every right to disagree with my political stance. I don't think you have any grounds to disagree with my explanation of how conservatives feel and why they still hate him.

You're explaining the feelings of conservatives, as a liberal percieves them. I explained them as a conservative sees them. I didn't make any effort to explain the left's love affair with him in any but the broadest of terms, nor would I, in this particular context, presume to have an understanding of it. I'm not a liberal, nor a Clinton devotee, and their position is, incomprehensible to me.

I would posit that the converse is true as well. You can't understand my perceptions either.

So you will tell rob why you love him, and then seek to explain my dislike, through the lens of your own convictions.

Or am I missing something?

 

[Pure]

hi colly,

you said,

You're explaining the feelings of conservatives, as a liberal percieves them. I explained them as a conservative sees them.

P: Yep.

I didn't make any effort to explain the left's love affair with him in any but the broadest of terms, nor would I, in this particular context, presume to have an understanding of it. I'm not a liberal, nor a Clinton devotee, and their position is, incomprehensible to me.

I would posit that the converse is true as well. You can't understand my perceptions either.

P: I think I understand your perceptions--i.e., judgments--pretty well, in that they are common. The reasons offered are common--i.e., you don't like the unprincipled acts of Bill and Hillary.

So you will tell rob why you love him, and then seek to explain my dislike, through the lens of your own convictions.

Or am I missing something?

Well, I wasn't talking about you in particular, my friend. But yes, I ventured to offer *my own* explanation for the conservative judments and publicizing them ninety nine ways from Sunday.
Just as I have my own explanation for the campaign to label Kerry an indecisive flip flopper.

No offense meant, my friend. It's all based on the axiom that people's real motives and reasons are not always transparent to them. We--all of us--do not simply 'take their word.' There of course has to be evidence supporting the claims. I offered that: there's lots of lying and fornicating going on that's of only marginal interest to the right wing.

So I don't want to get into a personal back and forth, but you are free to venture what you think are 'liberal' (real) reasons--e.g., they want this medical program because they think that 'big government' can solve all kinds of social problems. That *might* apply to me as an individual. But incidentally i don't consider myself a Democrat or Liberal.

All best regards to my friend

 

[poony]

Wasn't she President once already!?

I mean who ran the country when her "husband" was busy chasing interns? I do not think it was Al, he was too busy trying to save the earth. So I do not think Hillary can run because of this technicality.

Personally I would not vote for Hillary. Even if she is a woman and I am a woman. She will say or do anything to get in office. (Like most politicians) She really did not live in New York longe enough to run for Senate. (My opinion) She should of ran for office in Arkansa. But I guess she felt that would of not given her enough power for 2008. Also she is changing her views the closer to 2008 comes trying to show herself more in the middle. Which alot of her followers do not like to see.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

For me, the Clintons are old news, and my anger at them has dissipated. I hope that they STAY old news. I have enough anger due to the current President, thank you very much. That's 2 Presidents in a row who have done stuff to piss me off. With Clinton, it was his silly overseas missions, his opposition to a balanced budget amendment, his support of gun control, the Lorel deal with China, Chinese funds illegally raised for his campaign, his signing of the Defense of Marriage Act, and his illegal FCC tax on long-distance phone service. With Bush, it's arsenic in water, the Arctic drilling, a bloated federal budget, the War in Iraq, his proposed ban on gay marriage, and the frequent violations of civil liberties, not to mention leaking Valerie Plame's name.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

you said,

You're explaining the feelings of conservatives, as a liberal percieves them. I explained them as a conservative sees them.

P: Yep.

I didn't make any effort to explain the left's love affair with him in any but the broadest of terms, nor would I, in this particular context, presume to have an understanding of it. I'm not a liberal, nor a Clinton devotee, and their position is, incomprehensible to me.

I would posit that the converse is true as well. You can't understand my perceptions either.

P: I think I understand your perceptions--i.e., judgments--pretty well, in that they are common. The reasons offered are common--i.e., you don't like the unprincipled acts of Bill and Hillary.

So you will tell rob why you love him, and then seek to explain my dislike, through the lens of your own convictions.

Or am I missing something?

Well, I wasn't talking about you in particular, my friend. But yes, I ventured to offer *my own* explanation for the conservative judments and publicizing them ninety nine ways from Sunday.
Just as I have my own explanation for the campaign to label Kerry an indecisive flip flopper.

No offense meant, my friend. It's all based on the axiom that people's real motives and reasons are not always transparent to them. We--all of us--do not simply 'take their word.' There of course has to be evidence supporting the claims. I offered that: there's lots of lying and fornicating going on that's of only marginal interest to the right wing.

So I don't want to get into a personal back and forth, but you are free to venture what you think are 'liberal' (real) reasons--e.g., they want this medical program because they think that 'big government' can solve all kinds of social problems. That *might* apply to me as an individual. But incidentally i don't consider myself a Democrat or Liberal.

All best regards to my friend

I wasnt offended j. Just confused. The question seemed to me to be why he was so polarizing. I would have expected you to explain the other side of the coin, why you liked Clinton as opposed to why I was wrong in my explanation of why I disliked him.

 

[Pure]

i like Clinton, from what i've seen in interviews because he's bright, relaxed, articulate. he seems to have some compassion, based on some of his causes of late, e.g. AIDS,

my reservations are that he's too right wing, too beholden to certain business interests. he favored 'free trade'. he had no conception of a "Walmart" problem (maybe cuz they're from Arkansas).

some of his retaliations against terrorists, like that pharmaceuticals plant, were ineffective. and it must be said that 'on his watch' the islamists really got moving, and iirc, blew up a portion of the WTC.
(and the Cole?). although i fault the CIA and FBI and DIA, he could have done better as leader, maybe knocking their heads a bit.

i don't care at all about his adulteries or coverups of them--that stuff's a dime a dozen in Washington. heck, they're saying even Ike had a mistress for a time.

i don't consider him *inherently and intentionally polarizing, like say Cheney. i believe Rove and co. are intentionally so. he became a target of a 'morals' campaign because the right wanted to weaken the presidency and blunt some initiatives, like on health care. they somewhat succeeded.

do keep in mind, Colly that i think the Scandinavian countries are among the best governed and humane societies, and that I greatly admire Noam Chomsky, as well as true 'libertarians' (those fighting to retain privacy and due process). so it should be obvious that i, in some cases, would 'choose' clinton mainly as a lesser evil.

 

[poony]

i like Clinton, from what i've seen in interviews because he's bright, relaxed, articulate. he seems to have some compassion, based on some of his causes of late, e.g. AIDS,

my reservations are that he's too right wing, too beholden to certain business interests. he favored 'free trade'. he had no conception of a "Walmart" problem (maybe cuz they're from Arkansas).

some of his retaliations against terrorists, like that pharmaceuticals plant, were ineffective. and it must be said that 'on his watch' the islamists really got moving, and iirc, blew up a portion of the WTC.
(and the Cole?). although i fault the CIA and FBI and DIA, he could have done better as leader, maybe knocking their heads a bit.

i don't care at all about his adulteries or coverups of them--that stuff's a dime a dozen in Washington. heck, they're saying even Ike had a mistress for a time.

i don't consider him *inherently and intentionally polarizing, like say Cheney. i believe Rove and co. are intentionally so. he became a target of a 'morals' campaign because the right wanted to weaken the presidency and blunt some initiatives, like on health care. they somewhat succeeded.

do keep in mind, Colly that i think the Scandinavian countries are among the best governed and humane societies, and that I greatly admire Noam Chomsky, as well as true 'libertarians' (those fighting to retain privacy and due process). so it should be obvious that i, in some cases, would 'choose' clinton mainly as a lesser evil.

The people who Clinton in place made (Reno or someone like that) a rule or something about not allowing the FBI, CIA to work together they could not share data.

And alot of people feel the action Clinton took (Kosovo) was just a cover up or a thing to take people mind of his affairs.

Also his fund raising for the Democratic party...the $500 coffees and renting out White House bedrooms. I think they should have to pay the bedroom money to the people of this country..isn't that our house?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

The people who Clinton in place made (Reno or someone like that) a rule or something about not allowing the FBI, CIA to work together they could not share data.

And alot of people feel the action Clinton took (Kosovo) was just a cover up or a thing to take people mind of his affairs.

Also his fund raising for the Democratic party...the $500 coffees and renting out White House bedrooms. I think they should have to pay the bedroom money to the people of this country..isn't that our house?

I hate Clinton, but he didn't have anything to do with the sharing of information. The CIA & FBI have never shared much. The NSA has reams of info, but it disseminates it in a haphazard fashion. The armed forces have their own G-2 and Cryptoanalyisis branches.

They weren't coordinated by design, because it was felt no one organ had jurisdiction over all matters. The FBI, deals with domestic afairs, the CIA, with foerign, the military branches, with troops and intentions esitmates, etc. Only the NSA has overreaching jurisdiction, but it only collects and colates, it rarely issues assements of intention. this dispersion of effort goes back for years. We had all the information neccessary to stop Pearl Harbor from happening. But no one had all th einfo. Army Intelligence had broken the Japanese diplomatic code and they had some clues. Navla intelligence knew they had lost track of the Japanese carriers, but no one lese did. The FBI, via wire taps in Hawaii had some clues.

After the fact, when it was all shown to all parties concerned, the intention was clear. 9/11 was the same deal. That proded an overhaul of how intelligence is handled and shared, but Blaming Bill for that isn't supportable. It was going on long before he sleezed his way onto the big stage.

 

[poony]

I hate Clinton, but he didn't have anything to do with the sharing of information. The CIA & FBI have never shared much. The NSA has reams of info, but it disseminates it in a haphazard fashion. The armed forces have their own G-2 and Cryptoanalyisis branches.

They weren't coordinated by design, because it was felt no one organ had jurisdiction over all matters. The FBI, deals with domestic afairs, the CIA, with foerign, the military branches, with troops and intentions esitmates, etc. Only the NSA has overreaching jurisdiction, but it only collects and colates, it rarely issues assements of intention. this dispersion of effort goes back for years. We had all the information neccessary to stop Pearl Harbor from happening. But no one had all th einfo. Army Intelligence had broken the Japanese diplomatic code and they had some clues. Navla intelligence knew they had lost track of the Japanese carriers, but no one lese did. The FBI, via wire taps in Hawaii had some clues.

After the fact, when it was all shown to all parties concerned, the intention was clear. 9/11 was the same deal. That proded an overhaul of how intelligence is handled and shared, but Blaming Bill for that isn't supportable. It was going on long before he sleezed his way onto the big stage.

That is what I heard somewhere. That they put up a wall of some sort. I just know he did not take the actioin that was need after the first WTC bombing and the Cole. Him and many other Presidents made us look like a "Paper Tiger" or a Kitty Cat.

 

[Huckleman2000]

That is what I heard somewhere. That they put up a wall of some sort. I just know he did not take the actioin that was need after the first WTC bombing and the Cole. Him and many other Presidents made us look like a "Paper Tiger" or a Kitty Cat.

That's not entirely true - I mean, the perpetrators of the first WTC bombing are at least in jail.

It wasn't Clinton, but Bush who declined to retaliate for the Cole bombing. The investigation that finally connected the operation to Al Qaeda did so in the last days of the Clinton administration, which deferred the decision to retaliate to the incoming BushCo.

From a reading of the 9/11 Commission's report I found at NewsHounds.com (I just Googled 'Cole Retaliation'):

Bush Flip-Flop on Retaliation for Terror
Reported by Judy - July 22, 2004

Fox News has good reason to be skittish about covering much of substance regarding the 9/11 commission report. Although the bipartisan report does not directly blame either George Bush or President Clinton, not everything it has to say about the Bush administration is flattering.

After all its efforts to paint John Kerry as a flip-flopper, Fox News might be especially sensitive about the Bush flip-flop highlighted in the report.

The flip-flop concerns Bush's pre-election promise that he would retaliate for the bombing of the USS Cole. Appearing on CNN, 25 days before the election, Bush told CNN, "I hope that we can gather enough intelligence to figure out who did the act and take the necessary action. There must be a consequence." [See 9/11 Commission Report, p. 201.]

According to the commission report, National Security Adviser Condi Rice testified that there "was never a formal, recorded decision not to retaliate specifically for the Cole attack." Although the administration never thought the matter important enough to actually sit down and discuss, Rice said the consensus was that a "tit for tat" response would be counterproductive. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was not interested in punishing al Qaeda for the attack because, the report said, he "thought that too much time had passed and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, thought that the Cole attack was 'stale.'" (p. 202)

Too late to avenge the lives of 17 American sailors? Too stale? And so the Crawford cowboy who talked tough before the election just let the matter drop.

Amazing. Fox News can't say they don't have this information. It's right here on their web site:

9/11 Commission report

 

[Pure]

good points, huck,

i did notice that the Cole was in the last three months of Clinton, but I didn't know the details.

My speculation is that the Saudis probably weren't keen on following up the Cole thing too avidly. And the Saudis and the Bushes are in lock step.

It is also odd that the neocons, by your account, did not think retaliation important, as a symbol From what I've read, al qaeda interpreted the lack of response as a sign of weakness and passivity (US is fat and complacent, ready for the slaughter).

I don't mean to be too hard on Clinton, for the perpetrators of WTC were at least caught and one of their leaders jailed (in a fair trial).
But I feel more should have been done after. Osama did explicitly declare war on the US in the mid 90s iirc.

By the way, Huck, have you seen that new book by the Syrian fellow, about the plans and rationale for Al Qaeda? Supposedly it's on the 'net and details a decentralized approach to terrorism aimed at weakening the US position. By 'new', I mean 'newly noticed,' by us. I think it was written a couple years ago.

 

[cherries_on_snow]

Factor in Gender

Newt and the others didn't have to wrestle with societal perceptions of gender and marriage to the degree that Hillary likely will. That is the F factor at work: the fringy expectations of femininity that persist in our exalted age.

The primary focus of this drama is the woman's ability to "have it all," and that has primarily meant having a husband who attributes value to her. Women feel such shame when they leave abusive relationships not only because they were victims but because this shows their men not to be giving them value (I know i'm probably gonna get flamed for this . . . but yes this still goes on). Many women still derive their value from the accomplishments of their husbands as they back up from behind: taking care of kids and hearth and home. So the issue for Hillary will be is your man going to be at your side pushing you 100% and faithful or at least staying out of the papers?

It is sad that this gets so much attention when such thunder clamours in the distance.

The New York Times today had an extensive, front-page story full of anonymous speculation about the state of Bill and Hillary Clinton's relationship, and whether it is an issue in Hillary's hypothetical Presidential ambitions. The story asserted that their marriage is "Topic A" for "many prominent Democrats." Who these Democrats are, and why they feel this way is not covered. But there are 50 sources who give their opinions on the state of the Clinton's intimate relationship, almost all anonymously.

I can't name a single Democrat that I know, or that I've read about, who has expressed a strong concern about the Clinton's intimacy as a dominant issue in whatever Hillary's political ambitions are.

for that matter, I can't recall a single Republican voicing concern about Newt Gingrich's marital history as in issue in his Presidential aspirations. Newt has been twice divorced. He began dating his first wife when she was his high school geometry teacher. He later served divorce papers to her when she was in the hospital being treated for cancer. He divorced his second wife after it was revealed, during the Clinton impeachment proceedings, that he had been having a long-standing affair with a staffer 23 years younger than him.

Rudi Giuliani's marital difficulties during his mayoral terms involved court restraining orders.

Why is there a perception, at least in the press, that purely idle speculation about the Clinton's relationship, which has endured public scrutiny in the past above and beyond any other political couple since Antony and Cleopatra, is fair game while other more salacious and seamy relationships, especially among Republicans, get overlooked for similar treatment?

Is this fair? Is it even relavent?

 

[Huckleman2000]

i did notice that the Cole was in the last three months of Clinton, but I didn't know the details.

My speculation is that the Saudis probably weren't keen on following up the Cole thing too avidly. And the Saudis and the Bushes are in lock step.

It is also odd that the neocons, by your account, did not think retaliation important, as a symbol From what I've read, al qaeda interpreted the lack of response as a sign of weakness and passivity (US is fat and complacent, ready for the slaughter).

I don't mean to be too hard on Clinton, for the perpetrators of WTC were at least caught and one of their leaders jailed (in a fair trial).
But I feel more should have been done after. Osama did explicitly declare war on the US in the mid 90s iirc.

By the way, Huck, have you seen that new book by the Syrian fellow, about the plans and rationale for Al Qaeda? Supposedly it's on the 'net and details a decentralized approach to terrorism aimed at weakening the US position. By 'new', I mean 'newly noticed,' by us. I think it was written a couple years ago.

I agree, for the most part. In retrospect, Clinton really should have done more; but at the time, any military actions he did take were vehemently denounced by the Republicans as 'wag the dog' operations. Considering what he was up against, I'm actually sort of impressed that he was able to take the limited steps he did. Also remember, the operations in Kosovo, which were also vehemently opposed, ultimately forestalled a genocide in the fledgling democracies in Europe, which could have spilled over with disastrous results. And the operation was coordinated with NATO, and we had no combat deaths. The Right can blame Clinton as much as they want, and I certainly am not defending the lying to a grand jury; but considering the unbelievable steps they took to weaken Clinton's Presidency, and the unbelievable steps they are taking now to increase the power of the 'Unitary Executive', it all amounts to a steaming pile of cowshit. Clinton got caught in a perjury trap - Bush openly admits actions that are, by objective measure, clearly against the law.

Anyone defending the Bush Presidency at this point can be swiftly dealt with in one question: "Would you defend that conduct if Hillary was President?"

[edit to add] No, Pure, I haven't heard about that book. It sounds like an interesting story - sort of an Al Qaeda version of Mein Kampf?