Unspun Logo

Clinton, Bush & Morality

Posted by Rick · May 7th, 2004 · 8 Comments

Wow…this is scary. I went into a program I use for writing blog articles and found this one, finished, sitting there waiting to be posted. I’ve been so dependent on Bob covering for me while I was studying finals that I totally forgot this post. Since the topics it covers are still kicking, I thought I’d go ahead and post it. The post I was planning to write on my lunch break here can wait until tonight or tomorrow. Please keep in mind, as you read it, that it was started sometime around 4/29 — a lot has transpired in the comments on this blog since then and some aspects of this post may therefore be “stale.”

One of my more regular readers has been entertaining for the last few days [remember what I said in the last paragraph, please] in some of his comments.

It occurred to me, primarily because I’m studying for Finals this week and next (and thus blogging time is at a premium), that I might turn my last response to him into a free-standing post. One reason is that this frees up more time for studying. But I also thought it was important that some of these points get “a little more press” than they would get if I left them in a regular comment to a post.

The issues that concern this reader appear to be mostly centered around Clinton’s “fraudulent” Presidency and the slightly stronger case concerning charges of immorality against Clinton, but coupled with the outrageously ignorant view that Bush is somehow more honorable. For example, Nat Dawson finds it deplorable that Clinton would not invade other sovereign nations like George Bush would. (Yes, he’s serious; no, it’s not satire.)

Before you read the post, just let me say that I really do appreciate alternative points of view posted in comments to this blog. Some have caused me to think more deeply about some of my views; most have helped me to understand not just another’s point of view, but how best to engage in a mutually-beneficial dialog. Nevertheless, posts which are more-or-less personal, or ad hominem, or in some other way “abusive” are just fair game; I will not hesitate to show the stupidity of unfounded claims or posts lacking in logic. (And you may feel free to post comments holding me to that same standard, by the way. I believe that even though the First Amendment does not apply to me — because I’m not a government entity — that the principles of that Amendment are valuable to society. I therefore have so far only deleted posts that contain spam.)

Again before you click through to my response to Nat, I want you to take into account that since this post was originally written, we’ve all gotten to know Nat a little better. I think he tends to hyperbole more than I would like and slings more mud than I would like, but I’ve also seen that he’s capable of some well-written and intelligent responses. This particular issue (Bush v. Clinton), however, seems to turn him rabid for some reason — so far. It’s something I don’t personally understand. But that’s okay: Nat doesn’t understand me, either. His comments about me prove that. At any rate, this post could be read as inflammatory. It was deliberately written to make a point and poke a little fun at the same time. For those who have read other posts, remember that at the time I originally wrote this, Nat was saying some pretty darned nasty things to me. Read in that light, you’ll see I was, by comparison, making some relatively gentle jabs back.

So without further ado, I give you my response to Nat Dawson on Clinton, Bush & Morality, originally written probably just over a week ago (and I just forgot to post it), complete with something that was missing from his assertions; that is, links to substantiate what I’m saying.

Mr. Dawson,

The last time I checked, we still held elections in the United States. This is even true of the one in which Bush won the Presidency. Bush may not have won the popular vote and so it’s possible to say that he was never the choice of a majority of the people. He did win the electoral votes needed to legitimately take office.

Similarly, Bill Clinton won the Presidency both in 1992 and 1996 in elections that were untainted by the need for either candidate to ask for a Supreme Court back-up vote.

Contrary to your statement that “Clinton NEVER achieved a plurality of the vote,” that is exactly how he won in 1992. In 1996, he easily beat the Republican candidate, Bob Dole, attaining nearly 50% of the popular vote and with more than twice as many electoral college votes as Dole had. If you have some evidence that the Chinese government was somehow allowed to vote in an American election, you’re as free to post it here as you are to post your unsupported ad hominem comments — in fact, more so.

The last time I checked, Rwanda was not in the United States. Many of us realize, based on the inability of Floridians to understand the mechanics of such basic civic duties as voting, that your educational system isn’t terrific, but if you’re going to argue about such things, you should at least grab a map. Or perhaps you’ve been smoking some of the funny weeds growing over there at Beauclerc Gardens? President Bush’s approach to world politics notwithstanding, American Presidents are not elected to send troops into every country that does something we find reprehensible. Perhaps if the Republican leadership would be willing to support a tax base to pay for a worldwide U.S.-led police force and volunteer their own sons and daughters for such duty, we could reconsider that policy. But then other countries may begin to get the idea that the radical terrorist organizations were right after all; they might join with them just as many Iraqis are now doing. And we already spend more on our thinly-stretched and underpaid military to destroy than we spend on social programs to build. But, again, if the Republicans want to stop cutting taxes to the rich, maybe we can police the world without gutting our military resources and strength.

Moreover, I do not suppose “Islamo-fascists” are going to hurt us much more than our own homegrown fascists and fearmongers. We already send the Secret Service after 15-year-old artists and bolster our economic interests by scaring people away from our malls. George Bush, the self-declared War President, should consider adding “The Fear President” to his title. It’s worth keeping in mind that we wouldn’t need a Fear President if we didn’t already have a War President.

This is particularly true if we begin to adopt a view of ourselves as citizens in a world populated by varying cultures, not all of which subscribe to the view that they exist for our pleasure. And if “Islamo-fascists” were our real target, we would go after them. Instead, we target countries lead by people against whom our President has a personal vendetta — or did we do it for the oil? Like you, I forget some things. Unlike you, I’ve actually read some facts to back up my claims and therefore I have something to forget.

I admit to not knowing much about the Rich pardon. What I do know is that you haven’t provided any evidence for the claims that you’re making. I do know that the Bush Administration themselves are preventing anyone from finding out what really happened with the Rich Pardon. I do know that President Bush wanted the investigation to end. And I do know that Bill Clinton invited debate over whether to provide the pardon, allowing others to persuade him to give it. This doesn’t sound much like it was sold. And, as one of the Republicans pushing for the Rich pardon said,

The case involves many disturbing features, but at its core are transactions, which were not criminal. It [the government] employed an unprecedented use of RICO that resulted in the defendant’s capitulation, without trial, to the government’s charges. We know that we have a heavy burden in satisfying the U.S. Attorney that he should reexamine this case. We know that the task of persuasion will take time and resources. But the circumstances of the case, the consequences of its outcome, and the extraordinarily important questions of criminal law enforcement it poses, justify considering such a review.

I know also that the money not taken by the President, but by his brother, was reportedly returned.

Finally, as for the “stealing furniture” issue, I am unable to locate any information on that. No mainstream (I started to say “reputable,” but that would be an impossibly high bar for news organizations in the U.S. today) news organizations have stories that I can find. But, again, you provided no backing for any of your claims; perhaps you’ll be able to do that in future posts?

Perhaps the problem here isn’t with a “one-dimensional Liberal” (as you’ve called me) who backs his claims with verifiable reasons for them, but with slathering warmongers ready to follow corrupt politicians whereever they may lead — and who will complain if where they lead isn’t into foreign countries against which we can wage indiscriminate wars that ultimately do not so much correct injustices as pad the pockets of war-profiteers.

Categories: Politics-In-General


8 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Mark // May 7, 2004 at 3:05 pm


    I will also admit to not having studied a great deal about the Rich pardon. I will say Clinton didn’t have to pardon members of his own administration who were convicted of crimes — unlike some of his recent Republican predecessors.

    At any rate, Rich’s attorney from 1985 through the spring of 2000 was none other than Scooter Libby, who now serves as Chief of Staff for Vice pResident Dick Cheney. Several sources speculate that it was Libby who was the Shrub official chosen to out the CIA operative last year. He’s high on the list of suspects given by Robert Wilson, the Republican who came out of retirement to investigate the Yellow Cake Uranium story at the request of the Shrub administration, and then had the audacity to tell the truth about his findings when he saw that Shrub was lying about the manufactured (and, we now know, untrue) reports of Iraq attempting to purchase uranium.

    It’s fine and dandy, I suppose, to spend $60 million of taxpayer money investigating a blow job.

    How much have we spent trying to identify the creep who outed a CIA operative? The last time I checked, blow jobs were not against the law. Outing a CIA operative can be considered treason — which is punishable under U.S. law by death. Just a few years ago Shrub’s own daddy, who once ran the CIA, was quoted as saying that those who would expose the identity of a CIA operative are “the worst kind of traitors.”

    If birds of a feather do flock together, and if Libby IS the jerk who accepted this assignment in the Shrub administration, I guess it’s possible that Rich is an unsavory character, also. But that, in and of itself, does not give evidence of a “bought” pardon.

  • 2 Bob // May 7, 2004 at 5:46 pm


    I confess that I am playing catch up on this one but I was able to track down some web research quickly, namely Robert Novak, the columnist accused of ‘outing’ the CIA operative, himself.

    The leak now under Justice Department investigation is described by former Ambassador Wilson and critics of President Bush’s Iraq policy as a reprehensible effort to silence them. To protect my own integrity and credibility, I would like to stress three points. First, I did not receive a planned leak. Second, the CIA never warned me that the disclosure of Wilson’s wife working at the agency would endanger her or anybody else. Third, it was not much of a secret.

    Source: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20031001.shtml

    It appears that the ‘operative’was common knowledge in certain circles.

    How big a secret was it? It was well known around Washington that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA. Republican activist Clifford May wrote Monday, in National Review Online, that he had been told of her identity by a non-government source before my column appeared and that it was common knowledge. Her name, Valerie Plame, was no secret either, appearing in Wilson’s “Who’s Who in America” entry.

    And the most confusing to me:

    During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA’s counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger. When I called another official for confirmation, he said: “Oh, you know about it.” The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue.

    (The above emphasis is mine).

    If Scooter is your guy, how could Novak refer to him as ‘no partisan gunslinger’? It would appear Scooter is the DEFINITION of partisan gunslinger.

    But it is a very curious choice on Cheney’s part to use Scooter at all:

    Libby also represented Marc Rich, a billionaire fugitive who reportedly enjoys very close ties to Israeli intelligence and whose pardon by Bill Clinton in the last days of his presidency became a major scandal, but one quickly hushed by the incoming Bush administration. The fact that Rich had renounced his US citizenship after his conviction for tax evasion made the pardon – and Libby’s efforts to obtain one – particularly galling for many conservatives and made Libby himself a particularly curious choice for Cheney’s chief aide.


    All this ‘incest of interest’ is confusing to me. Anybody want to help?

  • 3 Nat Dawson // May 7, 2004 at 6:22 pm

    Infanticide, Buchenwald and core values.

    Date: January 1993
    Location: US Capitol, Washington D.C.

    Clinton has just taken the oath of office and he withdraws to the Capitol Rotunda where a solitary desk has been placed. He sits at the desk and signs an Executive Order. The effect of the order is to remove the ban on partial birth abortion instituted by Bush 41.

    Partial birth abortion is a medical procedure whereby a fully formed human fetus – usually in the second trimester of gestation but sometimes as late as the third trimester – is induced into the mother’s birth canal. An abortionist then grasps the child’s legs and pulls the un-anesthetized baby along the birth canal to the point that only the child’s head remains inside the canal. He then takes a pair of scissors and punctures the child’s scalp – making a hole of approximately 1cm in diameter.

    The abortionist then vacuum’s the child’s brain out of its skull. When the brain has been removed and the child therefore meets the definition of being clinically dead, the abortionist then removes the dead baby and the procedure is complete.

    You lawyers can call this what you want. The reality is that this act is a deliberate, premeditated, wanton destruction of a human being, or as is more commonly referred to – murder. Plain and simple, by any other name this is the incredibly painful, cold blooded, murder of a human being.

    Now, why did Clitnon make this, with great flourish, his very FIRST priority?

    The answer is that Clinton knows that he has to have a base of support at some level that will stick with him and see him through any crisis and who he can use as a springboard to reinsert himself into the political arena after his periods of self-banishment following some egregious scandal or exposure. It is a tactic that was then duplicated all along the line with those “emotional” constituencies such as the homosexuals. Should it be any surprise that Clinton’s next public announcement was on the subject of gays in the military?

    Prior to 9-11 there were no more emotional issues in this country than so-called “reproductive rights” and the status of homosexuals in society. These people are far more invested in their single cause than are, for example, the average Union member. These people are very hard core and very fanatical. In other words, the ideal type of supporter for a politician. Co-opt their single issue and you have a built in base of support.


    One side of my family is European Jewish. We suffered horribly under Hitler. A number of my Aunts and Uncles were dehumanized as people and then physically destroyed by Hitler and his ghouls.

    Hitler rose to power in Germany on the back of the National Socialist party. His political guru – his James Carville – was a man called Joseph Goebbels. Goebbels was the forerunner of the modern campaign manager and he devised a number of techniques to deceive the German people into voting for the Nazi party.

    Goebbels main claim to fame was “the big lie” theory by which a lie was invented – which on its face was aburd – but which was then enlarged and repeated ad nauseam. The bigger the lie, the more often it was repeated, the more credible it became. Goebbels was also the mastermind behind the techniques of mass brainwashing applied at political gatherings which are the perfect setting for manipulating public opinion.

    Goebbels ultimately committed suicide in Hitler’s bunker after he had poisoned his own family in April 1945. He died but many of his techniques live on. I find it interesting that the chief propagator of the Goebbelsian method today is none other than Hitlary Klinton. If you were to watch film of a Bill Clinton campaign speech in 1992 you would see Hitlary sitting close by and repeatedly nodding her head as Clinton makes a point or gesture.

    This, of course, is straight out of the Goebbels play book where he would have the people on stage nod at points in Hitler’s speeches as a cue to the crowd suggesting approbation of what they just heard. It is raw, it is crude, it is blatant mass manipulation and it is shocking that it is something that Hitlary Klinton has no qualms emulating.

    As someone who has a direct blood connection with the tribes of Israel, whose own family members were dehumanized and then incinerated in Buchenwald and who watched Bill Clinton nearly force Ehud Barak into what would have been a suicidal agreement with the murdering terrorist swine Arafat (i.e. giving up the Golan and ceding partial control of Jerusalem), I am naturally shocked to my core – to see this woman emulating the campaign tricks of the Nazis. It makes me want to vomit with grief and anger.

    Core values

    Why do I support Bush? Because Bush has a core. He has a center. As an evangelical Christian he is the strongest supporter Israel has ever had in the White House. It surprises many to learn that the most powerful lobbying support behind US aid and comfort to Israel is not derived from the canyons of Wall Street or the movie studios of Hollywood. No, in fact Israel might not exist today were it not for the faithful support of the evangelicals in the heartland of America.

    Clinton has no core. No grounded values. He is a pure opportunist. Twisting this way and that to gain temporary advantage. Lies trip easily off his tongue. Unlike Bush, there are no moral absolutes in Clinton’s universe. Everything is relative. Only a person who can lie out of both sides of his face can “triangulate”. And, as we have seen lying, deception and fraud come easily to Clinton. Thus he was the perfect sucker for the lure of campaign funds even if they were illegally obtained. He was easily seduced by Monica Lewinsky and who knows who else because the man has no moral compass.


    So there you have it. My objections to Bill Clinton are more than political. He is willing to endorse the murder of children, the elimination of the State of Israel and dissemble and deceive ad inifinitum in order to achieve his political ends. Since you titled this topic “Clinton, Bush and morality” this is the ideal opportunity to lay out my case for opposing this man Clinton and his very scary “wife” who is, frankly, a monster.

    Bush has been a wonderful tonic after 8 years of Clinton. There have been no moral lapses in the White House. Israel has received strong support and, recently, The President was able get legislation legislation through Congress to end the heinous, inhuman slaughter of American children via partial abortion.

    Bush vs. Clinton? Absolutely no contest. Bush is hands down the better man and the better President.

  • 4 Rick // May 7, 2004 at 6:33 pm

    My wife and I are heading out for a “date” — something I haven’t been able to do for ages, because of law school, but my last final was last night. So I’ll respond to this post more completely at another time.

    The only thing I wanted to do immediately was add this for you. Sometimes people ask me to fix mistakes in the posts they make and I’m happy to do that.

    Here’s the fix for what you’ve said:

    There have been no moral lapses in the White House except for the constant stream of lies that convinced the American public to send their sons and daughters to die in Iraq.

    Let me commend you, though, for your first post that actually provided a logical argument for your position.

  • 5 Bob // May 7, 2004 at 7:08 pm


    I also commend you. Your writing has literally silenced me. I need time to digest such a well written and heartfelt post.

    I am impressed.

    Please feel free to add to this blog at anytime with this quality of writing. Wow.

  • 6 Mark // May 7, 2004 at 8:54 pm

    Bob, the story about the “outing” being “widely known” is propaganda pushed originally by Novak and now by other neo-cons to try to make this treasonous act seem less serious. With Republicans controlling all three branches of the government, though, Novack and whomever did this dastardly deed are confident (and most likely right) that absolutely nothing will be done to them.

    Nat, if Bush has such a strong moral core, why did he feel it necessary to lie about his reasons for going to war in Iraq? We now know that he KNEW the uranium story was false, and most likely knew that there were no weapons of mass destruction. He lied repeatedly to the American public, and put young American men and women in harm’s way for no reason other than to hand no-bid contracts to his buddies and contributors. Is this what you call a moral core? Attacking and occupying a country that was absolutely no threat to us while letting bin Laden, the Pakistanis, and the Saudis (great friends of your buddy Israel, by the way) off scot free — are those things indicative of a moral core? If so, let me know where your morals come from — so that I can caution those I care for to stay away!

    My wife’s family was largely murdered by the Nazis in the 1940s. Reading history tells you that the Nazis locked up dissenters in mental hospitals. Today, neo-cons can call dissenters “enemy combatants,” if they like, and lock them up so that they will never be heard from again. It’s happening now in this country. With your heritage, Nat, if the neo-con reich doesn’t scare the living crap out of you, I don’t know what would.

  • 7 Mark // May 7, 2004 at 9:01 pm

    The interjection of a woman’s right to choose what happens to her body into the debate made me think of a great line I heard about twenty years ago.

    While I can’t say that I agree with everything that Jesse Jackson says, I think he hit the nail on the head when he said, “Many of those who get very worked up about what happens between conception and birth don’t have the least concern about what happens between birth and death.”

    When I look at most of those who want the government dictating to a woman what she can and cannot do with her body, I have to agree.

  • 8 Bob // May 8, 2004 at 7:36 am

    Ironically, on today’s CNN.COM front page:

    Monroe County Family Court Judge Marilyn O’Connor ruled March 31 that both parents “should not have yet another child which must be cared for at public expense

    “The facts of this case and the reality of parenthood cry out for family planning education,” she ruled. “This court believes the constitutional right to have children is overcome when society must bear the financial and everyday burden of care.”

    The mother was found to have neglected her four children, ages 1, 2, 4 and 5. All three children who were tested for cocaine tested positive, according to court papers. Both parents had a history of drug abuse. It was not immediately clear if the father had other children.

    Source: http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/08/conception.banned.ap/index.html

    Attorney Chris Affronti, who chairs the family law section of the Monroe County Bar Association, said he’s not sure how the ruling could be enforced.

    “I think what the judge is trying to do is kind of have a wake-up call for society,” he said.

Leave a Comment