Friday, September 29, 2006


The Republicans are sure picking on Bill Clinton here lately. I think it is an act of desperation, as they look at the ratings of their elected officials....and one of them not so much elected as selected...and have made the decision to throw up a smokescreen that will take attention away from their woeful lack of anything to boast about.

About the best they can do is say....well, lookee here, folks, you're still alive. And it's true. Five years into this nonsense and we are surviving. We are very polarized into the Us or Them categories and we each absolutely despise the other's political philosophy, but we are living through it.

But sheer survival is not enough to win elections, so undoubtedly Karl Rove has put on his thinking cap and decided to use Bill Clinton as a scapegoat. Thus came along that dismal and untruthful mini-series on ABC. This made me very angry. I was in a mood to boycott ABC and refuse to watch their programs. Then it occurred to me that I would never know the outcome of the stranded castaways on LOST! This is how deeply my political emotions run, not a river, not even a stream of indignation, just a tiny trickle of rage! I just can't get the rightwing hang of it! Remember what they did to the Dixie Chicks. No hesitation there. But I just can't give up LOST, even for Bill Clinton.

Since that mini-series, the rightwingers have kept up a steady barrage of Clinton attacks. They blame him for just about everything. They invent Spin as though they hired groups of elves to run their spinning wheels and come up with the froth, the cotton candy of political namecalling. The Great Prevaricator, they call Clinton, as well as Tricky Dick and all sorts of cute monikers. And, they not only attack Bill Clinton, but light into his wife with equal passion. One of the names for Mrs. Clinton is "Hitlery." Nice people, these Republicans!

We have been bombarded with varying parties playing the Blame Game. Did Clinton allow bin Laden to escape? Did Bush allow bin Laden to escape? Did Clinton fail to pursue terrorists? Has Bush pursued terrorists and possible terrorists and probable terrorists and not terrorists at all, until the Middle East is in an uproar and more terrorists are volunteering to spread terror?

Every person in our country should ask themselves..."Am I better off today than when Bill Clinton was president?" "Is my country better off than when Bill Clinton was president?" These are the age-old questions all voters must ask themselves before any election. Certainly it deserves an answer. It seems to me that, if you are wealthy or moderately wealthy, you might better vote for the Republicans, because they seem to take care of the wealthy, possibly because they are all buddies, or so it seems. But, if you are an average American worried about outsourcing, insourcing, downsizing, layoffs, pension disappearance, health care problems, etc., then you might better vote for whoever will run against the Republicans. It's that simple.

I think perhaps the Republicans are very worried about Hillary Clinton. There she is, the smartest woman in her class at Yale, sharp as a tack, and not bad looking at all, politically savvy and married to Bill! It's high time a woman became President of the United States and Hillary may just make it. With her husband at her side, perhaps she can bring prosperity again for the working families of America.

I have never been a complete fan of Hillary's, because she has been soft on the Iraq War. But, as the war goes on and the bodies pile up, she is changing her mind. This is good. This is all that is needed, a little anger. No, a whole lot of anger. It is time for that war to grind to a halt. We are still enmeshed in a struggle in Afghanistan, but at least it would be, one down and one to go.

Cut and run? Another Karl Rove buzzword. Don't you just love that cute little roly-poly munchkin? He reminds me so much of Rush Limbaugh and I think they are twins, separated at birth. But, to cut and run when it is necessary to move on is the smartest thing to do. Actually, as John Kerry suggested, it is better than to Lie and Die.

We've had a lot of misinformation about Iraq. It isn't politically correct to say the president lied, so we call it "misinformation" or "misunderstanding." Whatever you call it, it wasn't true, and we invaded a country that actually had nothing to do with 9/11, and nothing to do with the hunt for bin Laden. I don't think they can ever call THAT Bill Clinton's fault, but who knows?

The reason I respect and admire Bill Clinton is because of his intellect. He's smart. He's personable, affable and smart. He is loved by foreign leaders. No one ever called him a devil, nor did he include anyone in an Axis of Evil. He is able to make a good speech and can actually pronounce "nuclear." And he doesn't call his weapons "Divine."

Yet Bill Clinton did lie about his affair with Monica and he did finagle around with the meaning of "is." But, many people, when faced with an embarrassing wrongdoing, will lie! At first comes the denial, then the lie. It is wrong, but it happens. It is just not in human nature to say, "Oh, honey, you're absolutely right. You guessed it! I'm cheating on you. Now, what's for dinner?" It just isn't that easy.

The point I am trying to make is that everyone makes mistakes and many people lie to cover up mistakes, whether it be to protect their families or to avoid humiliation. Clinton made this kind of mistake, but he did not lead us into War! His lie hurt his family and himself, but it led to no deaths, no mutilations!

When it comes to crime, there is always graduations of severity and intent. For instance, there is Murder One and Murder Two. Capital Murder is Murder One, and in certain circumstances, can lead to the death penalty. So many things go into this grading of crimes, intent, circumstances, severity, whether a weapon was involved, etc. Weighing all of this explains why so many judges have grey hair.

Perhaps there should be the same rules for Lies. There should be Lie One, Lie Two, Lie Three and so on. Lie Three would just be a minor fib, a white lie, like telling your neighbor you like her dress, even though she looks like a horse in it. Lie Two would be a little worse, a lie that hurts your family or friends and makes an ass out of yourself. Clinton is definitely guilty of Lie Two.

But the Whopper would be Lie Three...and I think George Bush deserves this charge. Saddam Hussein had no WMD, had no nuclear facilities, was not threatening our lives, and from all that I read, George Bush and Dick Cheney knew that he didn't and were very retaliatory toward anyone pointing out the truth to them. Bill Clinton had nothing to do with any of this.

By frightening the country, we were led into a war that has killed and is still killing both the Iraqi people and our own soldiers. Far better to use that money, that manpower and that determination in Afghanistan, where the Taliban is back again, and in the mountains of Pakistan, where bin Laden, if alive at all, is said to be hidden.