Angry Clinton
Not too long ago former US President Bill Clinton was lambasted by the mainstream media for his direct and forceful responses to some ill-conceived questions posed by a right-leaning reporter. I find it disappointing, although not entirely surprising, that Clinton was viewed as the bad guy rather than the uninformed out-of-line reporter.
When did defending yourself when being irrationally attacked equate to being ‘combative’? If someone insults you, disrespects you, makes untrue statements on issues of fact and in the process fails to do his job and in so doing brings shame to his profession I think it would be irresponsible and a disservice to the public discourse to let the windbag and his comments go unchallenged.
Letting a falsehood stand unopposed is a tacit form of lying after all. The fact is the question was combative, you don’t blame the person who picks up the gauntlet for picking the fight, you blame the guy who needlessly threw it down.
Frankly it was incredibly refreshing to see someone speaking with passion that was not faux (like Bush’s poor attempts at acting). It was quite striking as it illustrated how long it’s been since someone in the public eye has been passionate about their ideas rather than merely critical of the enemy’s.
It reminded me of when they took the leash off of Gore and of course future President John McCain (his official title as far as I’m concerned). We need people like this to step forward if we’re to have any hope of surviving current global conflicts and environmental challenges.
I miss Clinton. Straightforward, detailed, honest (on matters of substance), intelligent, informed, well-reasoned, calming, and confident. The only one of those qualities Bush shares is ’straightforward’ but when they say it about him they mean ’simple’ as in not complicated. You know, retarded.
Since I’m making comparisons between Clinton and Bush let’s put their presidencies in perspective. In fact, I can do it with a simple question. Imagine 2 things happened tomorrow: 1) The insurgents in Iraq unilaterally across the nation, unanimously and unconditionally surrender 2) Someone levels sexual harassment charges against the president. Which of those two stories would get the front page?
Oh, and Fox News doesn’t count.
The truly sad fact is I don’t really know which story would take precedence in today’s climate. A brutal unnecessary war over and thousands of potentially lost lives saved from a prolonged conflict …or sex? Despite the Republicans best efforts during the Clinton administration the Iraq story would likely get the front page (although the circumstances surrounding it never would have happened in the first place). But after the steep and steady decline of intelligent discourse in the US the question becomes murky. What’s worse, what do you think Bush would think the important story would be?
When I compare what is to what was, I am profoundly saddened and frightened not to mention disappointed in humanity for letting it occur, 9/11 be damned.
Thinking about Bush I am reminded of a quote from a Star Trek episode…
Picard: We think we have come so far… the torture of heretics and the burning of witches is ancient history… and then… before you can blink an eye… it threatens to start all over again.
Worf: I believed her… I helped her… I didn’t see what she was.
Picard: Villains who wear black hats are easy to spot. Those who clothe themselves in good deeds are well camouflaged.
Worf: I think… after yesterday… people will not be as ready to trust her.
Picard: Maybe. But it won’t stop her. She — or someone like her — will always be with us… waiting for the right climate in which to flourish… spreading disease in the name of liberty. Vigilance, Mr. Worf. That is the price we must continually pay.
