Clinton's lies

[anthson]

I find it laughable and pathetic how our former president is getting away with bloody murder in his recent lie spree. I can't believe the media is not holding him accountable for his outrageous inventions, claiming to be a Mr. Tough Guy on defense and having had an "obsession" with Bin Laden. This guy says it all real well, but my main cocern is just how long a person in the media's favor can get away with bald-faced, flat out, undeniably transparent lies.

[Rosuav]

If you tell a lie often enough, people begin to believe it. Some pollies even convince themselves.

[Aristotle]

This situation is a weird one for me.

I definitely think Bill Clinton did jack squat as far as terrorism, Bin Laden, etc. and he probably could have.

But while I believe that to be true, there wasn't as much reason for him to do anything then. We hadn't had 9/11. The previous attempt on the Towers was pretty piss poor. Other than that, everything was taking place abroad, and even that was nothing as bad as say the Iranian hostage situation of the 1980s. More importantly, our economy was roaring along beautifully, and engaging in a massive anti-terrorism effort would have stymied that.

One of things Clinton was best at doing was doing nothing. I'm not being glib, I mean that sincerely. He was very good at staying out of the way when the economy was doing great on its own. That takes a lot of discipline and intelligence.

So while I can see a lot of legitimate reasons why Clinton did not do much as far as fighting terrorism, it is still true that he did not do much.

I'd rather see him giving the logically justifiable reasons for not addressing terrorism aggressively instead of engaging in historical revisionism and pretending he did a lot.

I also agree that it never ceases to amaze me how the media will give him a free pass on just about any issue. Unfortunately, this free pass extends to Hillary as well.

[Rosuav]

Originally posted by Aristotle
One of things Clinton was best at doing was doing nothing. I'm not being glib, I mean that sincerely.

There's a time for action, and a time for inaction. But for many politicians, and many reporters, inaction is considered bad, and action considered good (take Sir Humphrey Appleby's words - from Yes Minister - "Politicians like activity. It's their substitute for achievement." The media like it too); and one consequence of a democratic system, as implemented by most Western countries, is that you have to keep the Press on-side or you lose the next election.

One of the luxuries of being a king, rather than an elected president/prime minister, is that you can make the right decision without worrying about what the Times and the Standard will say. But one of the disadvantages of kingship is that he can make the WRONG decision, too.