Clintonisms
I spent the morning reading a new book by conservative comedian Julie Gorin called, Clintonisms: The Amusing, Confusing, and Even Suspect Musing, of Billary.
I generally don't go for these kinds of books that make fun of various presidents but this one was sort of catchy and funny--although if you like the Clintons, you may not see it that way.
In the introduction, Ms. Gorin states that we are faced with the real possibility of a second Clinton presidency and her book "attempts to preempt that reminder and at the same time examine the pressing issues and questions that may be revisited in the event of a second Clinton presidency..."
She notes that her book is not a scholarly work and is not meant to be fair or balanced. "It's a collection of anecdotes, reportage, jokes and first, second and third-party quotes from and about the Clintons." The anecdotes, jokes and quotes range from those "Defining the Clintons" to "With Peacekeepers like These..." which focuses on disturbing sayings from the Clinton's ideas of foreign policy. The hypocrisy of many of the musings is food for thought.
The jokes are also humorous but honestly, I would rather just avoid another Clinton presidency altogether and let Clintonisms recede into the annals of history. But if you know someone--or you yourself enjoy this type of humor--the book would make a good gift.
Update: Ed Driscoll interviews Ms. Gorin about her book for PJM Political here.
I generally don't go for these kinds of books that make fun of various presidents but this one was sort of catchy and funny--although if you like the Clintons, you may not see it that way. In the introduction, Ms. Gorin states that we are faced with the real possibility of a second Clinton presidency and her book "attempts to preempt that reminder and at the same time examine the pressing issues and questions that may be revisited in the event of a second Clinton presidency..."
She notes that her book is not a scholarly work and is not meant to be fair or balanced. "It's a collection of anecdotes, reportage, jokes and first, second and third-party quotes from and about the Clintons." The anecdotes, jokes and quotes range from those "Defining the Clintons" to "With Peacekeepers like These..." which focuses on disturbing sayings from the Clinton's ideas of foreign policy. The hypocrisy of many of the musings is food for thought.
The jokes are also humorous but honestly, I would rather just avoid another Clinton presidency altogether and let Clintonisms recede into the annals of history. But if you know someone--or you yourself enjoy this type of humor--the book would make a good gift.
Update: Ed Driscoll interviews Ms. Gorin about her book for PJM Political here.
Labels: interesting books
posted by Helen at 9:50 AM
11 Comments:
@"'With Peacekeepers like These...' which focuses on disturbing sayings from the Clinton's ideas of foreign policy. The hypocrisy of many of the musings is food for thought."
______
One of my favorite things to do with some left wingers is to give them a bunch of quotes about terrorism, Saddam Hussein, Iraq, WMD, etc., and let them rant about Bush's "lies" for war, oil, blood, etc for a while. Then I let them in on the fact that the quotes were from Bill Clinton, Al Gore, etc. dating back to the 90s. They won't back away from their position that the statements that these are "Bush lies" but never quite explain why Clinton and Gore helped perpetuate the lies in the 90s.
Trust,
That's funny, but some people are so invested in "Bush lied, people died" etc. that if facts do not fit into their cognitive framework, they just disregard them.
There is a leftist I work with who I do have a lot of respect for. He thinks Bush has been a disaster, and voted against him to punish him for the war because he believes it is a mistake. However, despite opposition, there are two issues he stubbornly defends Bush on.
First, he scolds his colleagues for calling Bush a bigot (racist/sexist), because anyone with eyes should see that Bush has had more blacks in higher positions than anyone else in history and that he treats women respectfully.
Second, he believes this notion that Bush lied to everyone by saying the same things his predecessor and every other leader in the free world said is ridiculous. He's able to seperate that fact from disagreement with it being a good enough reason for war.
Best,
Trust
In 1992: Gore chastised the incumbent President Bush for his "dangerous blindness to the murderous ambitions of a despot." That despot, of course, was Saddam. Gore cited a RAND corporation study that reported, probably with some accuracy, that an estimated 1,400 terrorists were operating out of Saddam's Iraq even after the Gulf War.
In 1998: Clinton's Justice Department indicted bin Laden citing "that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al-Qaida would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."
In 1998: The Clinton administration ordered the destruction of the al Shifa chemical plant in the Sudan in retaliation for al-Qaida's bombing of two American embassies earlier that month. Richard Clarke shared intelligence that linked al-Qaida to the "Iraqi nerve gas experts." He was one of six Clinton officials to insist publicly on an al-Qaida-Iraqi tie to justify the missile strike.
In 1999: Clinton deposed of Slobadan Milosevic without congressional approval, citing genocide as the reason. They cited a genocide of 10,000, and only proved 600 after that. No one apologized, and why should they? Milosevic was a despot. The fact remains, however, the Milosevic killed on a fraction that Hussein did, and was not the world threat. Why is it then, that it was fine to depose Milosevic without congressional approval for genocide, but wrong to depose the far more horrific Hussein with congressional approval? The difference is more political than anything else.
Okay, I'm done. Got a Cub/Cardinal game to get to. Have a great weekend everyone.
Milosevic killed on a fraction that Hussein did, and was not the world threat. Why is it then, that it was fine to depose Milosevic without congressional approval for genocide, but wrong to depose the far more horrific Hussein with congressional approval?
1) Unlike the Iraq war, Clinton had a genuine NATO coalition and the Kosovo War incurred ZERO US combat deaths
2) The Iraq War has resulted in more death in 5 yrs than Saddam commited in more than a decade.
3) The so-called statements that wingnuts love to quote from Dems about the threat of Saddam are bogus and when viewed in context, say something quite different.
For example, Hillary quote:
"It is clear . . . that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
She also said in that same speech:
" If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. ... Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible....My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world."
We never hear that part quoted of the same speech, do we?
A Rhodes Scholar withj a competent world view once said...
"we live in an interdependent world in which we cannot possibly kill, jail or occupy all of our potential adversaries. So we have to both fight terror and build a world with more partners and fewer terrorists."
-Bill Clinton, 2004
Well, Ellen, for the most part you make good points, aside from the typical liberal stoop of calling those you are debating names (i.e. wingnut). You lost some credibility with that.
But you really don't answer the main point of the post. I wish the Iraq war would have never happened, but that isn't the point. The point was those same people who warned of a threat in the 90s are the same that call it "Bush lies" now. Whether or not one supported the war and how poorly it has been conducted is a separate issue.
While the left loves to talk of our credibility in the world, it takes no responsibility for undermining it day in and day out, while our troops are in the line of fire. Even when they voted for the resolution.
Insofar as us not losing troops when deposing Milosevic, I don't get the logic. It's only worth fighting tyrants or terrorists who aren't strong enough to hurt us? Hitler would have loved that logic.
I'm sure many people looked on the carnage after the civil war and said it wasn't worth it.
I have an uncle who probably considers himself an independent, but I view him as sort of a left learning libertarian who despises religion. He says he used to hate Bill Clinton, but now he is starting to reconsider.
Trust: Your liberal colleague sounds like a good person. It is okay to disagree as long as your story is straight.
but wrong to depose the far more horrific Hussein with congressional approval?
Now I thought Congress did give approval for the War in Iraq, but I've heard from people who say no, they never gave approval.
@serket: "Your liberal colleague sounds like a good person. It is okay to disagree as long as your story is straight."
I agree. Discourse would improve greatly if people would acknowledge some goodness in opposing beliefs.
"Now I thought Congress did give approval for the War in Iraq, but I've heard from people who say no, they never gave approval."
The authorization was passed 296-133 in the House and 77-23 in the Senate. In fact, in the Senate, democrats voted 29-21 in favor. Now, it was authorization for force, not mandating the use of it. But still, you can't give a commander the authority to use force then act shocked when it is used. It, in essence, gave Saddam and "or else" and Saddam defied.
In retrospect, I wish Iraq would not have happened. However, what I take exception with is "Bush lied," and I cite the many democrats who warned of Saddam's weapons in the 90s. It's fair to criticize the war, but not fair to rewrite history, and the fact is most civilized nations thought Saddam had WMDs, including our own long before Bush was elected.
Best regards,
Trust
A片-無碼援交東京熱一本道aaa免費看影片免費視訊聊天室微風成人ut聊天室av1688影音視訊天堂85cc免費影城亞洲禁果影城微風成人av論壇sex520免費影片JP成人網免費成人視訊aaa影片下載城免費a片 ut交友成人視訊85cc成人影城免費Ａ片aa的滿18歲影片小魔女免費影片小魔女免費影城免費看 aa的滿18歲影片sex383線上娛樂場kk777視訊俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片85cc免費影片a片免費看A片-sex520視訊做愛聊天室plus論壇sex520免費影片avdvd-情色網qq美美色網ut13077視訊聊天85cc免費影片aaa片免費看短片aa影片下載城aaaaa片俱樂部影片aaaaa片俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片小魔女免費影片台灣論壇免費影片後宮0204movie免費影片免費卡通影片線上觀看線上免費a片觀看85cc免費影片免費Ａ片aa影片下載城ut聊天室辣妹視訊UT影音視訊聊天室 日本免費視訊aaaa 片俱樂部aaa片免費看短片aaaa片免費看影片aaa片免費看短片免費視訊78論壇情色偷拍免費Ａ片免費aaaaa片俱樂部影片av俱樂部aaaa彩虹頻道免費影片 杜蕾斯成人免費卡通影片線上觀看85cc免費影片線上觀賞免費線上歐美A片觀看免費a片卡通aaa的滿18歲卡通影片sex520免費影片免費 a 片
自慰情色貼圖微風成人論壇貼圖成人貼圖免費成人片觀賞熊貓貼圖0204貼圖區區在線a片情色視訊聊天室熊貓貼圖區嘟嘟貼圖區貼圖片區一葉情貼圖片區漫畫貼圖6k聊天室成人貼圖站貼圖區百分百貼圖色情貼圖
Post a Comment
<< Home