Text 17936, 117 rader
Skriven 2006-02-20 20:57:17 av Stan Hardegree (1:123/789.0)
  Kommentar till text 17841 av BOB SAKOWSKI (1:123/140)
Ärende: Half-witted Arkansan
============================
Nothing is quite as fun as reading the accurately transcribed words of the
biggest idiot ever to occupy the Oval Office.  This one - presented in
part - is particularly good, although I'm pretty sure the writer does not
achieve his goal of making Slick Willy seem introspective - intelligent:
........

..  On what he learned from reading about Lincoln, particularly his apparent
struggles with depression:

"I don't know if he could get elected today with his mental health history.
But what I learned was that when Lincoln became president and the country
was coming apart at the seams and he was trying so hard to hold it together,
he almost became so absorbed in the work and the mission and the suffering
of others that it lifted the burden off of him."

(Now, Slick is supposedly a Rhodes scholar, although he bailed out of the
program when he was sure he was in no danger of having to serve in the
military, but this clown is about as intellectually unimpressive and
inarticulate as a run of the mill, trailer park redneck.  But you like that
manly jaw, don't you, Ski?)

..  On whether successful presidents share common traits:

"Leadership styles are diverse. Not all of them are charismatic, but all of
[the presidents] who succeeded were seen as strong and had a certain kind of
compass."

(Leadership styles are diverse?  No shit?  Learn something new every day.
Wonder what kind of compass they had?  Slick tells us it was a certain kind.
Is Slick talking about a moral compass?  Do moral compasses point toward
interns?  Do they mandate the persecution of  Billy Dale - the immolation of
women and kids at Waco?)

..  On whether he believes that in office, he most resembled any individual
predecessor:

"No. [I think] there were some similarities in decision-making to the way
[John F.] Kennedy did it, but he didn't live long enough for us to know
that. I really liked Teddy Roosevelt because he experimented and did things,
and

(So Slick's decision making style resembled that of a former president who
didn't live long enough to determine what his decision making style was?
Slick didn't really think this one through, did he, Bob?)

because he supported free markets but restraints on them. I identified with
him, but he was more bellicose and imperialistic than I am.

(I wonder what the Bosnians, Haitians, Kosovars, Somalians, Afghanistanis,
Iraqis and Branch Davidians think about this claim?  Slick attacked or
occupied them all at one time or another.)

..  On whether it is dangerous for a president to draw too many analogies
from history:

"Absolutely. It is important to understand history, and I think you can
learn a lot of personal lessons from [past presidents]. I read a lot about
Nixon, [Lyndon B.] Johnson and Kennedy before I was president. [I learned]
it is very important when you put the White House staff together and the
Cabinet that you find people who know things you don't know and then feel
perfectly comfortable telling you when they think you're wrong.

(Or perfectly comfortable trotting out onto the White House lawn to plead
with the world that their boss is not a lying scumbag.  Whoops.)

"You can also learn a lot about having to make decisions and what kind of
alone time you need by studying the presidents whose agenda was not so
crowded. I've spent a lot of time trying to study how these people allocated
their time and how they organized their business.

(Wonder how much time Teddy Roosevelt set aside each day for fucking the
hired help?)

"I also think it's important not to be imprisoned by [history]. [Take Iraq]:
The people who thought it was a walk in the park were naive and didn't know
anything about Iraq. But the people who thought it was Vietnam were also
wrong. It is something else entirely."

(Uh oh, Airman!  You told us that Vietnam IS Iraq.  The Clinton doesn't
agree, Ski.  How do you resolve the fact that He disagrees with you, bearing
in mind that The Clinton didn't say shit beyond "it is something else
entirely.")

..  On the way historians rank presidents:

"I really think the circumstances determine where you are ranked - whether
you have big wars, like the Civil

(Circumstances do that??  No kidding?  Man, this guy could teach this stuff
in college!)

War or World War II. But there are three or four tests you can apply to any
president, which are much fairer than ranking them where the deal is rigged
based on the time in which they served.

(The deal is rigged.  This worthless son of a bitch is still pissed that 911
didn't happen on his watch.)

"First, did they understand their times and articulate a vision of a more
perfect union? Did they refrain from abusing their power? Then you have to
say, Did they execute [their agenda], and were people better off when they
stopped than when they started?

(Have we ever recovered the 90 some-odd FBI files that this scumbag and his
fishwife pilfered from the FBI while they were not abusing their power?
"Were people better off when they stopped than when they started?"  Deep.
Introspective.  Articulate.  And I can think of quite of few in Waco, Texas
who were most certainly NOT better off by the time The Clinton "stopped.")

"Those tests are fair to apply to every president."

(Here's the test we apply:  Was he impeached?  Was he disbarred?  Did his
legacy carry on to the next generation with the election of his vice
president?  In Slick's case, yes, yes and no.  Well done, Willy!)

--- Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
 * Origin:  (1:123/789.0)