Sunday, October 23, 2005


Come on in. Lie down on my couch there. I’m gonna explain a few things here.

You’re probably wondering why I didn’t explain them before.

Well, the answer is simple: I didn’t understand them before.

And then the article about Louis Freeh’s book came out on Drudge. (Read the article here.)

Remember in the movie, Apocalypse Now, when Brando’s character describes the sudden flash of light in his mind when he discovered the VC had cut off the arms of the children he had vaccinated?

Okay! It drove him insane. Bad analogy.

But except for that… (Except for that? You clown! How can you say, except for that?) (This is my blog. I can say what I want.)

Anyway, the Louie Freeh stuff gave me a flash of insight.

(It didn’t drive you insane?) (No, it didn’t drive me insane. Maybe I should start over.) (No way. Let’s see how deep you can dig this hole.)

I was thinking, even before all this, and this was my biggest problem with President Clinton, that he was a security risk. I would hope that someone with his history and weaknesses could not gain high level security clearance at any government agency.

Blackmail is by far, by a country mile, the most common way of gaining access to a country’s vital secrets.

Some might argue that money is the more common way. That may be true in the first instance, but money is just the hook. Just as sex is just the hook. After someone receives the money or gets the sex, the threat of exposure keeps them in line. That is blackmail, my friend. Who can deny that President Clinton may have been vulnerable to blackmail?

In the history of the United States, what president would have been a bigger security risk than Bill Clinton?

I wish I could live another hundred years or so just to see how history will judge him.

(This is all bullcrap. History will love him. But what does this have to do with Bush?)

(I was getting to that.)

Remember when Clinton was at his lowest ebb, when he was involved in scandal after scandal?

(Now you got me confused. You mean before he was elected, or during his first term, or the first part of his second term, or the second part of his second term or in the last days of his presidency?)


I honestly thought that Clinton’s only problem was that he was a sex addict. But then I read in the article on Freeh that he took donations (small donations in the realm of world politics) in return for calling off investigations into deadly attacks on American nationals.

When he reached these low ebbs, his defenders would dig into the history of other presidents and say, “See, these guys were just as bad.” That was their defense.

(Oh yeah. Wasn’t Jefferson screwing a slave or something like that? I remember that. But so what?)

Let me put this in order:
1. The Freeh piece is not the first and by far not the last to come out on the Clinton years. I doubt if flattering pieces will see the light of day unless the publisher is willing to take a financial hit. Look for explosive exposes.
2. All in the inner circle, the outer circle, and most in the outer, outer circle were aware of the problems but went on to defend him never-you-mind.
3. It has resulted in tremendous guilt on the part of his defenders, a loss of self esteem and a feeling that they have betrayed their country by having defended him.
4. This, in turn, has resulted in a lashing out at Clinton’s successor in the presidency. The hatred that they heap on him is really hatred that they feel towards themselves for having defended a man of questionable integrity, to say the least.

And that is why President Bush is so hated by the left.

(That’s all BS and you know it.)

(Our hour is up. Check with the receptionist for your next appointment.)

(I’m never coming back.)

(That’s what you always say. We’ll discuss that next time.)


Blogger Das said...

Remember Artie on the old LaughIn show? (German Accent) Veerry Interesting...

I like this theory and will ponder it.

Cheers, great bunch of posts.

October 30, 2005 at 5:39 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home