tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36737438.post623581075571887273..comments2023-10-09T12:53:26.057-04:00Comments on USHistoryBlog.com: Survey Results: As time passes, how do you think history will rate Bill Clinton as president?klkatzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08972547410066863818noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36737438.post-68469848257034972592008-07-02T22:04:00.000-04:002008-07-02T22:04:00.000-04:00Hi Kevin. I'm sorry it has taken me so long to res...Hi Kevin. I'm sorry it has taken me so long to respond to you; I have been very busy, and have not even updated my own blogs. <BR/><BR/>I am glad that you are not personally offended at my comments. Thanks for welcoming my voice; I like good discussion too, so long as it is geared toward discovering truth.<BR/><BR/>I would like to respond to a few things you said in your comment. While it is true that people have variable standards about what is right and wrong, that does not change the fact that there is one; people can either take it or leave it and face consequences. And no matter what anyone thinks, being unfaithful to your wife, and abusing others, is wrong. Bill Clinton proved that even he knew that deep down inside, when he went to the extent of lying under oath before a grand jury to save his hide. <BR/><BR/>His decision (or rather, lifestyle), cannot be attributed to a lapse in judgment. People can know that what they are doing is wrong, but they will still do it if they do not have the will to resist it. Such is the case here. People who do those things are doing something worse than stupid; they are hurting themselves and other people for a moment's gratification. <BR/><BR/>We cannot make the mistake of separating one's personal character and morals with their public character. The Founders repeatedly warned us of making this mistake, and their reasons were steeped in common sense: if you can't trust a man to be honest and moral and to respect other people in their private lives, than how can you trust them to conduct themselves likewise while serving the public?<BR/><BR/>And what is leadership? Is it just being a good manager, organizer, and motivator? One who can unite, or tell other people what to do well? Or does it also involve setting an example that others should aspire to attain? Were not the great leaders of our past great because of their great personal character (Washington, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, etc)?<BR/><BR/>If Clinton could not keep his own marriage vow, or his vow to "tell the truth" in court, how can we know that he kept the Constitution? That was his whole job as president.<BR/><BR/><I>"I'd like to think that he is truly remorseful for his actions."</I><BR/><BR/>So would I. But I don't think that his character as it stands now gives much food for that hope.<BR/><BR/>Thanks again for inviting me to participate.Hercules Mulliganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09359315762800176142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36737438.post-22693530065437807472008-06-21T20:34:00.000-04:002008-06-21T20:34:00.000-04:00Clinton's "distractions" in the white house were i...Clinton's "distractions" in the white house were initially not a big deal to me, as there was plenty of precedent.....see John Kennedy. However, they just seemed to come out of the woodwork, and the fact that these women were summarily dismissed as fame seekers got a little old. I really felt sorry for Kathy Willey (sp?). <BR/><BR/>His finger wagging and twinkling of the eyes was more of his arrogance and posturing...the best defense is a good offense... and more annoying than W's smirk. <BR/><BR/>All in all, I believe these distractions and desire to continue to live the BMOC lifestyle really hurt the county. The bombings of the buildings in Africa, the USS Cole, and all the resulting empty speeches about how those responsible will be brought to justice, must have made us seem laughable. Those responsible, or their allies, took this as weakness and subsequently flew planes into our buildings. This, along with the weakening of our intellegence gathering, from using live assets to relying on technology, contributed greatly (but not all) of where we are today.<BR/><BR/>And don't get me started on the other half.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36737438.post-52113322081097762782008-06-20T00:08:00.000-04:002008-06-20T00:08:00.000-04:00Hey Herc,thanks for coming back.. haven't heard fr...Hey Herc,<BR/>thanks for coming back.. haven't heard from you in a while.<BR/><BR/>trust me, i can't take any of this personally.. it's not my character you're defiling, but i do feel i should state a few rebuttles.<BR/><BR/>i will preface this, with risk of alienating myself from some of my readers... by saying that everybody has their own views on what is perverse, and what parameters are used to rate a good leader. I'm not saying one is right and one is wrong, but that there will always be different levels of acceptance, no matter what the issue. <BR/><BR/>That said, I stated that Clinton had "questionable morals", I'm not defending what he did. As a married man, I don't agree with it. But I will say that, his "personal scandal" is in no way related to his leadership capability. He had a lapse in judgement. And he made a very, very bad decision. <BR/><BR/>I do understand your thoughts on his never being considered a great person, but I must say again, that everyone measures greatness with different parameters. I for one, think that his "personal scandal" is a personal issue, that was made a public issue, and I still stand behind my statement that (in my opinion) it didn't effect his ability to lead. I'd like to think that he is truly remorseful for his actions. <BR/><BR/>It appears like you and I are men of great principles, who may have to agree to disagree on this matter. <BR/><BR/>My bottom line is that we should keep personal vices and political accomplishments seperate. And base our thoughts on the latter, not the former. <BR/><BR/>Thanks for posting Herc...I'm a big fan of open dialogue.klkatzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08972547410066863818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36737438.post-13397780088643224882008-06-19T23:30:00.000-04:002008-06-19T23:30:00.000-04:00Hi Kevin. I haven't stopped by your blog in a whil...Hi Kevin. I haven't stopped by your blog in a while; it looks like I've got some catching up to do!<BR/><BR/>This post on Bill Clinton got my attention as I scanned over the new posts here since I'd last visited.<BR/><BR/>I don't have time to remark on all that was said here, but I take issue with the fact of Bill Clinton's (im)morality.<BR/><BR/>Since when is a "personal scandal" an insignificant matter in judging someone's character? If one is immoral (and Clinton has shown himself to be habitually immoral), than how can that person be a great person at all? YUK! If a man cannot keep his own marriage vow (made before God and man), than how can he be expected to keep his oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution? Answer: he can't be expected, because the man is dishonest. And Clinton didn't protect the Constitution; he destroyed our national sovereignty (he was one in a long line of Presidents who have been doing this), and he clearly has shown disrespect for the laws of the land (for example, lying under oath).<BR/><BR/>A surprising 19% voted him to worst President indeed -- more voters should have thought the same! A man didn't control his own perverse tendencies to save the honor of the high office he held! This is an outrage.<BR/><BR/>I do not mean to pick on you personally, sir, but I think your nonchalant way of treating this serious subject explains why this disgusting character is more frequent in our public officials! They know that we really don't care if they act sick and perverse -- even during their public tenure -- so they do it, and then pretend to be remorseful and sorry when they get in front of the camera after exposure. Hypocrites are not great men.<BR/><BR/>I could go on to disagree with you on matters of his "accomplishments" on the economy and foreign policy, but I think I have said enough here.<BR/><BR/>I ask you please, not to take my remarks personally, but to take them seriously. In vindication of my principles, I would like to post a quote from John Adams. He was speaking in reference to women, as those most involved in the raising of children, but I think the same can be said for men, too:<BR/><BR/>"The foundation of national morality must be laid in private families.... How is it possible that Children can have any just Sense of the sacred Obligations of Morality or Religion if, from their earliest Infancy, they learn their Mothers live in habitual Infidelity to their fathers, and their fathers in as constant Infidelity to their Mothers?"<BR/><BR/>The Founders believed that for a free republic to survive, society must be made up of moral and religious individuals. This means that the grossest immorality, including fornication, must be shunned and forbidden. To find that this immorality should be a more frequently-exposed habit in our public officials is a shocking indicator of the crumbling foundations of our free republic.Hercules Mulliganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09359315762800176142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36737438.post-83861975938055905452008-06-14T18:52:00.000-04:002008-06-14T18:52:00.000-04:00to anonymous - re: your commentGeorge Bush lied to...to anonymous - re: your comment<BR/><BR/>George Bush lied to the entire country... for years, and years.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36737438.post-83275687318019241262008-06-13T09:20:00.000-04:002008-06-13T09:20:00.000-04:00three words "Lied under oath"three words "Lied under oath"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com