|
|
|
|
|
| HOME | NEWS | DEAR REDIFF | |||
|
MESSAGE BOARD |
|
|
E-mail from readers the world over
Clinton is no hero!
Date:
Thu, 23 Mar 2000 14:09:43EST -0800 That was a nice article about what a great guy Clinton is. But the fact is that he lied to the American public -- under oath -- and got away with it. What message does that convey to the youth in America? That it is okay to lie and cheat as long as you have the power of a political office behind you or the money to back you. Bill Clinton is just a regular guy, one who ran when it was time to serve his country; one who has no idea what the government workers really do; one who couldn't care less how hard it is for the average GS-5 to make ends meet even after almost 25 years service to the United States Government. These people are stuck in jobs at the highest level within that grade and are unable to advance because of rules requiring that a person in an upper grade also be a member of the military and maintain that membership under penalty of losing their civilian job if they don't. Oh yes, we definitely need more guys like Clinton. Then maybe we can all work for slave wages, letting our taxes suck us dry to pay for all those `poor' people who do nothing but produce children. Sorry to sound so bitter, but I have had my fill of this 'great guy' and his 'wonderful wife' for the past eight years. Now if we can just keep Hillary out of New York, I will be really happy. Sandra Heglund
Date:
Thu, 23 Mar 2000 16:56:58EST -0800 What an inane, stupid article. The writer sounds like an employee of Clinton's public relations agency. Or a school child looking for a hero to worship. Clinton is no hero! The article fails to mention the fact that most Americans are totally fed-up with Clinton, with his lies and his manipulation of the government. We do not consider him to be a great man. We consider him a disgrace. B Nicholson
Date:
Thu, 23 Mar 2000 20:01:17EST -0500 While you attempt to portray Clinton as such a wonderful person and are clearly biased against George W Bush, you have overlooked the single key difference between Clinton and other honorable persons -- Clinton has no moral values. Do not minimise the charges against him, those of perjury, obstruction of justice and the fact that he has been found guilty of a felony committed while in office. Harry Daniels
Date:
Thu, 23 Mar 2000 08:10:16EST -0600 Clinton stinks! I would not want him for a neighbour as my personal belongings and anything female, including my dog, would not be safe with him around. Don Alexander
Date:
Fri, 24 Mar 2000 13:41:19EST -0600 We can be spared this feel-good crap. Bill Clinton is a liar to a federal judge; to the American people; to his White House staff; to his family and to his friends. He is anything but compassionate. In fact, he should be made to give up his office for all that he has done. Allan Measom
Date:
Fri, 24 Mar 2000 15:29:09EST I think the title of this column was a disgrace. You owe Clinton an apology for it. I'd shake President's Clinton hand with pride though I would not shake the hand of G W Bush of Texas. Now why don't you do a piece on shaking hands with Mr Bush, and while you are at it shake the hands of some of the families of the people he has put behind bars in Texas thanks to the strong prosecution team there. It is now a joke in the Texas courthouse -- that if you walk in through the front door you don't walk out. Texas is a mess. Bush and the good ole' boys are shredding the Constitution. Now, how about ten thoughts before you shake the hand of G W Bush?
Date:
Fri, 24 Mar 2000 13:00:43EST -0600 I thought the article on Clinton was written by a child, it is so naive and shallow. To many Americans, Bill Clinton represents all that is wrong with our country. He has no moral integrity and is always measuring himself against what he can get away with. He claims to believe in God and in the tenets of Christianity upon which the US constitution is founded. However, Clinton's behavior shows us a man who has no respect for what is right and wrong, a man who does not believe that eternal consequences await immoral behavior. He is, in short, an embarrassment to a large number of Americans who deeply love our country and yearn for an honorable person to dwell in the White House.
Laura L Hornbeck,
Date:
Fri, 24 Mar 2000 09:27:01EST -0600 This article is factually incorrect in many respects. For instance, Clinton did not appoint Alan Greenspan, he inherited him. Greenspan was a Republican appointee (the position is for six years, deliberately meant not to correspond with the Presidential elections). As for the USA's economic expansion, it had little to do with either man. Instead it had a great deal to do with the end of the Cold War and the payoff of the technological explosion. In this very large and diverse economy, it takes about 20 years for these economic 'pluses' to be felt. Nothing is noted of Clinton's record in Arkansas either, which was quite disgraceful in many ways. Recently, a national correspondent admitted to me that Arkansas reporters tried to warn the national press that this was a deeply flawed man but no one listened. This correspondent now profoundly regrets ignoring his fellow journalists. They knew Clinton better than he did and they knew that he was a liar, a cheat and a master manipulator, facts which we all now know. Hillary Clinton was probably more influential than she kept telling us she was: She is the one with the brains and he is the one with the personality. Clinton is also incredibly lazy and always has been so, a fact that is a very well kept secret. Judith Williams
Date:
Fri, 24 Mar 2000 09:42:14EST -0600 What strange ideas you have about our president! First of all, he is not "a man of uncertain parentage." He was raised by a stepfather, that's all. In the United States, divorce is quite common and his family situation was not especially unusual. What is unusual is for a US president to rise from such a modest socio-economic station, since US presidents are typically from wealthy and influential families (as are the two current presidential candidates, Al Gore and George W Bush). I think an American would find it very strange that you constantly refer to Clinton as "handsome." First of all, most Americans would not consider him handsome if for no other reason than the fact that he is overweight. You may not know that before the Lewinsky scandal, American comedians constantly made fun of his girth, his penchant for McDonald's hamburgers, etc. You Indians seem to have more tolerance or even fondness for overweight men, perhaps because you associate obesity with prosperity. In America, it is quite the opposite. Secondly, we do not typically think it normal or appropriate to talk about the physical attractiveness or unattractiveness of our leaders, except perhaps in private. Your citing his "compassion" is somewhat strange. Most Americans, both his supporters and detractors, feel that his displays of public emotion are not especially genuine and that one of his greatest political assets is the ability to turn on and off such displays at will. His whole "I feel your pain" philosophy of governance is one that many Americans distrust. And to say "he is quite compassionate at funerals and in black neighborhoods" and "one index of compassion is the black vote" would strike many Americans as borderline racist statements. Not all black neighborhoods are tragic. And it is offensive to imply that black people are easily swayed by emotional displays. If anything, blacks support Clinton because they have no real alternative. As one prominent black politician has said, "A black man voting Republican is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders." The anecdote about Clinton saying, "Dammit, I'll never be able to see the Taj Mahal," seems pretty unlikely. Is the first thing the President thinks about during an international policy crisis his travel plans? No doubt you are trying to paint Clinton as a sympathetic figure to Indians, but I think you are trying a bit too hard. The rest of the article seems to suffer more from its strange tone than any factual inaccuracies. You do raise some very important points -- Clinton's foreign policy is fairly widely regarded among both political parties as a failure, but the American electorate simply has never known or cared whatsoever about foreign policy. It is debatable that the current prosperity in the United States has anything to do with Clinton or with Greenspan, but these things are hard to know. No doubt Clinton's popularity has been largely due to Americans feeling good about the economy; whether or not Clinton has been responsible for this, it has coincided with his presidency. If there are no drastic economic changes in the next few months, most of us expect that Al Gore will be the next president of the United States.
Andrew Nicholson
Date:
Fri, 24 Mar 2000 09:51:52EST -0800 It is always interesting to read opinions of people from a different part of the world. Before writing my main comment, I must state that I find it disappointing that you feel it a common trait of men to be unable to control their tempers. Am I correct in reading into your remark that it is a common trait of Indian men and that it is acceptable? I believe that President Reagan appointed Greenspan, President Clinton renewed his term. I do realise that saying Clinton 'selected' Greenspan is technically correct, he did re-select him. However, it does tend to mislead the reader into believing that Clinton is more responsible for Greenspan's polices which is not the case. I am a Republican, I voted for Clinton in 1992 mainly because I did not want Bush to be re-elected. I believe Bill Clinton is a disgrace to the presidency and am glad that he cannot be re-elected. I mention this to state my biases, but I still don't think that should take away from my memory of who appointed Alan Greenspan and my belief that President Clinton was more fortunate in the timing of his presidency than in the appointments he made.
William R Daane
Date:
Fri, 24 Mar 2000 10:03:44EST -0800 I am originally from Ethiopia. I had studied engineering in India way back in the 80's. As a result, I follow Indian news and events closely and certainly more these days with President Clinton's visit. Your article is excellent except for the first paragraph. You had no right whatsoever to say that he is of doubtful parentage and so on. That shadowed your otherwise excellent assessment of his character and accomplishments.
Dr Sam Kassegne
Date:
Fri, 24 Mar 2000 05:47:52EST What do I think of this piece? It is dreadful and shallow, written without any real perspective or insight into American values. Obviously the writer is from another galaxy!
|
||
|
HOME |
NEWS |
BUSINESS |
MONEY |
SPORTS |
MOVIES |
CHAT |
INFOTECH |
TRAVEL SINGLES | NEWSLINKS | BOOK SHOP | MUSIC SHOP | GIFT SHOP | HOTEL BOOKINGS AIR/RAIL | WEATHER | MILLENNIUM | BROADBAND | E-CARDS | EDUCATION HOMEPAGES | FREE EMAIL | CONTESTS | FEEDBACK |
||