IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Undead horse watch
Covering the neverending battle for Bill Clinton's legacy.

You gotta admire his tenacity.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
New NYC revival? He's on the job.
[link|http://www.nj.com/newsflash/jersey/index.ssf?/newsflash/get_story.ssf?/cgi-free/getstory_ssf.cgi?j0268_BC_NY--Attacks-BillClint&&news&newsflash-newjersey|He's not gonna settle for a measly 20 billion. Do, do, do! Halleluiah!]

Especially ironic excerpt:

Clinton told them: "I have always believed that a free people could face anything -- as long as they understood the circumstances they're facing. ... We just have to settle down, develop our defenses, and we'll be fine."

I say:

He's not exactly an authority at either settling down or developing defenses. He's more a shoot himself in the foot and then bomb a baby milk factory kind of guy. But he does know how to pander to an audience, and he was in fine form that night.


[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
New Clinton regrets not plunging us into disaster more promptly.
[link|http://www.ourfuture.org/readarticle.asp?ID=625|It's all about him]

Excerpt:

n his last State of the Union address, on Thursday night, President Bill Clinton will celebrate the nation's prosperity and outline an ambitious agenda for his last year--but his eye will be on history. Even in the springtime of his presidency, Clinton was absorbed by his potential rank in history. He reportedly complained to his political guru, Dick Morris, that history had dealt him a bad hand. Without a great war or depression to fight, he couldn't rank with the greatest presidents. But he had high hopes to make the second tier, beside Theodore Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman.

The conventional wisdom on Clinton's legacy is already congealing. He'll be credited for presiding over the longest economic expansion in the county's history--and stained with the follies that led to his impeachment. But historians are likely to focus on questions that get little attention today. The president may end up being treated far more harshly because of how he played the hand that history dealt him. He was elected at a momentous moment of great national challenge and opportunity that the nation, beguiled by prosperity and bemused by partisan posturing, has largely squandered.


I say:

The irony here shouldn't need pointing out, but I'll err on the side of caution. (Obviously the author of the cited article manmanges to miss it somehow.) His fans are giving him credit for the economy, but he's saying he wished the economy had been worse, and implies that it wasn't up to him. It was up to history.

So we should all give history the credit for that great economy, and not Clinton? It's pretty clear from his words that he never had our best interests at heart. If he'd had his way, we'd have had a world war and economic disaster on *his* watch. It finally happened, but too late for his purposes.

Maybe if it hadn't been for that impeachment nonsense, he could have brought it about sooner. Looks like the Repo men messed up his timing.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
New Only carrion watch dead horses.
New Err.. Carrion *eaters*... but yeah...
New Yes of course.. dazzled by The Reg's logo. :-\ufffd
New Clinton comes out and blames America for 911!
Actually, he blames dead Americans for the terror. Dead Crusaders, too.

I'm pretty damn sure it wasn't long dead Americans piloting those planes on 911. But [link|http://www.washtimes.com/national/20011108-470100.htm|BJ Clinton does tend to see things a different way].

Excerpt:

Bill Clinton, the former president, said yesterday that terror has existed in America for hundreds of years and the nation is "paying a price today" for its past of slavery and for looking "the other way when a significant number of native Americans were dispossessed and killed."

"Here in the United States, we were founded as a nation that practiced slavery, and slaves quite frequently were killed even though they were innocent," said Mr. Clinton in a speech to nearly 1,000 students at Georgetown University's ornate Gaston Hall.
"This country once looked the other way when a significant number of native Americans were dispossessed and killed to get their land or their mineral rights or because they were thought of as less than fully human.
"And we are still paying a price today," said Mr. Clinton, who was invited to address the students by the university's School of Foreign Service.
Mr. Clinton, wearing a gray suit and orange tie, arrived 45 minutes late for the event. Some students camped out overnight to obtain tickets.

[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
New Clinton comes out and blames Clinton for 9/11!
Did he also happen to mention:

1) The aspirin factory bombing in the Sudan the killed civilians.
2) The airstrikes in the Balkans that killed civilians (wasn't it a bus or train that was blown up when we attacked a key bridge?).
3) The tens of thousands of civilians that died in Iraq due to our bombing and economic sanctions from '92 - '00.
4) The thousands of civilians that died in Somalia during our military operations in '93 (something like a thousand during the 'Black Hawk Down' action).
5) The cruise missle bombings in Afghanistan.
6) The dead women and children at Waco.

Apparently, American, even when lead by it's most intelligent and magnaminous president ever, can't keep itself from killing. We are hopeless.
Ray
Expand Edited by rsf Nov. 8, 2001, 02:02:49 PM EST
New About that point 3
The reasons pepple are suffering in Iraq are: Hussein is slaughtering the Kurds, and Hussein is spending all the money from the oil we allow him to sell on his presidential palaces, instead of on the common people where it's supposed to go.

But if you grant the blame America argument, of course it would follow that Clinton is to blame for that stuff too.

And if you don't buy the blame America argument (as no reasonable and informed person would) never fear. There are plenty enough reasons to feel contempt for Clinton that we can easily afford to forego this one.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
New I know
I was just pointing out the Catch-22 in Clinton's drivel.
Ray
New If that's all you got out of that all..
You can't be a reporter for my paper.
RTFS.

Tell me that: before 9/11, Muricans generally WEREN'T grossly ignorant of what most of the world thinks, why they think what they think.. and to a large extent: ignorant of much we *have done* (and even - our rationale for *doing it then*).

(And for you I'd have to add, 'not merely the ugly we have done': all we have done including the admirable.)

Sheesh.
New Don't bother. It is a waste of time.
New Wash. Times take on the infamous speech.
[link|http://www.washtimes.com/national/20011109-125450.htm|Wesley Pruden swipes back on behalf of America]

Juicy excerpts:

Mr. Clinton went to Georgetown University the other day to relieve himself of his heaviest thoughts about terrorism, and he couldn't resist taking a few potshots at the nation that honored him with two terms in the White House. Every time we think that not even Bill Clinton could caricature Bill Clinton's shabbiness, he does...

He didn't say what the hundreds of foreigners killed at the World Trade Center were paying the price for, nor why any of the Americans slain on September 11 \ufffd none of whom ever owned a slave or so far as we know slew an Indian \ufffd owed a debt to anyone...

Mr. Clinton, muddling history to make a point of what a moral tyke he was in a sea of redneck scum, quickly achieved lift-off and was off on a riff, reminiscent of his famous yarn of how he was sickened as a boy in Arkansas by the sight of black churches in flames, torched by white klansmen. When this was too much even for his footmen, flunkeys and factotums back home, who reminded him that for all their sins the white folks in Arkansas had never burned anyone's church, black or white, the president confessed that well, yes, he had made up the story, but he was just trying to pander to an audience of carpetbaggers, scalawags and other Yankee trash.

I'll say one thing in Clinton's favor:

He probably didn't mean what he said. Or anything else he's ever said on any subject. His problem is he's not too picky who he panders to.

[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
New OK, I'm about done replying to your "juicy" jingoistic crap.
I've seen a lot More of it than you have, and over a lot more years of cute-shadings. Your filter-glasses are evident: you think You Know *The Truth\ufffd* - no matter how complex and contradictory the topic and the limited sources.

Got news: The Truth does not exist 'here' - it is a Pop fantasy that it does. We only ever muddle through with 'truth-seeming' tiny pieces.

You couldn't even read C's speech with a Freshman's comprehension - too busy looking for a Flag to be waved over every phrase. IF NO-FLAG THEN COMMIE-PINKO + sex + sex + sex.

No Sale.
Dear Lord, please protect me from the wrath of those who Know (also from: your Followers).
New latest skank report! did she lie? her lips are moving! :)
Sorry Ash couldnt help it.
[link|http://www.drudgereport.com/mattch1.htm|earl]
****************************
Breaking her media silence once and for all -- Chelsea writes in great detail about her personal experience on the morning
of September 11.

But, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, her account now sharply conflicts with her mother's version of Chelsea's New York
adventure.
******************************
I bet she puts on her underwear one slither at a time
thanx,
bill
tshirt front "born to die before I get old"
thshirt back "fscked another one didnja?"
New Solution: never tell a journalist *anything* 24/7.
New OT you have experience with waveforms right?
trying to come up with an idea. Can language be determined by an examination of a recording of a voice conversation by using an examination of the sound wave. Instead of hundreds of linguists a single solitary chip could identify the language being spoken.
thanx,
bill
tshirt front "born to die before I get old"
thshirt back "fscked another one didnja?"
New Don't know enough.
Spectrum analyzer is one view; FFT (Fourier) another. In real time - some phonemes are discernible by those who stare at lots of these, particularly the 'attack', start of a sibilant. There could well be a few noticeable characteristics, especially statistically over a lengthy message.

Whether this adds up to (anyone?) being capable of inferring accent? language..? can't say. If it's hard for a people to do, would have to be lots harder for a robot. It would be one big modelling and stat program (?)

Like say: grading diamonds via Tee Vee camera ?! in the visual sphere.

Sorry,

A.
New The idea is what the feds are asking help with
if the language can be identified, the recording can be shipped to a linguist for translation. The req is for identifying specific languages by machine and trigger a data point for further investigation.
thanx,
bill
tshirt front "born to die before I get old"
thshirt back "fscked another one didnja?"
New I can appreciate the utility..
But in my friend trying to teach me a little of *correctly inflected* Russian (and I have a good ear for, voice for 'language sounds', generally) - you'd (maybe) not believe how Many ways you can (try to) say:

Tu\ufffd\ufffd grosnya kapitalistichiskaya sviny\ufffd!
You filthy capitalist swine!

I know that the scope display of just one of these words (storage scope that is) would show the nasal, throat qualities as lo-freq. waveforms, with the sibillants as hi-freq modulation at start.. but -

Now add-in the mumblers, the couth-less, the local acc\ufffdnts.. Perhaps Ben's suggestions below - can tell you how near we might be. I'd opine that: if voice-recog. is up to querying a truly International glossary of sounds VS a valid sample of a message of more than a few words: your accuracy would reflect the state of the (Office) art.

I do recall that (couple years ago I think) there were some algorithms better suited for one-shot guesstimates / others for (the 'training' approach). The latter produced much higher overall accuracy (99% for deliberate slow speech?).

You can bet the Feds have had a chat with IBM and Kurtzweill (?) already. Can also bet - further improvement will Not come from a Billy, "writing neat tight C+ code"* (the pompous, arrogant snivelling Lying bastard). You can't code without a productive algorithm (right?)

* yeah the little prick actually Said that was "his hobby!" - got a link somewhere.

Luck,
A.

New how I would approach the problem
have a US groupie walk thru the bazaar in Quetta, Kabul, Medina with an open mike and record all the sounds. run software that will turn it into waves match these files against crowd noise in other countries. The aggregate will define those slop mouths, mumblers non native language speakers etc and hopefully an common identifier. If the general theory sounds interesting I will be putting in a bid. They have approached the usual suspects for this kind of thing but they have failed. It is now being presented to the garage inventors, the tinkeres, the IWETHEYers. If the one page concept will get flagged I will need a three page then the next step is a detailed outline followed by a contract for work. This is something we as a group could share in although not all might be in favor of that particular ability to pick out a language like that.
thanx,
bill
tshirt front "born to die before I get old"
thshirt back "fscked another one didnja?"
New It's a tough problem.
Current speech recognition software usually has to be trained (e.g. voice dictation stuff like IBM's Via Voice), and has a limited vocabulary.

[link|http://www.sensoryinc.com/|Sensory, Inc.] makes chips for voice activation and speech synthesis.

[link|http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.05/tpmap.html|Wired] has an article on universal translation issues.

And NSA and other government agencies probably have people working on this problem too...

In the problem you posed, you'd have to be able to distinguish between things like heavy dialects and sloppy grammar, and language differences. And just identifying the language is only the first step - after all you want to know what they're yammering, not just the language. :-)

I remember hearing a seminar from someone doing research for the Air Force in the late 1970s who was trying to figure out how to define "B-ness" as a first step toward designing a system to read printed text. Independent of the font. It's not trivial, but it's a problem that's pretty well solved now (for some values of "solved").

He also told of how people would say:

"Merry Mary got married" in different regions of the country. "Meery meery got meeried" and dozens of variations.

Think of the different ways people say "water".

I'm no expert, so take my thoughts with a grain of salt. :-)

Happy hunting!

Cheers,
Scott.
New Probably only generally
Voice recognition software at a more fundamental level takes speech and breaks it into recognizable phoenemes (ie specific chunks of sound that make up parts of syllables) and then puts them back together into syllables and words.

But you should be able to make a good guess as to what language is being spoken by just taking the raw phoenemes and doing a frequency analysis on them. That combined with some basic analysis of rhythmic patterns is probably what you do when you can tell that it sounds like someone you aren't listening to closely sounds like they are talking in German, Italian, etc.

Cheers,
Ben
New Thank you...
I will remember Wesley Pruden's name from now on.


What happened on September 11, he told the students, wouldn't surprise anyone as erudite as he is, because, well, America had it coming. The 5,000 innocents murdered on that day of infamy were paying the debt that America owes to the past. This is similar to the thoughtless remarks of the Revs. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson (who had the decency to apologize and clarify), except that Mr. Clinton inserted a different set of villains. We're all guilty, stupid.

"Here in the United States," he said, "we were founded as a nation that practiced slavery, and slaves quite frequently were killed even though they were innocent. This country once looked the other way when a significant number of Native Americans were dispossessed and killed to get their land or their mineral rights or because they were thought of as less than fully human. And we are still paying the price today."


Interesting. [link|http://www.georgetown.edu/admin/publicaffairs/protocol_events/events/clinton_glf110701.htm| Here's ] his speech according to Georgetown.


First, we have to win the fight we are in and in that I urge you to keep three things in mind. First of all, terror, the killing of noncombatants for economic, political, or religious reasons has a very long history as long as organized combat itself, and yet, it has never succeeded as a military strategy standing on its own, but it has been around a long time. Those of us who come from various European lineages are not blameless. Indeed, in the first Crusade, when the Christian soldiers took Jerusalem, they first burned a synagogue with 300 Jews in it, and proceeded to kill every woman and child who was Muslim on the Temple mound. The contemporaneous descriptions of the event describe soldiers walking on the Temple mound, a holy place to Christians, with blood running up to their knees. I can tell you that that story is still being told to today in the Middle East and we are still paying for it. Here in the United States, we were founded as a nation that practiced slavery and slaves were, quite frequently, killed even though they were innocent. This country once looked the other way when significant numbers of Native Americans were dispossessed and killed to get their land or their mineral rights or because they were thought of as less than fully human and we are still paying the price today. Even in the 20th century in America people were terrorized or killed because of their race. And even today, though we have continued to walk, sometimes to stumble, in the right direction, we still have the occasional hate crime rooted in race, religion, or sexual orientation. So terror has a long history.

The second point I want to make is, in that long history, no terrorist campaign standing on its own has ever won, and conventional military strategies that have included terrorism with it have won because of conventional military power, and terrorism has normally been a negative. I will just give you one example from my childhood. In the Civil War, General Sherman waged a brilliant military campaign to cut through the South and go to Atlanta. It was significant and very helpful in bringing the Civil War to a close in a way to, thank God, save the Union. On the way, General Sherman practiced a relatively mild form of terrorism-he did not kill civilians, but he burned all the farms and then he burned Atlanta, trying to break the spirit of the Confederates. It had nothing whatever to do with winning the Civil War, but it was a story that was told for a hundred years later, and prevented America from coming together as we might otherwise have done. When I was a boy growing up in the segregated South, when we should have been thinking about how we were going to integrate the schools and give people equal opportunity, people were making excuses for unconscionable behavior by talking about what Sherman had done a hundred years ago. So, it is important to remember that normally terrorism has backfired and never has it succeeded on its own.


New Followup - by the Washington Times...

President Clinton is saying two things: First, that terror is a centuries-old tactic whose use has long-lasting implications; second, the United States is not unblemished when it comes to abuses of the human spirit and freedom. This is a far cry from acknowledging that the United States is to blame for Sept. 11.

[...]

It is not a great speech. Many of the policy recommendations he makes are flawed. And he diminishes what is good through several typically self-congratulatory points about events over which reasonable people do differ.

[...]

But President Clinton also states: "The terrorists killed people who came to America not to die, but dream, from every continent, from dozens of countries, most every religion on the face of the earth, including in large numbers Islam." This is a correct and profoundly moving statement.

While it is sensible to always parse a Bill Clinton speech down to the last comma, in this case he is getting a bum rap.


[link|http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/09112001-015809-2387r.htm| source ]
New thank You.
I wasn't willing to parse it for him. Good that you did.

My supposition is that, by now it is possible for most people who want to: to separate out a (perhaps unfamiliar and certainly uncomfortable) re-view, that famous 20/20 hindsight - of US actions in neighboring countries and elsewhere.

It is hardly a record of rapine and pillage, quite more the opposite - but with many naive and some stupid errors of judgment. Some of those caused such egregious harm as in Chile, and our complicity in the killing of Allende. Then there were the Contras: Freedom Fighters to a Patriot-Reagan; terrorists to those murdered by them and with our assistance. More and mere fucking with language. Keep it black & white for the simplistic minded, but things rarely are other than.. *grey*, with tissues of overlapping 'interests' and scheming and - agitprop for the masses on all multi-sides.

None (or all?) of these activities came close to the mass murder of thousands of 'pure civilians' as was 9/11. Calling that tit-for-tat is malevolent hyperbole, not of the same class as trying to face some of the sources of others' discontent with our periodic ignorant or even ugly behavior.

Power *does* corrupt and we are not immune from that 'law'. I'd settle for our simply recognizing generally: that indeed we do screw up, have screwed up and.. will again. It is human and it's a Gaussian - not White hats / Black hats nearly so often as our internal propaganda would ever portray any event.

Anyway.. to take Clinton's words out of context as being some "justification for 9/11" is at the juvenile rant level of a Rush and a Drudge - suitable for children you want to warp into little conspiracy theorists. But it makes adults puke.


A.
New Presidential underdog breaks same old ground.
[link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64912-2001Dec5.html|He's got his library, but the battle for the legacy continues]

Excerpt:

Before picking up his shovel, Clinton gave what by the standards of this lifetime campaigner was a fairly subdued statement of his case. There were boasts about an eight-year period of "peace, prosperity, social justice and social progress," but also a blunt reference to the failure of his first-term effort to pass health care reform. He sermonized about the virtues of public service and the perils of the world after Sept. 11. There was, inevitably, a reference to that "bridge to the 21st century," the metaphor Clinton rode with merciless repetition to reelection in 1996. And there was one clear jab at his successor, President George W. Bush.

The jab came when Clinton talked about how people will be able to read the documents that explain presidential decisions once "the classification period ends -- and at this library it will end." One of Bush's recent executive orders would allow presidents and former presidents to extend the period during which documents are sealed. Presidential scholars have called that order an assault on history and many skeptics have said Bush is trying to protect his father and others from embarrassing exposures about their actions during the Reagan-Bush years.

After the ceremony, Clinton friend and White House lawyer Bruce Lindsey jokingly offered another reason there is no great urgency to keeping Clinton records sealed: They've all been released already under subpoena...

I say:

The defeat of that health care thing is his only regret? No mea culpas about blowing off terrorism intelligence, selling our foreign policy to the hghest bidder (China), letting our military go downhill, and lying to the American people? That tells us all we need to know about his character.

Don't like Ashcroft? Blame Clinton. If Clinton had been less feckless in dealing with bin Laden, Ashcroft would never have been in a position to do what he's doing now.

And that wasn't peace and prosperity. That was denial and looting our national defense (Social Security too) to throw a six year long party. And now the bill has come due. But he has no regrets about that at all. And those union picketers and historical preservation buffs can go pound sand, `coz he's got his library and that's what matters. Social justice. Whatever.

Excerpt:

Conservatives have derided him for not doing more to confront global terrorism (including some of the same people who derided a Clinton effort to kill Osama bin Laden with missile strikes in 1998 as an attempt to divert attention away from that year's sex scandal and the impeachment that followed). But there has been no corresponding effort on the Democratic side to argue opposing points -- such as the successful quashing of terrorist attacks planned for the 2000 New Year, or that Bush's success in enlisting Russia in the fight against terrorism was foreshadowed by Clinton's enlisting the Russian military in the 1996 Bosnian intervention.

I say:

That's because the points are so weak they're embarrassed to make them. It would be grasping at straws.






[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
New Ed: The Clinton Team\ufffds Betrayal
[link|http://www.techcentralstation.com/DefenseCommentary.asp?id=158| Melana Zyla Vickers]

Excerpt:

What\ufffds more, the officials don\ufffdt come out looking good at all. Instead their efforts add up to a long list on what not to do in a campaign against terrorism. Among the \ufffddon\ufffdts\ufffd:


Don\ufffdt let states off the hook. Clinton officials sought to \ufffdcriminalize\ufffd terrorism, presenting bin Laden as a murderer who needed to be strung up in court and Al Qaeda as a global terror mafia, and doing little more than criticize verbally the Taliban and other terror-supporting regimes. This tactic let the regimes that harbor and assist terrorists off the hook, allowing them to build the terrorists up still further. Yet the Afghanistan war shows that the Bush doctrine of attacking states that harbor terrorism robs the terrorists of safe quarter. Ideally, the doctrine of ousting regimes that harbor terrorists will deter other states from doing what the Taliban did, eventually leaving terrorists with no state helpers.


Don\ufffdt use half measures. The Clinton administration decided a priori to rule out ground forces in any war on terrorism, to operate from a great distance from their targets, and to avoid confronting states. They stopped short of rolling up the financial underpinnings of Al Qaeda that they knew about. And while they doubled the budget for counterterrorism on the one hand, they were overly gentle with the other. Who can forget Madeleine Albright\ufffds move to change the term \ufffdrogue states\ufffd to \ufffdstates of concern\ufffd? Yet laboring mightily below a certain threshold of effort is as bad as not laboring at all; it aggravates the adversary but does little to actually defeat him. By contrast, the Bush administration declared war on the terrorists and so far has prosecuted it fully. And while bin Laden is not yet eliminated, much of the Al Qaeda network has been felled.


Don\ufffdt dilute U.S. air power. The Clintonites tried to strike particular targets with one-time assaults, despite recognizing that their information about people at the targets was always half a day out of date. Using air power in this piecemeal fashion rendered it ineffective. For example, flinging a handful of cruise missiles at an Al Qaeda training site in 1998 reached the targets too late, serving only to waste expensive weaponry, embarrass the U.S., and embolden the adversary by signaling that the U.S. has tied its own hands behind its back. Yet if used properly in sufficient quantities, U.S. air power can now win wars. Afghanistan shows how sustained precision strikes from U.S. aircraft, called in by a minimal number of soldiers on the ground, can rout an adversary.

I say:

It's well and good that the current administration has seen fit to learn from the mistakes of previous ones. But that's nothing for the mistake-makers to brag about.

Perhaps the real legacy of the Clinton administration is to serve as a warning to the future.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
New Ed: Clinton, leave well -- and bad -- enough alone
[link|http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/editorial/outlook/1188760|Ross Baker, Houston Chronicle]

Excerpts:

It was reported recently that the most legacy-minded of all U.S. presidents had convened a gathering in his New York offices of former White House staffers, ex-Cabinet officials and assorted Washington, D.C., hangers-on and courtiers to tell the story of his administration in a manner most flattering to Clinton. Although most of the dozen or so participants were tight-lipped about the meeting, enough information seeped out to suggest that the vaunted Clinton public relations operation will now be assigned to spin history...

Clinton always has been a reckless user of people. He lied to members of his Cabinet about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky and sent them out to deceive others, making them part-owners of his falsehoods. No great respecter of truth, Clinton now enjoins his flacks and fabulists to bowdlerize history.

It might be that other presidents were eager for later generations to see them as nobler than they were, but aside from the hapless Andrew Johnson, only Clinton has convened a task force to accomplish it.

I say:

If only he'd been as diligent about protecting the interests of this country - which was, incidentally, his job - this wouldn't be needed. Nor, in all likelihood, would a lot of other unpleasant things. But that's another forum.

If I were in Bill Clinton's place, I would be eager to fade into obscurity. The last thing I'd want is to be featured prominently in history books. It's hard to live down a legacy like his, but he could at least try.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
New Not really possible, is it...

If I were in Bill Clinton's place, I would be eager to fade into obscurity. The last thing I'd want is to be featured prominently in history books. It's hard to live down a legacy like his, but he could at least try.


I mean, let's face it, the people who hate Clinton are so obscensed that they refuse to ignore him even after he's left office. The continue to blame him for everything and anything, even stooping to make up things that didn't happen.

Let Clinton attempt to address this fact and present the actual facts and he gets even more bad press.

To quote some others : "He's out of office, get over it."
New Er umm: which president is it - censoring All previous
Presidential Papers -- like say maybe (just ferinstance):

(Mr. Out-of-the-Ollie-Loop Daddy's peccadillos? Under the [unspecified] smokescreen of this or that er National Security rubric. How imaginative.

Now then - which of these tempests inhabits the Larger teapot?
Clinton's desire to decouple the Puritans' Version of 'youthful indiscretions': from his own actual substantive fuck-ups (as deserve analysis for future avoidance - no matter what he wants)

OR

Dubya's current and unprecedented dictat affecting all presidential papers due for release about this time + through Ashcroft: all that other yada yada minor stuff about every citizen's rights VS government?


Hmmm?


A.
     Undead horse watch - (marlowe) - (30)
         NYC revival? He's on the job. - (marlowe)
         Clinton regrets not plunging us into disaster more promptly. - (marlowe)
         Only carrion watch dead horses. -NT - (Ashton) - (2)
             Err.. Carrion *eaters*... but yeah... -NT - (hnick) - (1)
                 Yes of course.. dazzled by The Reg's logo. :-\ufffd -NT - (Ashton)
         Clinton comes out and blames America for 911! - (marlowe) - (19)
             Clinton comes out and blames Clinton for 9/11! - (rsf) - (2)
                 About that point 3 - (marlowe) - (1)
                     I know - (rsf)
             If that's all you got out of that all.. - (Ashton) - (1)
                 Don't bother. It is a waste of time. -NT - (ben_tilly)
             Wash. Times take on the infamous speech. - (marlowe) - (13)
                 OK, I'm about done replying to your "juicy" jingoistic crap. - (Ashton) - (9)
                     latest skank report! did she lie? her lips are moving! :) - (boxley) - (8)
                         Solution: never tell a journalist *anything* 24/7. -NT - (Ashton) - (7)
                             OT you have experience with waveforms right? - (boxley) - (6)
                                 Don't know enough. - (Ashton) - (3)
                                     The idea is what the feds are asking help with - (boxley) - (2)
                                         I can appreciate the utility.. - (Ashton) - (1)
                                             how I would approach the problem - (boxley)
                                 It's a tough problem. - (Another Scott)
                                 Probably only generally - (ben_tilly)
                 Thank you... - (Simon_Jester) - (2)
                     Followup - by the Washington Times... - (Simon_Jester)
                     thank You. - (Ashton)
         Presidential underdog breaks same old ground. - (marlowe)
         Ed: The Clinton Team\ufffds Betrayal - (marlowe)
         Ed: Clinton, leave well -- and bad -- enough alone - (marlowe) - (2)
             Not really possible, is it... - (Simon_Jester)
             Er umm: which president is it - censoring All previous - (Ashton)

I never seen a man eat so many chicken wings!
192 ms