I believe Herr Hess said: "Hitler is die Partie und Die Partie ist Hitler. Klinton,in my opinion, is much more a Stalin clone by far than a Hitler clone. Big Comrade just seems to be a pure Stalinist at heart. He did suffer a slap in the face by the usually venile Senate over the test ban vote. But i believe most of the damage to Americas national defense has already been done by our Stalinist Leader. Our only hope is that he leaves office in Jan. 2000 and that we will have time to build up our military again. It may be a slim hope.
Hitler ist Deutschland!
- Thread starter Dennis
- Start date
I need to back up and do some “house cleaning”....
1) In my original post, I noted I received the supposed Clinton quote
from a private e-mail. I did not use his name because I did not have his
permission to do so.
As you might guess, I HAVE communicated with this e-mail source:
- asking he confirm or deny the quote he gave me, and
- asking he give me the source of the quote.
He has NOT answered my requests. Therefore, I apologize to TFL
readers for the apparent misquote. However, please note I said
three times, “IF this quote is true....”
I was trying to show I personally could not confirm the quote but trusted
my source - a mistake, a courtesy I will not render this source again.
2) Freefinkelmann reported (10/15/99 at 12:36PM) the President’s quote
as, “... ALL I CAN TELL YOU IS, WE'RE NOT GOING TO TEST, I
SIGNED THAT TREATY, IT STILL BINDS US UNLESS I GO, IN EFFECT,
AND ERASE OUR NAME -- unless the President does that and takes our
name off, we are bound by it.” (Stress added by Dennis.)
Thank you, Freefinklemann, for preserving both the integrity of the
thread and the proof of our President’s madness. The point of the thread
definitely is not “moot”!
We must note also that Mal H remembers no such quote during the
conference. Gwinnydapooh, defending truth and justice in spite of his
obvious distaste for the defendant also remains skeptical of any such
Clinton quote.
(Life’s little contradictions sometimes get me down.
)
3) Tombread remembers the quote about Hitler and believes the speaker
was Rudolph Hess - considered by many at the time as the heir apparent
to Hitler. I still suspect it was Paul Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Party’s
propaganda chief. Inasmuch as the rest of us are too young to
remember we may have to rely upon Art Eatman’s personal experiences
to settle the question.
4) Ivan, I won’t dispute your quote; but I saw re-runs of WWII
speeches and vividly remember my quote verbatim, confirmed at the
time by the moderator of the film.
5) Obviously I am somewhat embarrassed that my rendered quote was
inaccurate. However, subsequent offerings by TFL members indicate the
point of my post remains - our President seems to ignore the Constitution
unless it supports his personal goals at the moment.
6) Frankly, what impresses me so much about this thread is the
consistent integrity of TFL members. The consistent consideration of
each point and each person (even a person who richly deserves our
disrespect) reflects an extremely high level of honesty and fairness - a
maturity and integrity typically missing elsewhere on many internet
bulletin board systems.
Though I trusted a bad source, I’m very proud to be among the type of
people who are members of TFL.
Thank you, folks.
[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited October 17, 1999).]
1) In my original post, I noted I received the supposed Clinton quote
from a private e-mail. I did not use his name because I did not have his
permission to do so.
As you might guess, I HAVE communicated with this e-mail source:
- asking he confirm or deny the quote he gave me, and
- asking he give me the source of the quote.
He has NOT answered my requests. Therefore, I apologize to TFL
readers for the apparent misquote. However, please note I said
three times, “IF this quote is true....”
I was trying to show I personally could not confirm the quote but trusted
my source - a mistake, a courtesy I will not render this source again.
2) Freefinkelmann reported (10/15/99 at 12:36PM) the President’s quote
as, “... ALL I CAN TELL YOU IS, WE'RE NOT GOING TO TEST, I
SIGNED THAT TREATY, IT STILL BINDS US UNLESS I GO, IN EFFECT,
AND ERASE OUR NAME -- unless the President does that and takes our
name off, we are bound by it.” (Stress added by Dennis.)
Thank you, Freefinklemann, for preserving both the integrity of the
thread and the proof of our President’s madness. The point of the thread
definitely is not “moot”!
We must note also that Mal H remembers no such quote during the
conference. Gwinnydapooh, defending truth and justice in spite of his
obvious distaste for the defendant also remains skeptical of any such
Clinton quote.
(Life’s little contradictions sometimes get me down.
)3) Tombread remembers the quote about Hitler and believes the speaker
was Rudolph Hess - considered by many at the time as the heir apparent
to Hitler. I still suspect it was Paul Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Party’s
propaganda chief. Inasmuch as the rest of us are too young to
remember we may have to rely upon Art Eatman’s personal experiences
to settle the question.
4) Ivan, I won’t dispute your quote; but I saw re-runs of WWII
speeches and vividly remember my quote verbatim, confirmed at the
time by the moderator of the film.
5) Obviously I am somewhat embarrassed that my rendered quote was
inaccurate. However, subsequent offerings by TFL members indicate the
point of my post remains - our President seems to ignore the Constitution
unless it supports his personal goals at the moment.
6) Frankly, what impresses me so much about this thread is the
consistent integrity of TFL members. The consistent consideration of
each point and each person (even a person who richly deserves our
disrespect) reflects an extremely high level of honesty and fairness - a
maturity and integrity typically missing elsewhere on many internet
bulletin board systems.
Though I trusted a bad source, I’m very proud to be among the type of
people who are members of TFL.
Thank you, folks.
[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited October 17, 1999).]
I dug a little deeper to see what I could find on this. It's true that he did say what freefinkelmann reported.
http://www2.whitehouse.gov/library/ThisWeek.cgi?type=p&date=3&briefing=7
But the following better reflects what he meant. http://www2.whitehouse.gov/WH/New/html/19991008.html
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
But it is strange to me -- and I'm sure strange for people in foreign capitals analyzing the debate going on in Washington -- there are people against this treaty who somehow think we will be disadvantaged by it. So instead, they propose to say, well, we -- they don't, any of them, say we should start testing again. So the message of not ratifying this treaty is, okay, we're not going to test, but you guys have a green light.
Now, forgive my less than elevated language, but I think we've got to put this down where everybody can get it. And I don't think we ought to give a green light to our friends in India and Pakistan, to the Chinese or the Russians or to people who would be nuclear powers. I think that would be a mistake.
.
.
.
Look, 154 countries have signed this treaty. Russia, China, Japan, South Korea, Israel, Iran, all our NATO allies -- 51 have already ratified, 11 of our NATO allies, including nuclear powers Britain and France. But it can't go into effect unless the U.S. and the other designated nations ratify it. And, once again, we need American leadership to protect American interests and to advance the peace of the world.
[/quote]
To sum it up in one sentence, he says the U.S. will not continue testing while he is in office and he is very frustrated that the Senate will not ratify the treaty to make it binding on future administrations and to make it binding on all nations who signed. (154 nations signed, 51 have ratified it to date.)
Did you notice the freudian slip in the press conference? "So the Chinese should
have every assurance that, at least as long as this administration is here,
we support nuclear testing." He meant we don't support testing.
addendum after further Clintonian reading:
Why in the world do Clinton fans say he is a great speaker? His sentences are almost all unconnected jibberish. He is continually adding little sub-thoughts. Most of the speeches seem to be written down to about a 5th grade level which may be a reflection on his speech writers. Or it could be a reflection on Clinton and his writers just grin and bear it as he trashes their speeches. I rarely find any true intelligence in his talks. IMNSHO, he is an embarrassment to the U.S. in this respect (and many others, obviously).
[This message has been edited by Mal H (edited October 17, 1999).]
http://www2.whitehouse.gov/library/ThisWeek.cgi?type=p&date=3&briefing=7
But the following better reflects what he meant. http://www2.whitehouse.gov/WH/New/html/19991008.html
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
But it is strange to me -- and I'm sure strange for people in foreign capitals analyzing the debate going on in Washington -- there are people against this treaty who somehow think we will be disadvantaged by it. So instead, they propose to say, well, we -- they don't, any of them, say we should start testing again. So the message of not ratifying this treaty is, okay, we're not going to test, but you guys have a green light.
Now, forgive my less than elevated language, but I think we've got to put this down where everybody can get it. And I don't think we ought to give a green light to our friends in India and Pakistan, to the Chinese or the Russians or to people who would be nuclear powers. I think that would be a mistake.
.
.
.
Look, 154 countries have signed this treaty. Russia, China, Japan, South Korea, Israel, Iran, all our NATO allies -- 51 have already ratified, 11 of our NATO allies, including nuclear powers Britain and France. But it can't go into effect unless the U.S. and the other designated nations ratify it. And, once again, we need American leadership to protect American interests and to advance the peace of the world.
[/quote]
To sum it up in one sentence, he says the U.S. will not continue testing while he is in office and he is very frustrated that the Senate will not ratify the treaty to make it binding on future administrations and to make it binding on all nations who signed. (154 nations signed, 51 have ratified it to date.)
Did you notice the freudian slip in the press conference? "So the Chinese should
have every assurance that, at least as long as this administration is here,
we support nuclear testing." He meant we don't support testing.
addendum after further Clintonian reading:
Why in the world do Clinton fans say he is a great speaker? His sentences are almost all unconnected jibberish. He is continually adding little sub-thoughts. Most of the speeches seem to be written down to about a 5th grade level which may be a reflection on his speech writers. Or it could be a reflection on Clinton and his writers just grin and bear it as he trashes their speeches. I rarely find any true intelligence in his talks. IMNSHO, he is an embarrassment to the U.S. in this respect (and many others, obviously).
[This message has been edited by Mal H (edited October 17, 1999).]
Dennis - we all make mistakes; it takes a little courage to acknowledge it in public and go forward. But long term it helps your credibility. No apologies are required for doing the right thing.
On Clinton and the treaty - if I remember correctly the US "honored" Salt II for years without Senate approval. Intelligent or not I never viewed that as presenting a great constitutional issue. The Prez remained commander-in-chief.
On Clinton and the truth, decency, and other things good - Like Will Rogers, I don't belong to any organized political party, I'm a Democrat. You asked the question where are we, were we, when it came time to send this yahoo back to Hope(less).
That's a fair question, and I'll try to give a fair answer. Clinton clearly deserved to be driven from office - whether for lying to the grand jury, lying to us, exploiting an employee, or any number of reasons. He deserved this personally.
The question is did the country deserve to be put thru the whole episode. Clinton has always been saved by the uncontrolled venom of his enemies. The best example in the impeachment debacle was Tom Delay sending House members off to see evidence of uncharged crimes to persuade them to vote against Clinton on the charged crimes.
And the impeachment committee couldn't hit him only for what he was guilty of doing. They had to pile on charge after charge including the claim, preposterous on its face, that Clinton's use of a phrase like "several" was a deliberate lie when the truth should have been "11."
A better approach for the impeachment forces would have been to indict Clinton on one count of perjury when he told testified in his deposition that he could not ever remember being alone with Mizz Lewinsky. A good trial lawyer would have told the committee that. But they would have had to be listening to hear it.
The "don't remember" line was a clear, undeniable lie. It was made under oath. It's materiality in the sexual harassment lawsuit may be debatable, but it would have carried the day in the impeachment. And every child in America over the age of 6 could understand the issue.
So where were we? We were hoping to have a charge so clear that there was no denying it, and motives seemingly so clean that we would have had to join it. Listening to guys who were just as guilty of infidelity try to impeach him for being on their own level was more than a lot of Democrats could swallow (pardon the phrase).
I take the position that the one thing we have learned about the presidency in my lifetime is this -- WE CAN SURVIVE ANYTHING. This guy will pass, as will the Office of Special Counsel. We all look forward to January 20, 2001. But I am not willing to destroy whatever good that's left in the country solely to get rid of Bill Clinton. Time will do that.
On Clinton and the treaty - if I remember correctly the US "honored" Salt II for years without Senate approval. Intelligent or not I never viewed that as presenting a great constitutional issue. The Prez remained commander-in-chief.
On Clinton and the truth, decency, and other things good - Like Will Rogers, I don't belong to any organized political party, I'm a Democrat. You asked the question where are we, were we, when it came time to send this yahoo back to Hope(less).
That's a fair question, and I'll try to give a fair answer. Clinton clearly deserved to be driven from office - whether for lying to the grand jury, lying to us, exploiting an employee, or any number of reasons. He deserved this personally.
The question is did the country deserve to be put thru the whole episode. Clinton has always been saved by the uncontrolled venom of his enemies. The best example in the impeachment debacle was Tom Delay sending House members off to see evidence of uncharged crimes to persuade them to vote against Clinton on the charged crimes.
And the impeachment committee couldn't hit him only for what he was guilty of doing. They had to pile on charge after charge including the claim, preposterous on its face, that Clinton's use of a phrase like "several" was a deliberate lie when the truth should have been "11."
A better approach for the impeachment forces would have been to indict Clinton on one count of perjury when he told testified in his deposition that he could not ever remember being alone with Mizz Lewinsky. A good trial lawyer would have told the committee that. But they would have had to be listening to hear it.
The "don't remember" line was a clear, undeniable lie. It was made under oath. It's materiality in the sexual harassment lawsuit may be debatable, but it would have carried the day in the impeachment. And every child in America over the age of 6 could understand the issue.
So where were we? We were hoping to have a charge so clear that there was no denying it, and motives seemingly so clean that we would have had to join it. Listening to guys who were just as guilty of infidelity try to impeach him for being on their own level was more than a lot of Democrats could swallow (pardon the phrase).
I take the position that the one thing we have learned about the presidency in my lifetime is this -- WE CAN SURVIVE ANYTHING. This guy will pass, as will the Office of Special Counsel. We all look forward to January 20, 2001. But I am not willing to destroy whatever good that's left in the country solely to get rid of Bill Clinton. Time will do that.
Abruzzi, I also hope Klinton will leave office when his tour of duty is up. But I worry. Bill is a special case in American history especially presidential history. He has gotten away with things unheard up in the annals of our history. I dont need to enumerate them here. I worry that he may try for the ultimate: staying in power beyond his term. No one can tell me that this is the same nation that it was in 1974 when Richard Nixon stepped down. in fact ,according to Christopher Riddy, there are people close to Clinton who have heard him say he may find a way to stay on as President beyond his term. It is scary the hold this man has on the majority of the American people.