A Leauki's Writings
Published on March 29, 2010 By Leauki In War on Terror

Some here have wondered why I trusted Hillary Clinton so much, and as I said it was because I assumed she was as capable as her husband was.

Say what you will about President Bill Clinton, but he understood foreign policy.

This was President Clinton's proposal for a "Palestinian" state (on the left is what Arafat claimed Israel had proposed):

Israel accepted the proposal, the PLO reacted with war.

 

 


Comments
on Mar 29, 2010

...

on Mar 29, 2010

IN 1993, Clinton knew as much about foreign policy as he knew about semen stains on blue dresses.

But he was smart enough to listen and learn.  I have never denied he was and is one of the shrewdest men to every occupy the oval office (and one of the most dishonest - but that is a different story). 

Hillary was never that shrewd or smart.  She rode the white house bed to power and has never demonstrated the savvy or intuitiveness of her Husband (what he had in smarts, he more than made up for with randiness).  people say she is the smartest woman in the world, but I have never bought that.  And I have yet to see where she has demonstrated it.  She played the victim when it suited her, and the crusader when she needed it.  But she never did know how to bring together a consensus or learn from her mistakes. (Jennifer Flowers did not happen  in 1992).

You are right about Bill, but you mistook a name for a person.  She is not the Clinton you thought her to be.

on Mar 30, 2010

I just have a feeling that if Obama insisted on the Clinton proposal, we could really achieve peace when the PLO and Hamas learn that even the most friendly (to them) President doesn't give in to terror.

 

on Mar 30, 2010

You are right about Bill, but you mistook a name for a person.  She is not the Clinton you thought her to be.

Yes.

I guess the times when I could rely on a Clinton to fix things are over.

(I don't care how dishonest a politician is. I prefer a dishonest politician who opposes segregation over an honest politician who supports it.)

 

on Mar 30, 2010

Leauki
I just have a feeling that if Obama insisted on the Clinton proposal, we could really achieve peace when the PLO and Hamas learn that even the most friendly (to them) President doesn't give in to terror.

That is an interesting supposition.  Perhaps true.  Any sane rational person would conclude as you did.

But therein lies the achilees heel.  Sane/Rational.  I just do not believe we are dealing with them in this case.  I do think that Obama thinks he is (but then he has never gotten high marks for anything other than teleprompter reading).

on Mar 30, 2010

Leauki
(I don't care how dishonest a politician is. I prefer a dishonest politician who opposes segregation over an honest politician who supports it.)

I can see that, and in a way agree.  You must have loved LBJ.  My mother hated him (but she loved Kennedy).  But I guess that ethical streak in me just does not trust a dishonest man to do the right thing for the right reason, just occassional the right thing for the wrong reason.

on Mar 30, 2010

You must have loved LBJ

No. Ironically, but also fittingly, I like Nixon.