The Clinton's have no important agenda beyond their own needs. I am glad the Democratic Party is now beginning to realize this. Some folks refuse to recognize how bad their trophy pit bull is until it turns on them.

"That's beneath the dignity of a former president"

What is it about former-(D)-Presidents?

At least when Rep presidents leave office, they LEEEAVE office. Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush I (until Katrina) all drifted off into the ether.

Carter, now Clinton ... geesh.

Lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas.
Only in this case it's ticks as these two psychopathic liars make a run for power unprecedented in American history. They hopped on the Democrat party, took it over and used it as a vehicle for their rise to power. Now that some are unhappy with their actions because they are being used against another Democrat they are unhappy? Just wait till they take the gloves off.

Ahhhhh schadenfreude, sometimes with a cup of joe in the morning its delicious.

There is still a chance Obama could change the manner of politics associated with previous occupants of the White House.

He needs to use lines like this "From day one of my administration I will be accountable and open to scrutiny. The position will never be abused again"..... what a breath of fresh air that would be after the last 16 years.

Why are the Clintons attacking the only viable African-American presidential candidate in the history of the U.S.? His policies are right in line with the Democratic platform, so why are they attacking him? What is the difference between Hillary and Barack?

Bill and Hillary, keeping the Black man down.

It's very satisfying to watch as more and more liberals come out of their Clintons-are-gods stupor and see what the Republicans saw so clearly in the 90's.

Now you know how everyone else felt watching conservatives come out of their Bush-is-a-god stupor and see what the Democrats saw so clearly in the 2000's.

it's nice to see Clinton catching grief, but there's a part of me that feels that all of these people who were happy to excuse and overlook Clinton in the 90s have forfeited their right to complain about him now.

All the Clintons do is win elections. Obama will adjust, or he'll lose. It's heartening that people here are so concerned about whether Obama is being treated fairly, though.

"He needs to use lines like this "From day one of my administration I will be accountable and open to scrutiny. The position will never be abused again"..... what a breath of fresh air that would be after the last 16 years."
First someone has to come clean on his connection with the Il/Chicago Mafia or your line is just like his, BS. Funny that there has been no hint of crime/slime in the white house the past 8 years but the democrats were slimed by the Clintons and always try to project their crime and slime to others. It's not working. Anyone question the stupidity of democrats that are running over $8M+ in (targeted) ad's against President Bush, who can't run again? 47% of Americans are or should be under mental health care, quite evident they are all democrats.
Less than 12 months from now President Bush can return to Tx, live the good life, and tell the truth about democrats. What a story that will be. Ready, Aim, Fire.

Write a book, Scrapiron. Or at least hand out pamphlets while wearing a sandwich board. People need to hear this sort of thing. If you had a TV show, the Democrats would all be in shackles. Or something.

I can't think of any administration that we could safely describe as squeaky clean, including the present one. No bid contracts during a war? Are you kidding me? In your opinion, doesn't that run afoul of the spirit of competition that's supposed to be a defining feature of the United States?

My god Matthew you certainly are the blather boy...all noise no substance. The Clinton's "winning" streak will end in November.

"Dont tase Me Bro"

An idiom in racism.

Speaking of blather, Michael, can you provide an iota of statistically significant evidence that suggests Americans will elect a Republican?

Romney beats Kucinich heads up. Cross your fingers and vote for Dennis, or prepare for more status quo bullshit from Hillary for four (likely eight) years.

The Clintons are a vicious lot. We conservatives have always known that. The FBI files, and other assorted nefarious activities. Obama does have to grow up. If he can't stand up to the Clintons, I don't think he could handle any foreign crisis. ww

Matthew, I hear der schlichtmeister is looking for employees as he roams the country "telling the truth". I'm guessing you could be his pissboy, unless you're a girl in which case he'd have other "jobs" for you.

Matthew, no bid contracts during war, gee what could anyone be thinking?

Oh, I don't know ... maybe that they can't wait for a full competitive bidding process to complete?

Sheesh.

maybe that they can't wait for a full competitive bidding process to complete?

Now that's the funniest thing I'll read all day.

there's a part of me that feels that all of these people who were happy to excuse and overlook Clinton in the 90s have forfeited their right to complain about him now.

But those of you now complaining about Bush get a free pass. Got it.

"No bid contracts during a war?"

I wonder Mattew, did you think it was a problem when Clinton used "no-bid" contracts to Halliburton when he sent American troops to war?

Did it bother you at all that even when Hallibuton was outbid, Clinton overruled the bidding process and awarded the "no-bid" contracts to Halliburton anyway?

Did you have a problem with it then or is it only a problem when a non-socilist President does it?

As a 16 year old Canadian, I was blissfully unaware of the slimy goings-on in the White House during Clinton's two terms. However, I would expect you not to justify something awful that Bush does by citing examples of when Clinton did it. Isn't that setting the bar pretty low?

As for whether Clinton was a socialist, you're just making a poor attempt at name-calling. I don't recall welfare reform going over very well with the "socialists".

"However, I would expect you not to justify something awful that Bush does by citing examples of when Clinton did it."

I was not doing that at all. I never said it was an awful thing. It was the right thing to do when Clinton did it and it's the right thing to do when Bush does it.

It's just very hypocritical of most leftists who bitch now, but were silent during Clinton's wars.

Thanks Shleekmaster, I think I may vot for Barack now just to stop You!

It's just very hypocritical of most leftists who bitch now, but were silent during Clinton's wars.

You mean like how Republicans thought it was OK for Congress to undermine Clinton's deployment of the troops and funding in Bosnia, but think it's traitorous behavior now?

Clinton is most certainly NOT lying about Obama's position on the war. During 2004, he dialed back his position and said precisely what Clinton says he did. They are just waiting for Obama to come out and say flatly, "It's a lie!" so they can bring out the tapes and flush him down the tubes.

All the surrogates and Harpootlians (the biggest buffoon in South Carolina, and we have plenty) in the world mean nothing. Let Obama stick his scrawny neck out and say it himself.

~~~~~~~~

matthew ~ Quick, name all the companies in the world who could perform the work given to Halliburton on "no-bid" contracts in Iraq.

Okay, you can't help being stupid, but you could just shut the hell up.

It wasn't even worth inquiring, Jim? What about giving specialized tasks to specialized companies that would more efficiently utilize American and Iraqi resources? Halliburton hasn't exactly demonstrated itself capable of executing all of the tasks it's responsible for in perfect fashion; you don't think it was worth even asking around to see if anyone could perform certain tasks better than them?

Why do conservatives (or whatever Republicans consider themselves to be these days) rush to defend Halliburton? It's pathetic. Their performance has been less than optimal, and yet there's some sort of ideological impetus to stick up for them. Why?

Define optimal in a war setting Matthew? Of course you can't. To many variables. Now let the grown ups have some time here and you go play. ww

Brian, your memory of Clinton's Balkan's adventures is as usual false. Republicans did not, as a party, "undermine" Clinton's Balkans intervention - even though Clinton did it without authorization, and on the premise of a Kosovo "genocide" that was subsequently found to be a lie. There were no attempts to impeach Clinton for the false premises of the Kosovo operation. There were many Republicans who strongly supported Clinton's actions in the Balkans but Brian is too ignorant to recall.

As for you finding it amusing that the government might have to find contractors quicker during a war than otherwise, well I guess reality is a surprise to you on a daily basis.

Further, Halliburton originally had "no bid" contracts for military support operations in Iraq because the original contract had been awarded during the Clinton administration.

Your comments really are silly, Matthew. You seem to have no idea what you are talking about, you've certainly no idea which contracts you are even whining about. When it comes to quick large scale overseas construction projects there are at most 2 or 3 US companies able to assemble the resources.

Matthew, you are making broad assumptions about Halliburton and using them to fit the narrative that you already have in your head. First, off there are not many companies in the world that do all of the things that Halliburton does.

Sure, you could farm out individual tasks to smaller companies. The federal procurement process is a huge bureaucratic nightmare, it takes months to bid through every contract. In a war you don't have time to bid out all of the essential services. If you will recall, there were a lot of complaints as it was that basic services like water and electricity took too long to get up and running. Everything would have been delayed for months and years if all of the services were put up for contract bids.

The second mistake you seem to be making is assuming that everything Halliburton has done has been a disaster. That is just not the case. I won't say Halliburton has done a perfect job. But considering they have thousands of employees doing thousands of projects there are going to be screw-ups.

Why do Liberals or Progressives or whatever they call themselves these days have some sort of idealogical impetus to go after an American company? Would you prefer that those jobs go to a French company?

The sad thing is that Obama is running against Clinton, a plural entity; and voters are not getting that this treatment of Obama is what a next edition of a Clinton white house will be, the Clinton hydra. No contender for the presidency this time out, whether Democrat or Republican, has an ex-president mouth piece to do the dirty work that Clinton 1 is doing for the hopeful Clinton 2. If any did it would be a far different contest. Without an ex-president weighing in on the appropriateness or fairness etc. -- or other person of similar stature, though I can think of none comparable to an ex-president for a presidential election -- expect more of the focus to be on the weaknesses of the Obama response rather than to the Clinton power play.

We do live in interesting times.

While the Clinton Attack machine is getting SOME news, is it really getting that much press compared to what a Republican would get for saying the same things?

I can't help but think that if Obama gets the nomination then anytime the Republican candidate so much as says the name Obama he'll be called a racist.

Matthew they will elect a Republican(unless the nominee is Huckabee) because of the "Hillary Factor". If there was no Hillary and the Dims were smart enough to nominate a moderate like Evan Bayh or Mark warner, the odds would be in the Dims favor. But with Hillary they are again repating the same mistakes they have made in the last 40 years. Hey Matthew the Dims have only won three Presidential elections in the last 40 years...do you think that is a good track record? Couple that with her gigantic negatives, her brittle pesonality, her extreme liberalism and the fact that most Americans believe that somebody with a last name other than Clinton and Bush can be President basically puts the ball in the Republicans court. Also this racial nonsense she is doing to Obama really is not a big plus for her. Don't forget little boy, her hubby despite his charisma never got a majority
so what makes you think this unpleasant woman is going to be elected?

Brian, your memory of Clinton's Balkan's adventures is as usual false. Republicans did not, as a party, "undermine" Clinton's Balkans intervention

This is the Internet. You can't get away with spouting that kind of bullshit anymore.

As thousands of U.S. soldiers packed for a winter in Bosnia, the Senate Wednesday debated President Clinton's plan to send those troops to enforce peace between ancient enemies. House Republicans vented their opposition.

In a 108-64 vote Wednesday, House Republicans backed a measure that would cut off funding for the mission.
...
The Senate debated three options: Cut off funding, a proposal given little chance of passing; oppose Clinton's decision to send troops but support the soldiers themselves, expected to gain Republican support; or permit Clinton to send troops but impose restrictions on the mission, also considered likely to pass.
...
"I think the American people are solidly behind our effort to stop the deployment, even though it's almost too late now," said Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.).

Gramm and Forbes also strongly oppose the deployment. On the day the peace accord was signed in Dayton, Ohio, the Texas senator accused Clinton of mishandling Bosnia for three years and predicted that the peace agreement will fail. "I have no confidence in the Clinton-brokered peace deal and I will oppose sending American troops into Bosnia," Gramm said.

Forbes, interviewed on CNN's "Inside Politics Weekend," said the peace agreement has "the makings of a fiasco" and said Clinton's "casually made" commitment to send troops to help enforce it did not represent a long-term solution to the problem.
...
Former Tennessee governor Lamar Alexander has expressed skepticism about Clinton's decision to send U.S. troops, saying if he had been president, he would never have made such a commitment.
...
"The president is our commander-in-chief and he has the right to make his case to the Congress and to the American people," Alexander said in the statement. "But he has not yet done that -- and he must before our troops are sent into an open-ended peacekeeping mission."

Unable to convince a group of fellow Republicans that Bosnia is worth the loss of one American life, Senator Bob Dole, the Republican leader, today postponed until next week Senate debate on a resolution supporting President Clinton's deployment of American troops. ... "I don't think he has the votes," said Senator James Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma and leader of the splinter group of two dozen conservatives who oppose deployment of American ground troops in the Balkans. ... President Clinton does not need a resolution from Congress to deploy the troops, who have already started landing in Bosnia. But the Administration is working to secure Congressional blessing ... Just because President Clinton has made a decision and the troops are already landing, Mr. Lott said, "I'm not going to endorse a wrong decision after the fact."

But I suspect you knew it was bullshit when you said it.

Also Matty...I know three libby Dims who hate that witch so much that if McCain is the Rep nominee they will vote for him. So much for a united Dimo party.

True to form, Brian cannot stop being dishonest. From his own source below. Brian cannot bring himself to tell the truth that Clinton didn't seek approval from Congress at all and unilaterally sent troops there. So obviously people had to support the troops once they are there. Bush gave Dems two chances to vote on Iraq war resolutions. Also I don't see see any Rep leaders proclaiming the mission is lost and comparing our troops to Nazis and Pol Pots. Also we didn't have ad to call our general on the field "General Betray Us". What can you expect from Brian? He is beyond shame.

Opponents of the deployment were anxious to avoid sending U.S. forces a discouraging note even as the troops prepared to move out this weekend by plane and train to the frozen hills of northeastern Bosnia. On the other hand, lawmakers were faced with the unpopularity of the mission as measured by the calls flooding their offices.

"I think the American people are solidly behind our effort to stop the deployment, even though it's almost too late now," said Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.).

Well, she polls very well heads up against Romney and McCain, so I guess people today would prefer a change in the White House. Quite a few months between now and the general election, though, so hopefully policy positions (especially Obama's) are clarified between now and then.

There are other construction companies that could have taken some of what Halliburton was given, though perhaps not American ones. Does it matter what country they're from? There is a very good one in Alberta, which has performed exceptionally well in the oil sands development. Don't the Saudis/Emirates also have contractors in this line of work? Of course any company wouldn't be operating under optimal conditions, but does the fact that a war takes place in a region excuse every mistake made there, and occlude any sort of Congressional investigation?

If a Democratic administration gave a blank cheque to a company with tangental ties to someone in their party, under any circumstances, would you shrug your shoulders?

Grow up Matthew..."polls" give me a break. Like they are not skewed.Ten months out a presidential poll is useless...less than useless. Hell Dukakis polled well in 1988...look what happened to him. Dims always poll well before elections...then people wake up(or most of them at least) and come to their senses. If the Dims nominated good candidates they win more often...but they don't. The last one was Humphrey and he still lost.

Matthew,
Probably you should spend some time to study it a little more carefully. American military wants to use American companies for security reasons. As a Canadian, you should be careful with the dems given how dishonest they have been. This is another free advice I have for you.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york070903.asp
...
HALLIBURTON -- THE CLINTON CONTRACTOR

Also Matthew what is this obsession you have with Haliburton? Like anyone cares. Bill sold nuclear secrets to the North Koreans and high tech secerts to the ChiComs...that doesn't concern you but Haliburton does? Get a life.

Matthew, you're speaking in general and very elementary terms. You appear to have no grasp at all on the realities of why some contracts are no-bid, why some are, and why companies like Haliburton are chosen in such processes.

Some day, you'll look back on your ramblings here and shake your head wondering who could be so naive.

From his own source below. Brian cannot bring himself to tell the truth that Clinton didn't seek approval from Congress

From my own source, you cannot read:

President Clinton does not need a resolution from Congress to deploy the troops, who have already started landing in Bosnia. But the Administration is working to secure Congressional blessing

So obviously people had to support the troops once they are there.

Still you cannot read:

In a 108-64 vote Wednesday, House Republicans backed a measure that would cut off funding for the mission. ... Just because President Clinton has made a decision and the troops are already landing, Mr. Lott said, "I'm not going to endorse a wrong decision after the fact."

Also I don't see see any Rep leaders proclaiming the mission is lost

That's because, as stated above, you cannot read.

the Texas senator accused Clinton of mishandling Bosnia for three years and predicted that the peace agreement will fail.

Go learn to read. But I guess you're unable to read that too.

Matthew is a Canadian?... well that certainly explains a lot.

Brian,
Yup Clinton doesn't need to bring the war resolution to Congress. The conflict has been brewing for several years? Why not bring a Kosovo resolution for a debate and vote as Bush has done twice? Bush has shown far more respect to Congress.
Brian, again you cannot be honest. It says the peace agreement will fail in Bosnia as expected. That 's why we went to Kosovo. Where did Gingrich and Dole said that the mission is lost? Who are the Rep comparing our troops to Pol Pots/Nazis? Where is the ad accusing our commanding general "General Betray Us"? Can you be honest just for once?

You conveniently ignored all this. See how gracious Gingrich has been given Clinton 's questionable timing in the middle of the impeachment trial. Looks like Gingrich knows how important national security is. Given what we know about Clinton, are you still trying to shill for him.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/react082198.htm
"Anyone who watched the film of the bombings, anyone who saw the coffins come home knows better than to question this timing," Gingrich said. "It was done as early as possible to send a message to terrorists across the globe that killing Americans has a cost. It has no relationship with any other activity of any kind."

To underscore this view, Rich Galen, one of Gingrich's top advisers, sent an e-mail to conservative radio talk show hosts entitled "Wag the Dog," after a recent movie of the same name in which White House spin doctors concoct an international crisis to draw attention away from a president's sexual indiscretions.

"Speaker Newt Gingrich has made it clear to me" that the attacks were necessary and appropriate, Galen said. "This is a time to put our nation's interests ahead of our political concerns. I am asking you to help your listeners, your friends, and your associates to look at this situation with the sober eyes it deserves."

Where did Gingrich and Dole said that the mission is lost? Who are the Rep comparing our troops to Pol Pots/Nazis? Where is the ad accusing our commanding general "General Betray Us"? Can you be honest just for once?

I'll discuss and be honest about those topics when they relate to anything posted in this thread. I'm glad you're such a Gingrich fanboy, but if you're just going to change the subject by bringing up random things that infuriate you, I'll leave you to have a conversation with yourself.

Brian,
Here are the questions for you again.
Who are the Rep comparing our troops to Pol Pots/Nazis? Where is the ad accusing our commanding general "General Betray Us"? Can you be honest just for once?

From the Wash Post, the same source, this is what Gingrich aide said. You don't have to be a Gingrich fanboy to see how despicable Reid/Pelosi are in comparison.

"Speaker Newt Gingrich has made it clear to me" that the attacks were necessary and appropriate, Galen said. "This is a time to put our nation's interests ahead of our political concerns. I am asking you to help your listeners, your friends, and your associates to look at this situation with the sober eyes it deserves."

So Clinton sends troops into cold Kosovo on the premise of stopping a genocide.. (real reason) to distract from the plethora of bimbo eruptions and criminal investigations breathing down His shorts..(no pun intended Monica) while the real genocide in Rwanda is ignored?

Makes sense to Me.

914 - "So Clinton sends troops into cold Kosovo on the premise of stopping a genocide.."

Premise indeed. If memory serves the line was "tens of thousands in mass graves." The reality was something less than 4 figures but for some *odd* reason Clinton never "lied us into war." A war that had zero strategic or tactical value for the U.S..

Clinton never "committed war crimes" when intel failures led to bombing a Chinese Embassy.

Not so funny how that works.

You know Matthew you might consider living here in the ole' USA before you go commenting on our elections. CNN is not exactly the best way to gauge what is going on here.

What is apparent you that you let your lefty views warp the reality on what is going on here. This is not Canada...thank the lord.

Perhaps ignoring Rwanda was an innocent oversight? I mean... it was not ignored because they are .......black, like Obama is?? or was it?

Clinton ignored Rwanda because he didn't want to take a risk(did he ever take risk in 8 years?)on a bunch of black folks. One Marine battalion would taken care of the situation...but nooooo Billy had other "things" on his mind.

Have you seen this one, Obama: I'm Not a Muslim! Forward This to Everyone You Know .

Can you be honest just for once?

I am honest in everything I post that's related to the discussion at hand. Your repeated claims that I'm not being honest about something I never said and topics that are wholly unrelated to anything posted in this thread is an indicator of your illiteracy, or likely mental impairment.

But since you ask...

Who are the Rep comparing our troops to Pol Pots/Nazis?

None that I'm aware of.

Where is the ad accusing our commanding general "General Betray Us"?

None that I'm aware of.

From the Wash Post, the same source, this is what Gingrich aide said.

Yep, Gingrich dissented from the majority of his party. Just as Lieberman did. Good for them.

Is that it? That's all you want to ask me? So when I talk about the record of Republican Congressmen and Senators in the 90s, you just want to challenge me with "gotcha" questions about the behavior of some unelected average idiot nobodies in the 2000s? THAT'S your argument?!

Well, I've answered your silly questions, which are unrelated to anything in this thread. Feel free to challenge me to be honest about what flavor ice cream I had last week. Now hopefully you'll just go away. But I doubt it. You'll probably just change the subject again.

Why bother trying to be polite? You people are ghouls. Kosovo: doesn't meet the threshold of genocide because... why??? Rwanda: Clinton's fault! Tens of thousands of people dead and you try to score points?! What did Bush do about Rwanda? Why wasn't Kosovo a genocidal nightmare? Why can't Clinton AND Bush both be moral failures? Why can't EVERYBODY want to do better than what they've had to suffer through in terms of "leadership"? I'm not a Clinton supporter. I'm not a Democrat. I'm a liberal, and were I an American, I would feel incredibly underrepresented. The only politician I've encountered who seems to understand right from wrong in my generation is Michael Ignatieff, a Canadian who used to teach at Harvard, supported the war in Iraq, and is a solidly moderate intellectual member of the centrist Liberal Party here. Your political climate is poisonous, such that humanitarian intervention and non-intervention is actually morally measured by some of you in terms of self-interest and political viability. Ghouls.
Edit:
matthew, tit for tat is allowed, when you start painting
with a broad brush you're over the line. One more strike,
and you're out.

OK, Mr. "honest" Brian, how about you answer the question: when did Congress authorize President Clinton to use military force in the former Yugoslavia? We had a precise date for the Authorization for the Use Of Military Force In Iraq; when did the Authorization for the Use of Military Force pass for the Balkans?

Or did Bill Clinton go to war (for all intents and purposes) without Congressional approval?

J.

You are so dishonest. Here is the original post from Bunyan and your dishonest spin

Gingrich and Dole were the leaders of the House and Senate. They didn't go out there proclaiming that the US military has failed in Kosovo. Reid/Pelosi are basically spokemen for AlQ. Clinton/Carter traveled around the world embracing our enemy and dissing Bush/America while troops are in Iraq/Afghanistan. Durbin compared our troops to Nazis/PolPot. Kerry claimed that our troops are terrorizing the Iraqui people. Hillary front group MoveOn.org calling our commanding general "General Betray Us". The dem party as a whole have been working as a propaganda arm for the terrorists. Yup there were Reps upset with the dishonesty of Bill Clinton in not consulting Congress before sending troops to war. This is another example of the dishonesty of the dem. YOur comparsion is so lame and easily shown as false. But you can't just help it. Are you honest enough now to admit this is a cheap spinning job? No I don't think so. I expect you to continue to post your spin here no matter what. I don't expect any better from you.

Brian, your memory of Clinton's Balkan's adventures is as usual false. Republicans did not, as a party, "undermine" Clinton's Balkans intervention. This is the Internet. You can't get away with spouting that kind of bullshit anymore.

BTW, Lieberman was driven out of the party for not betraying the country. Thanks for reminding us of liberal fascism on the left.

Matthew if the choice is to be a Canadian or a "ghoul"...I'll take ghoul any day of the week.

Brian caught lying again! No kidding!

Brian, you lose....again. Live it, learn it, love it. : )

"Our did Bill V Clinton go to war (for all intents and purposes)without Congressional approval?"

He's too smart for Congressional approval.

OK, Mr. "honest" Brian, how about you answer the question: when did Congress authorize President Clinton to use military force in the former Yugoslavia?

Jay, your strawman is showing. Where did I say they did? In fact, what I did quote is:

President Clinton does not need a resolution from Congress to deploy the troops

Debate that point if you want, but don't lie about what I said.

Hi, Sucker Fish Jo! Thanks for displaying your illiteracy again. We were beginning to think you might have learned to read! Thanks for setting us straight.

"Why bother trying to be polite? You people are ghouls."

Yeah, matthew, that's so real...You come here to yammer and disagree with another country's politics because your "slow job" gives you time to make assumptions about people you don't even know. Could it be that you think you are "intellectually" better than them, or they are not as abrasive? You said it yourself it was more "fun" to argue with people you disagree with.

I am a libertarian/centrist. The short description is that I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt before coming to a conclusion. You are, however, on a right thinking board, so don't expect as a twenty-something, out-spoken foreigner you can just overturn the "establishment" you regard as ghoulish. If you want Americans to be the bleeding heart apologists for the mistakes of the planet, please go elsewhere.

I will cut you a little slack by saying I remember what it was like in my twenties, when I thought I knew everything and thought I had all the answers.