Posted 6 months, 24 days ago in 
Loading ...
I was disappointed in reading Henrietta Hay’s column headlined, “It’s time for a first woman president.” Has she forgotten all the lies and deceptions that occurred in the Clinton Administration? We don’t want a woman at any price, especially Hillary.
The Clinton’s entertained the Chinese in the White House for large sums of money. Norman Hsu was a Democratic fundraiser who was recently discovered at the Grand Junction train station, fleeing from the law. He is now incarcerated. When Hillary heard this, she immediately returned a small amount of money to charity, feigning innocence.
How about Hillary’s hundred thousand dollar cattle windfall? Again, she was an innocent victim.
And then there was Bill Clinton and his involvement with a White House intern, as well as Paula Jones. Who knows how many dalliances and immoral acts were carried on in our White House? Bill lied and Hillary claimed he was a victim of the right wing conspiracy, defending him. After he confessed, Hillary claimed innocence. She is very astute in portraying the innocent victim.
The Clinton legacy was dishonor and disgrace. They are both deceitful and prevaricators, and are unworthy to lead this country.
When they left the White House, they took things that didn’t belong to them, which they later returned. Wake up, America! Do you really want reruns of the Clinton antics?
As honest Abe Lincoln once said, “You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all the people all of the time.” I hope we have matured as a nation to realize we want leaders who are honest, have Christian family values and morals to bring dignity to our country.
ROSE MARLIAN
Grand Junction
31 Responses to “Clinton legacy is one of dishonor and disgrace”
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 9:34 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
If you have nothing good to say about your candidate, St. John McSame, get the character assassination machine fired up.
Try to remember that not a single member of the Clinton administration was even indicted for any sort of malfeasance of office. Even after Dick and Bush took over and redirected FBI and CIA from investigating things like terrorism to a witch hunt to find something the Clintons did wrong.
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 9:42 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
meh….i find none of the available candidates appealing, myself…i don’t want any of em in office, as i feel that each of the three would be detrimental in their own way….mebbe i’ll just write in for alfred e neuman
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 9:44 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Explain, Ms. Marlian, your statement “We don’t want a woman at any price.”
Do you have other bigoted (and therefore, wholly irrational) criteria for who should and shouldn’t be elected officials?
Sheesh.
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 9:58 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Have to say first, I’m not offering an opinion about the candidates. I’ll leave that to better-qualified people.
But I’ll speak up a little since I didn’t read that to mean Ms. Marlian is condemning the possibility of a female president, although I can see how someone would. Instead, I think her intention was to say voters shouldn’t choose a candidate based only on the fact that she’s a woman.
Disagree with Ms. Marlian’s opinion about Mrs. Clinton all you want, but calling her letter “bigoted” is excessive.
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 10:00 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Isn’t that unfortunate? A woman, saying, “We don’t want a woman, at any price”? Isn’t that like saying, “We don’t want a black person”, or even, “We don’t want a person with green eyes”?
Don’t get me wrong; I wouldn’t vote for HRC if you paid me to. But it has nothing to do with her being a woman. I didn’t like her husband, either.
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 10:04 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I dunno, Todd…someone who says a President must have “Christian Family Values” may indeed have a problem with a woman being President. Head of the household, and all that….
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 10:08 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
curmudgeon, i don’t have a problem with “christian family values” as long as they don’t try to shove religion down my throat…i don’t know if ms/mrs marlian intended to imply that women aren’t fit to be in office, so i won’t make any assumptions…you know what they say about the word “assume”
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 10:10 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I don’t have a problem with Christian values…I have a problem with insisting an elected official follow a certain religious path.
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 10:16 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
What good have Christian Family Values done us these last 7 years?
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 10:17 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Have we seen ANY?
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 10:31 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Following careful reading of Ms. Marlian’s I have to wonder if the lady recognizes the logical inconsistency in her position. Almost the entire body of the letter consists of but judgment against the Clintons. Then, in her last paragraph goes on to say that we should elect people to office who have “Christian values.” This, at least to this individual, is like someone yelling and screaming (ranting)then, at the end saying “Oh, by the way, let’s be nice.” It would appear that the lady has a quite different view of “Christianity” than I learned.
As to the issue of a “woman president”, both Henrietta Hay and Ms. Marlian are wrong. The issue of gender, race, religion, etc. are not valid criteria to use for selecting any individual for any position, even president of the United States. Any individual who uses any of them has not really thought about it, and is allowing emotional and artificial standards to govern their position. It is based on nothing more than an assumption of superiority of some physical characteristic or concept over another.
There is really only one thing to look at, in all such instances. It is the “ideas” that candidates have for the future of an organization, including an entire country. That may take much more effort than many are willing to expend. It is so much easier to substitute an artificial and simple concept or quality (based upon personal and emotional judgment of those) than to study and attempt to understand what the individual is really saying. Ideas, after all, are what guide us. We had therefore pay much more heed to those, instead of allowing our hand to be guided by emotional, inconsequential, or insignificant criteria. Far too many of the electorate are not at all careful in that regard.
The only standard to use in presidential elections is, what ideas would best serve the interests of this country (its people), in matters of domestic and foreign policy. That requires approaching the casting of one’s ballot with the gravity and sobriety with which that action deserves.
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 10:43 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
When encountering such a term as “values”, “Christian” or otherwise, what bothers me most of all is that those using the term never bother to define what those so-called “values” are. In such instances, the term “values” means absolutely nothing. Yet, many keep seeing and hearing it over and over again like “Christian values”, “Western slope values”, etc.
In her letter Ms. Marlian uses the term “Christian values”. Fine, but which version of, which church, congregation, or even cult does she belong to? She may wish to provide that information if we are to understand what she means by “Christian”, and question if perhaps she may be using the term, not based upon understanding of the term itself, but rather upon an assumption of superiority.
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 10:55 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
That’s always been a question I’ve wanted to ask, when someone talks about “Christian” values….what flavor?
Baptist? Pentecostal? Evangelical? Evangelical Free? Catholic? Lutheran? Presbyterian?
I wonder what they think of the Greek Orthodox Church, or the Orthodox Christians in the Holy Land, who practice something very, very different than what goes on in the Mega-Churches. I wouldn’t be so arrogant as to presume any one of them is better, truer, than the other.
But, when it comes to leaders and what you might call “core” Christian Values, our own President has broken all but a few of the Commandments, hasn’t he?
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 11:28 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
All but a “few” Curmudgeon? There are only 10 and I would challange you to show where he has broken any of them and don’t give me the “Bush lied and kids died” runaround if you happen to disapprove of the war. There is plenty of blame to go around on both sides on that one.
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 11:48 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Gfbyers, I challenge you to show that Bush did not lie, and that people have not died as a result.
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 12:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Getting off track a bit aren’t we? But to answer that, a lie is something said that the person telling it knows to be false. Neither you nor I know what he knew or didn’t know. Anyone stating positivly one way or the other is only stating their own opinion. So I cannot prove that he didn’t lie, nor can you prove that he did lie. We will just have to agree to disagree on that one.
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 12:14 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
gfbyers, it would appear, restricts of the word “lie” as but limited to personal conversations much as a child, in order to avoid the consequences of his/her actions, will deny that they did it. Some of us, when considering the term, would rather expand it to mean any type of wilfull deception.
A case in point with this administration came to light by way of a book by a former press secretary. In that book, the individual expressed his disgust with the fact that he was told something “untrue” (a lie), and then went out to repeat what was untrue. What he resented, as most of us would resent, was “being used” in order to foster an untruth.
Was a lie told? Yes. Bush lied to his own press secretary, and thefore to the American public.
I don’t know about others but, as an adult, I have left the “lies” behind. That is for children, not for conscientious and responsible adults. Adults, accept full and complete responsibility for all of their actions and words. To do otherwise constitutes the very essence of irresponsibility.
As an afterthought, let me say this about the press conference held by the current press secretary. Either the reporters present were “asleep at the switch”, were unqualified to be their, or simply didn’t care.
Posted May 1st, 2008 at 10:16 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
To get back to the “Christian values” thing; I have one for you. How about, “judge not, that ye be not judged.” Remember who said that?
Posted May 1st, 2008 at 10:20 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Shhh….dc! Next thing you know, someone is gonna mention that Jesus was born in the Middle East….
Posted May 1st, 2008 at 10:28 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
oops, sorry
Posted May 1st, 2008 at 10:44 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
…and, born from a virgin, none the less. You know, the sort of thing that occurs regularly. Now….drum roll….watch me spontaneously combust.
Great letter, Rose – only to remind us how these carefree Bush & Co. years have been filled with such HONOR & GRACE. Thanks for quoting our boy Abe L. also. Makes you pine for the old days don’t it? Especially with quotes from our current orator-in-chief W, like:
“There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.”
Or, how about: “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.”
“MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, baby!!!” Today is the 5-year anniversary of that profound message. How well have honesty, dignity, and Christian values prevailed?
Posted May 1st, 2008 at 1:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
by Joseph, i just realized today was the National Day of Prayer! Howl-a-lou-yah, and on yer knees, bruddah.
Such an eerie coincidence with the 5 year anniversary of MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, and all.
Like Rose said: “I hope we have matured as a nation to realize we want leaders who are honest, have Christian family values and morals to bring dignity to our country.”
Somebody please put in a few large-ish prayers or emails to the Big Guy to stop the madness. I seem to be on the spam/unsafe list so i never get any response.
Posted May 13th, 2008 at 6:22 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I understand I’m a little late to this discussion….but if anyone is reading…pretty intersting that almost everyone is willing to overlook the crap the Clintons have pulled! Try to find a supporter that will actually admit later that some of the lies were pretty bad and actually…they ought to be in jail….you will never find that person. Its sick and sad, and a reflection on the fat part of the curve that is a big voting block in this country. Its what the Clintons have usually counted on to get through…inside deals with people that count (with money), and voted in by people that get nothing in return.
Its very simple, they are a national disgrace and should be in jail.
Posted May 13th, 2008 at 8:11 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Twotraps referring to the Clintons writes: “Its very simple, they are a national disgrace and should be in jail.
I am always bemused by those who condemn Bill Clinton for what was perhaps some untruths about his private life which affected nobody but his family, and at the same time completely excuse the activities of Ronald Reagan in support of Central American dictators who with his help murdered thousands of their own citizens as well as American nuns. Which of the two activities is really immoral? It appears that twotraps is motivated by ideology rather than the truth.
Posted May 13th, 2008 at 8:21 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Classof52, please be a little more specific on how Ronald Regan was responsible for the murder of thousands of Central Americans.
Posted May 13th, 2008 at 8:22 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh golly. More re-written history.
” Ronald Reagan in support of Central American dictators ”
Excuse me for bringing up some facts.
Teddy kennedy and friends were supporting the communist dictators in central America.
President Reagan was supporting those damned pesky rebels that wanted to live in peace and free from fear of reprisals by an oppressive, murderous government.
provable FACT gene, don’t even try to go there unscathed.
Posted May 13th, 2008 at 9:25 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class of 52…my goodness! I guess I could have been more specific, and qualified just what I call ‘disgrace’ or ‘dishonor’. I think if Regan did all that, the legacy should be called out on it. So should Obama endure all the required scrutiny. One point, and I’ll try to narrow it down…is that between the two democratic candidates, one has a trail of scandal and questionable decisions topped off by the Lewinsky deal. The other, has not had enough time on the job to get into trouble yet! So, between the two, I find it fascinating that the public has not had enough of the Clinton crap. So, yes, all the past presidents, including Bush should be held accountable. Sadly they are not.
We could take a simple decison gone wrong…since I feel that it sums up the Clinton thinking. When Hillary’s brothers each had the Cash-for-Pardons idea going…are we to believe Hillary did not know? Her brothers acted alone? Bill didn’t tell Hillary later, maybe over dinner, what they were up to? Once it was done with one of them, I think $400K was involved, she was pressured to get the money ,I mean…the ’success fee’ returned. My feeling is that she does not fear scrutiny, the media or the law…or she may have thought to herself…’Should I do this? Will anyone find out? Will the media get it? Does this reflect well on me? Can I say I didn’t know?
We could keep going here, but I would ask you how long you would last at your job, or in your company, lying or misspeaking, not being properly prepared for major presentations (checking your facts, like sniper fire) and more or less cintinuously abusing your position for your own personal gain? You might not last long, its a terrific, self-correcting measure found in real life that you would be more accountable to the people and larger organization around you. More or less, you would be punished or fired. Not Hillary, No Fear, No Consequences.
Posted May 13th, 2008 at 9:39 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
twotraps,
Next they will require you to ‘define’ whatever words they need ‘defined’.
It’s not because they do not understand the definition of the word in question, but because they have no solid ground to complain from so they need a strawdog to deflect from their problematic positions.
Facts are irrelevant.
Enjoy your time here, and when they start claiming that you are of lesser intellectual capacity, feel free to report the offender.
It’s a good place for discussion usually, so have fun.
Willis
Posted May 13th, 2008 at 9:59 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Confession: I hate Bill Clinton, and have no large amount of love for his wife. His personal life was not the issue for me (I didn’t marry him, after all); it was his lack of discretion, his disrespect for his business partner (a marriage of political convenience is still a partnership), and his willingness to lie, and to defame others, to protect his legacy. The financial scheming, FBI files, and ‘lost’ documents were just symptoms of a larger problem. Look at how many people fell on their swords to protect his reputation, and look at their tactics to destroy the reputation of others. What do you think would have happened to Monica, if she hadn’t kept the dress? She would have been trashed, just like the others. The Democratic party, in showing support and standing behind him, paid dearly…with their credibility.
Frankly, he tarnished the dignity of his office (not to mention what he probably did to the carpet), and made it that much easier for GWB to waltz in with his “Aw, shucks, I’m too stupid to lie” routine. And look where we are now. Do I think Al Gore would have been a better President than GWB? Absolutely. But, the same could be said for the kid who bags my groceries, so that’s not a ringing endorsement.
So, in a way, I blame Bill, at least partially, for a lot of the evils we’re suffering today. I just use a different path of logic.
Posted May 13th, 2008 at 10:16 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Totally agree, the discretion thing says a lot. So why are people still supporting them, and the prospect of more scandal. When is enough? Its not an endorsement of Obama or anyone else, its just a question to the fierce supports of the Clintons, how do you look the other way on issues of character, discretion etc. I just think the country can do better than the Clintons….but no amount of scandal seems to tip them over!
Maybe, at a minimum, it will make the news that the civil suit for campaign fraud will start soon. I know its silly and happened a long time ago, and that Mr. Paul was a convicted crook…but it made it to court, the Clintons are involved and it might actually qualify as news. Pretty funny actually, two crooks go to court to argue who was ‘less wrong’!!
Posted May 13th, 2008 at 10:55 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I have come to the conclusion that the entire government, in total, are inter-related and that that inbreeding has severely inhibited their thought process, and that they have no concept that there are people out here who are hungry or ill and don’t care. As the dispatcher said to the women who was threatened by a knife wielding assailant; “i don’t really give a s___
what happens to you.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.