Reply #189: Churchill and Clinton [View All]

[HPLeft]

Churchill was continuously evolving - which is why he started as a Conservative, then became a Liberal, then returned to the Conservative party. His reaction to the Japanese is pretty typical for a time of war, during which the Japanese behavior of American and British prisoners was beyond the pale. I imagine that if I heard those same reports, under the same conditions, I'd be thinking the same thing for a moment or two. If Burton hadn't drunk himself into an early grave (what some people will do to get away from Liz Taylor), I'd be telling him to get real. He sounds like the Michael Dukakis of actors...remember the question from Bernie Shaw about how he Dukakis would react if someone had raped and murdered his wife? That was really an honest response, don't you think - not.

When push came to shove, Churchill demonstrated much greater compassion towards Germany, Japan and Italy than they would have demonstrated towards the Allies had the Axis been triumphant.

As for Clinton...well, the best thing about him was that he was electable. I think he sincerely cared about people, but he cared about himself more - and "retaining his political viability". He was the consummate political animal, but as animals go, I can imagine much worse. Neither he or Hillary are heroes in my book, or even people to be admired. But there are much worse.

As much as I personally dislike Bill Clinton, I'd much rather have him running the country than someone from the co-dependant wing of the Democratic Party, like Jessye Jackson - who never met a person he didn't want to make an excuse for or enable, or a bully he wasn't willing to coddle. If their ideas were credible, people would instinctively gravitate to them - but they exist in as much of an far-out ideological realm as do the crazies on the far right.