compared2what? wrote:JackRiddler wrote:compared2what? wrote:Forgive me. What I meant was: I respectfully dissent.
Um, which part?
It would be way off-topic; I just have a respectfully dissenting view of Ole Tax-Exempt-Dollar Bill Clinton's foreign policy agenda. But it doesn't belong here, really. Basically, I posted in haste, for which I apologize.
Yes, well, you say so, but somehow I doubt that you do. Or at least I don't think there'd be much disagreement between us on the general conclusion, that it was both very bad and within the American tradition: systemic. Don't mean to insist on an answer, but I like to think I'm communicating effectively and with the right balance of nuance as well as judgement, and you've got me wondering whether I said (or you heard) anything near to what I thought I said. (Also, I don't see how Clinton could possibly be off-topic, given the all-too familiar appointments to the Obama government.)
A metaphor for it might be: even with Clinton coming on like an Arkansas Alexander, the Pentagon and empire guys still pushed hard for him to be more of a Genghis. If you see what I mean. (Am I being unfair to Genghis vis a vis Alexander? Probably. It's my Hellenistic bias.) Or is to make any distinction here, especially one involving figures as remote and authoritarian as presidents and generals, a capitulation to the recuperative process by which we all constantly renew our part in the machine?
.
