Sunday, September 24, 2006
Famous Shakespeare Quotes
One from Hamlet (Act 3, Scene 2, line 230) is Queen Gertrude's "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." It is Hamlet's mother's comment/criticism of the play Hamlet has put on to test the king (again) to see if his father's ghost was correct saying he was murdered by his brother, who then married the widow of his victim. The player queen in Hamlet's play within a play has just gone on and on about how bad it would be for her to wed again after he husband's death.
I've always taken it to mean, and I believe this is why it is a familiar quote to many, that people who are guilty of wrong are very sensitive to hearing about virtue in the same field. Thus, the quote is a layered window into basic human behavior. In Hamlet, Gertrude, having married her husband's murderer (she didn't know that part) very quickly after his death (she was well aware of that), hates to see another doing the right thing, pledging a chaste mourning period.
I bring this up after watching former President Bill Clinton get very angry and say stupid things during his interview by Chris Wallace. (Rough transcript here). The question to Clinton was generally what do you say to people who think you didn't do enough to get bin Laden. His angry answer went on for about 15 minutes, criticizing in no particular order the question, the network, the right-wingers, Wallace himself, the media, everyone else, and the Republicans who said he was too obsessed with bin Laden (which is a group consisting of not one soul). The ex-President protests too much, I think.
He also criticizes/praises Carl Rove for instilling division and fear into the American people. Wait a minute, is it a false fear or is it truth? Are we facing a real threat to our lives and economy from Jihadists (led at least in spirit by bin Laden, whom Clinton claims he tried so hard to kill) or is it a smoke screen to obfuscate the real important issues which do not include a devastating terrorist attack in our future. Am I wrong to think that Clinton and the Democrats have always (even now) taken this threat less seriously than President Bush? It seems to me that most of the criticism of President Bush vis a vis the Jihadists boils down to he's fighting a war (poorly, whatever he does) rather than fighting a criminal gang like Clinton sometimes did.
I'm watching Bill Clinton right now on the golf delayed interview by Tim Russert. No anger yet. It's not as good television, but perhaps I just think that because I prefer to see Bill Clinton unable to dissemble.
I've always taken it to mean, and I believe this is why it is a familiar quote to many, that people who are guilty of wrong are very sensitive to hearing about virtue in the same field. Thus, the quote is a layered window into basic human behavior. In Hamlet, Gertrude, having married her husband's murderer (she didn't know that part) very quickly after his death (she was well aware of that), hates to see another doing the right thing, pledging a chaste mourning period.
I bring this up after watching former President Bill Clinton get very angry and say stupid things during his interview by Chris Wallace. (Rough transcript here). The question to Clinton was generally what do you say to people who think you didn't do enough to get bin Laden. His angry answer went on for about 15 minutes, criticizing in no particular order the question, the network, the right-wingers, Wallace himself, the media, everyone else, and the Republicans who said he was too obsessed with bin Laden (which is a group consisting of not one soul). The ex-President protests too much, I think.
He also criticizes/praises Carl Rove for instilling division and fear into the American people. Wait a minute, is it a false fear or is it truth? Are we facing a real threat to our lives and economy from Jihadists (led at least in spirit by bin Laden, whom Clinton claims he tried so hard to kill) or is it a smoke screen to obfuscate the real important issues which do not include a devastating terrorist attack in our future. Am I wrong to think that Clinton and the Democrats have always (even now) taken this threat less seriously than President Bush? It seems to me that most of the criticism of President Bush vis a vis the Jihadists boils down to he's fighting a war (poorly, whatever he does) rather than fighting a criminal gang like Clinton sometimes did.
I'm watching Bill Clinton right now on the golf delayed interview by Tim Russert. No anger yet. It's not as good television, but perhaps I just think that because I prefer to see Bill Clinton unable to dissemble.
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 10:53 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
Am I wrong to think that Clinton and the Democrats have always (even now) taken this threat less seriously than President Bush?
Well, I think you are are wrong about Clinton if you are comparing him with Bush in the period of time before the WTC attacks.
Well, I think you are are wrong about Clinton if you are comparing him with Bush in the period of time before the WTC attacks.
Bin Laden declares war on us for having troops in Saudi Arabia in 1996. So four years of largely ignoring versus 8 months of ignoring with a wake up too late just before 9/11. Clinton comes off worse nearly anyway you look at it, unless you're working to excuse President Clinton. I guess you can make a case if you have that end in mind.
Roger,
I would take it as a personal and intellectual kindness if you eschewed the camp of the Clinton blamers.
In the meanwhile, that jackanapes, Hugo Chavez has the unmitigated gall to call President Bush the devil in an address to the United Nations. No to be outdone, Rev. Jerry Falwell stated that a potential presidential candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton would do more to energize the evagelical Christian base than Lucifer.
I would take it as a personal and intellectual kindness if you eschewed the camp of the Clinton blamers.
In the meanwhile, that jackanapes, Hugo Chavez has the unmitigated gall to call President Bush the devil in an address to the United Nations. No to be outdone, Rev. Jerry Falwell stated that a potential presidential candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton would do more to energize the evagelical Christian base than Lucifer.
# posted by 
: 9:48 AM
: 9:48 AM
I'll quit blaming Clinton when he stops lying about his actions as President. No quarter for the finger wagger.
I think Hugo is yesterday's news next election unless something really strange happens, so I don't care he called the President the Devil (I do care that our guests in New York laughed and applauded) and Falwell continues to annoy me although he does have a point about Hillary energyzing the Republican base in opposition. I don't think the Devil can run for president anyway, as he was not born in the United States.
I think Hugo is yesterday's news next election unless something really strange happens, so I don't care he called the President the Devil (I do care that our guests in New York laughed and applauded) and Falwell continues to annoy me although he does have a point about Hillary energyzing the Republican base in opposition. I don't think the Devil can run for president anyway, as he was not born in the United States.
I don't think the Devil can run for president anyway, as he was not born in the United States.
How can you be so sure?
Anyway, I don't think playing the blame game is helping anyone. EVERYONE was asleep to a certain extent. I'd argue that they both took the threat seriously but did little to address it because politically there was little that could be done.
8 months of ignoring with a wake up too late just before 9/11.
I have no idea what you mean by the above statement. When exactly was the wake-up? I tend to think it was after the attack.
How can you be so sure?
Anyway, I don't think playing the blame game is helping anyone. EVERYONE was asleep to a certain extent. I'd argue that they both took the threat seriously but did little to address it because politically there was little that could be done.
8 months of ignoring with a wake up too late just before 9/11.
I have no idea what you mean by the above statement. When exactly was the wake-up? I tend to think it was after the attack.
We all were asleep to the threat, but 9/11 only woke a few of us up. The wake up too late reference is to the irony that the Bush Administration honchos finally discussed bin Laden and got serious about taking him out on September 10, 2001. Little late there, Charlie.
Post a Comment
<< Home
