Bmovies

I am refering to the New York Daily News.

Now, I don't want to be blowing my own horn. I've had my letters to the editor to magazines and newspapers published many times before (including in the NY Daily News). So this is not a new experience for me. But after a long time of not writing to any letters to any editors, there was one case where I couldn't help myself and wrote a response to another persons letter to the editor in the NY Daily News. People have been writing in about the terrorism problem and where to lay the blame. Conservatives blaming Clinton. Liberals writing in response, blaming Bush. The usual. There was one author of one letter (printed in the August 24 Daily News) who defended Clinton in his handling of the terrorism problem. Laying blame at the feet of the Republican congress. Claiming that he might have done more if he wasn't so preoccupied with the 60 million dollar investigation of his "sex life". (Sorry but I do not have that particular letter in front of me right now. I should have saved it.) In any case, I felt it warranted a response. So I wrote the following and sent it in:

According to voicer Andrew Clark ("A tragic distraction", August 24), The "main culprits" of terrorism during the Clinton years are the Republican House and Senate. He asks: "If angry Republicans weren't wasting his and the country's time by spending upwards of $60 million to find out if Clinton had a little fun with an intern, who knows what he would have done?"

I know exactly what he would have done. Let's look at the record of what he did when he wasn't so pre-occupied with the investigations of the Special Prosecutor. Clinton was on the phone with Congressman H.L. "Sonny" Callahan. Clinton was seeking his vote to approve funds for a peacekeeping mission into Bosnia. While Clinton was on the phone with the Congressman, he was simultaneously being serviced by Monica Lewinsky. Clinton was notoriously famous for being late to his own appointments. One time he had an appointment to meet with Yassir Arafat. Arafat showed up for this diplomatic meeting on time. But Clinton kept him waiting an hour and a half. Why? Because he was too pre-occupied being serviced again by the same Monica Lewinsky.

According to Robert Patterson in his book, "Dereliction of Duty", Saddam had violated his terms of surrender by launching a tank attack upon the Kurds. As a result, an airstrike was planned on Iraq. On the evening (the pilots needed the cover of darkness as an additional safety measure) the airstrike was planned, on the other side of the world Clinton was too engrossed in watching a golf game to give the go ahead for ther airstrike. Pilots waited anxiously in their cockpits while a series of phone calls were constantly made to the President to seek clearance for the attack but Clinton refused to come to the phone. "Tell him (Sandy Berger) that I'll get back to him later." was Clintons response. Clinton never got back to him, the cover of darkness was gone, the mission had to be scrapped. All because the President couldnt be bothered to stop watching a golf game.

And, also in Patterson's book, in Feb. 1998, the President and his staff visited a hurricane ravaged area of Florida. Patterson writes, "The President, however, was busy playing a game of Hearts with his pals." He couldn't be bothered to look out of the window occasionally. Only when it was time to align Marine One with the press helicopter for a picture, the president quickly peered out the window, feigning an interested and grief-stricken expression. And then Clinton went back to his game of hearts. Never even looking out the window again.

And when Clinton WAS pre-occupied with the investigation? Even his own lawyers openly complained that they didnt have enough time to meet with him to build a defense strategy because he was too busy playing cards and word games with his friends! So, what would President Clinton have done in regards to the terrorism problem if he wasn't so pre-occupied with the $60 million dollar investigation? More of the same obviously: Getting serviced by interns, watching golf games, and playing cards and word games with friends.

Today, they published my letter. But here is what's printed word for word:

To Voicer Andrew Clark: What would President Clinton have done about terrorism problem if he wasn't so preoccupied with the $60 million investigation? More of the same obviously: Getting serviced by interns, watching golf games, and playing cards and word games with friends.

No, I do NOT chalk it up to political bias on the editors behalf. Quite the contrary. The Daily News always crams about a dozen letters to the editor onto only one single page (and share that page with a political cartoon as well). As a result, many of these letters have to be edited down to the barest bones possible so that all of them can be fitted onto that page. I'm quite sure that many people write long, expansive letters to the editor of the NY Daily News. But after it has been edited down so much, our well thought out letters all come off sounding like a bunch of bumper sticker slogans, hot headed rhetoric, and mindless partisan propaganda in two sentences or less.

Still, as Tom Hanks' character Joe Fox complains in the movie, 'You've Got Mail': "I was eloquent! Shit!"

AUGUST 31, 2006 UPDATE: The NY Daily News got a response to my letter:

Dangerous Obsession

Brooklyn: Voicer Marc Solomon should learn his history. President Bill Clinton was not preoccupied with a $60 million investigation. The GOP was preoccupied with it. Incessantly. Because the Republicans wouldn't drop an investigation into activities of which many former Presidents were also guilty, Clinton could not accomplish anything.

Ronald L. Cohen

Er, wasnt that my point? That Clinton was not so "preoccupied" with the investigation???

Here is my response to the NY Daily News. Chances are not good that they will print it. Always let the liberals have the last word is practically the motto of the NY Daily News. I hope I'm wrong.

Voicer Ronald Cohen should learn reading comprehension. He writes: "Voicer Marc Solomon should learn his history. President Bill Clinton was not preoccupied with a $60 million investigation." Well, where did I say different? That WAS my point. That he was NOT preoccupied with it. Thanks for the confirmation. He then goes on to write: "Because the Republicans wouldn't drop an investigation into activities of which many former Presidents were also guilty, Clinton could not accomplish anything." 1) How many former Presidents were convicted of perjury? Zero. 2) If he wasnt so preoccupied by it (as we both agree), then how is it that he couldnt accomplish anything because of it? Didn't seem to stop him from writing executive orders, lobbying members of congress, signing or vetoing legislation, conducting foreign policy, raising campaign funds, etc.