[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Actually, while I'm second to few in my condemnations of Nixon, grouping
> Grant in with him is entirely unfair, I think.
Yes, you are right. I agree that Grant was honest and
became a victim of those who could and would take advantage
of him. And I agree with your assessment of Grant as a
great American.
> _However_, it is entirely possible that Clinton's actions (or, more
> accurately, his failure to act) in Rwanda are the lowest moral point for
> the United States in the 20th century - they are actually physically
> nauseating, and I urge anyone interested to read this month's Atlantic
> cover story or the earlier one in The New Republic that is, in fact, on the
> web.
The Atlantic article is also on line at
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/09/power.htm
its very long and I haven't finished reading it yet.
My description of Clinton as unique was not actually meant to refer
> to his official record - it was actually meant to be a reference to his
> political genius. In my assessment there is only one politician in
> American history who stands as his superior in the actions that go under
> the rubric of "politics" (as opposed to statesmanship) - and that was
> Lincoln, which is kind of heady company to be in.
>
I misunderstood.
--
Doug
new email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.zo.com/~brighto
