Bill Clinton on Snowden: An 'imperfect messenger'
This is a discussion on Bill Clinton on Snowden: An 'imperfect messenger' within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Like Bill Clinton or not...this is a decent article and an interesting take on Snowden (depending on your view of him).
Bill Clinton on Snowden: ...
Post By Chuck808
Post By ccw9mm
April 9th, 2014 08:00 PM
Bill Clinton on Snowden: An 'imperfect messenger'
Like Bill Clinton or not...this is a decent article and an interesting take on Snowden (depending on your view of him).
Bill Clinton on Snowden: An ?imperfect messenger? ? CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
Former President Bill Clinton weighed in on Edward Snowden, calling the controversial National Security Agency leaker an “imperfect messenger.”
The 42nd President said, “We cannot change the character of our country or compromise the future of our people by creating a national security state, which takes away the liberty and privacy we propose to advance.” On the other hand, he said, the U.S. can’t “look like fools” by missing important intelligence.
Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
April 9th, 2014 08:09 PM
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. If he actually believed the second quote you have in your post, he would have made a great president. Unfortunately, no president we have had, from Carter, to Regan, to Clinton, to Bush, or Obummer realizes that liberty does not necessarily mean safety.
My personal view on Snowden is that he is a patriot. The government is to serve the people. If we dont know what the government does, how can we hold it accountable?
April 9th, 2014 09:24 PM
I would rather hear the words or a good man, a great leader, and an honored President of the United States of America, George Washington.
The marvel of all history is the patience with which men and women submit to burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by their governments.
I find supremely ironic that God in his wisdom and grace has given man freedom of choice bounded by 10 simple rules. Man in his finite wisdom has created millions of rules to limit freedom of choice and the personal responsibility of his fellow man.
April 9th, 2014 09:40 PM
If he lied in office I'd think he's at least fibbing a little here. If he's saying something he's trying to get votes for his husband, I mean Hillery, so take it with a grain o f salt.
US Army Vet
April 9th, 2014 10:11 PM
Do you believe anything that comes out of his pie hole?
"Don't shout for help at night, you may wake your neighbors"
April 9th, 2014 10:13 PM
One of the things that made Bill Clinton effect was his desire to win, regardless of whether it was really what he wanted. His positions were often flexible - shifting left or right to gain more support. So, while I did not like his political positions and moral turpitude, he did what he needed to do to be effective. Bush (W) understood that but was not always flexible, and Obama just doesn't get this at all (look at his constant "my way or the highway" talk, and staying out of negotiations on important issues until the very end).
Anyway, I believe this article is another example of shifting positions slightly for personal gain. It could easily be argued that Hillary was well aware of these things and is nearly as culpable as Obama. But, in order to help is wife it is better to give Obama a back-handed compliment, but really push the blame his way and hope it sticks to Biden. It will be interesting to see if Jay Carney brings this up (more likely to respond to reporter questions about this) and how he will spin it to try to make it look like a glowing endorsement for Obama.
Nonetheless, it was an interesting read.
April 9th, 2014 10:16 PM
Wow, now if we could only find some way to get Billary to run for president.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around laws. Plato
April 10th, 2014 05:23 AM
That that is, is. That that is not, is not. Is that it? It is.
Despite his Clintonesque take on life and his opinions on the value of spin, he's got a point about whistleblowers. There's value there. Until the SHTF with the so-called revelations made so publicly in the past year, most folks were running about with their heads in the sand. And most will simply go back to the sand, once it blows over. Hopefully, changes will occur. Irrespective of what one thinks of the utility to a citizenry living in liberty and the costs involved in stifling/promoting such things, whistleblowing has its place.
Personally, I think many of the revelations serve a much higher purpose than government. They serve governance and liberty and truth. Though, there's a butcher's bill to be paid for some of those revelations. Might well be a suitable cost to be paid, even if it turns out to be further blood on the tree of liberty. I just wish it involved a far greater percentage of traitorous hireling blood than usual, this time around, to help make the changes stick. Won't hold my breath on that one, though.
Last edited by ccw9mm; April 10th, 2014 at 10:29 AM.
Reason: spelling, grammar