Adonis Diaries

Posts Tagged ‘Bill Clinton

Are you telling me the US citizens are that shallow? Joe DiMaggio’s mother, Seinfeld, Bill Clinton….

In my previous post, Michael Tomasky wrote “Why the Palestinians will never win” ( something to the effect that:

1. To Americans, Jews are nice (all Jews?), successful people. They’re funny. Jerry Seinfeld. Who’s gonna be against Jerry Seinfeld’s people?

2. Roosevelt toyed with the idea of interning Italian-Americans in camps along with Japanese-Americans. You know why he dropped it? Because people around him told him that there is no way on Earth you can put Joe DiMaggio’s mother in a work camp…

3. Bill Clinton said, the only Palestinians he knows are college professors and doctors. In Clinton’s experience and in my more limited one, Palestinian Americans are a high-achieving and very warm people. But all most Americans know is, they’re a bunch of terrorists…

4. The Palestinian leadership appear to have no understanding of why the Palestinians are really losing. They’re losing because American public opinion will never be on their side. Americans will always back the Jews….” 

And I wondered: “Are the US citizens that shallow?

Have the USA built a vast empire, and is still the first superpower, relying on very shallow people?

There are many US very famous actors, world renown professionals… from Near-Eastern origin (Lebanon, Syria, Palestine).  And the latest research extracted from the census revealed that they are the most educated in the US, with the highest rate in professions, and owning single family homes… (Read link in note 1)

People say:

“It is all how you present it. Palestinians need to present it better…”

“Wining the heart of american public opinion is one of the battles that needs to be won by the Palestinians… ”

“Writers attempt to use this argument to stress on the importance of abandoning violent methods to fight apartheid and occupying Israel reveals his hypocritical attitude toward the reality on the ground… ”

“Israel uses violence all the time, is it damaging its image in the american public opinion? No because it portrays it as a matter of self-defense.”

“The late leader Arafat abandoned violence and he is still seen as a Terrorist. So the question is how to cover up all your violence not abandoning it!…”

And I keep wondering: How could the Palestinians and their leaders present a better picture or message? Should the Palestinians say:

“We are being killed everyday, but we like the Israeli occupiers?”

“Israel uprooted 500,000 olive trees in our lands since the year 2000, but we understand and forgive Israel: They believe that olive tree is our symbol for resistance?”

“Apartheid Israel is harassing us on the 300 checkpoints and many sick Palestinians are dying on the trip to any hospital, but that’s alright. Wish the American public opinion just empathize with our plights…”

“It takes 45 minutes to reach the Jordanian borders, but Israel checkpoints lengthen the duration to over 3 hours, but that’s okay… as long as the American public opinions release their opinions on Israel ill behaviors…”

Do you think that Ariel Sharon dismantled the Zionist colonies in Gaza in 2005 after US public opinion disproved of the settlements?

Do you think that Ehud Barak withdrew from south Lebanon in 2000 after US public opinion polls expressed their views that Israel extended its presence in Lebanon (18 years)?

Do you think that the 138 UN Sates that voted for an observer seat to the Palestinian people waited for a US poll on that matter?

Mind you that President Obama promised the Palestinians an observer seat if they withdraw their demand for a full State last year, and then reneged on his promise this year for an observer seat? Do you think that Obama was relying on any US poll on that subject?

Finally, on Nov. 30, 2012, the Palestinians got their seat in the UN as Observers, a preliminary step toward acknowledging a Statehood that was denied last year. More than two third of the UN general assembly 138 out of 197 States voted for the observer seat. 41 States, including England and Germany abstained. Nine voted against: Beside the US and Israel, seven Island-States under de facto US mandated power sided automatically with the US dictate…

Mind you that the Palestinians are already a member of the UNESCO.

With this status of observer, like the Vatican, the Palestinians can submit to the International Court Israel crimes against humanity. And Israel will have to answer to the UN any further incursions into the “Occupied territories” of the West bank and Gaza…

In 1947, the UN partitioned Palestine into two entities. Implicitly, the UN agreed on a Palestinian State in 1947, but only Israel was granted this status in 1948.

It has taken 65 years for the Palestinians to be part of the UN, after hundred of thousands of martyrs who fell under the apartheid and theocratic State of Israel, and are still suffering from all kinds of brutal and humiliating indignities every single day.

Last week, 170 Palestinians died following 1,500 jet attacks by Israel on Gaza, most of them babies and civilians, and over 1,500 injured. Israel knew that this time around, even the US cannot be of help, and it tried hard to downgrade the significance of this new Palestinian status, saying that nothing will change on the ground…

For example, resume building more colonies, keeping the 300 military checkpoints, continuing with drone attacks to assassinate Palestinians, uprooting olive trees, withholding Palestinian tax money…

And what do you think is required for the Palestinians to accede to a full-fledged independent State?

1. The establishment of a sovereign government

2. Having a defined and well delimited borders… Abbas claims that the 1967 borders are good enough.  The Palestinian opposition parties beg to differ… They want the UN partition borders of 1947…

Here's what's left of Palestine today. The green bits are now voted the state of Palestine.
Here’s what’s left of Palestine today. The green bits are now voted the state of Palestine.

3. Having authority over a permanent population… And what about the 500,000 Jewish settlers in the occupied lands?

4. Voting on a charter that the Palestinian State will adopt peaceful mechanisms when dealing with the apartheid State of Israel… And if Israel refuses peaceful negotiations?

5) And Jerusalem as Capital? For the two States?

The political professional: President Barack Obama

There is a qualitative difference between Obama and Bush Junior.

There is qualitative difference between Bill Clinton and Bush Senior.

The differences go beyond Democrats and Republicans or any ideological differences.

The main difference is that Obama and Clinton are professional politicians in their own rights:  they love to communicate with people and comprehend the harsh demands of people and are willing to sacrifice their comfort and peace of mind to serve the people.

They are aware of the attributes and job specifications of the professional politician.  Bill Clinton never talked of “The Evil Empires“, “evil enemies”, “evil axes”, or any evil spirits.

Obama didn’t so far mentioned any evil enemies and he will not.   Obama walked the streets for years and continued his political education and trained and practiced his political qualities and talents; Obama knows what it takes to serve the public and has the correct patience to grab the adequate moments for pressing the programs he promised to pass.

The Bushes and Ronald Reagan were selected and shouldered by their party and supported by the political professionals in their party.

The Bushes (particularly Jr.) and Reagan had no valid qualifications as people lovers; they were mostly living in secluded environment, never relinquishing their life style of comfort and sheltered attitudes.  They get very upset when foreigners disturb their quietude and put pressures on them to meet frequently with aids, congress, read reports, and be forced to make balanced decisions.  That is too much work and unsuited to their dispositions.

The Bushes and Reagan totally relied on their aids and political consultants; not only because they were limited in the mind and need all the help to comprehend the complex interactions in world problems  and those foreigners they cannot understand, but mainly because the laziness of their minds and necessary demands as professional politicians were terribly deficient: they were not people oriented and communication was a necessary evil to them.

The Bushes and Reagan relished shortcuts for resolutions and to adopting simplified models of world’s problems.  Just blurting out who to them is the evil enemy was a mechanism that set their mind at peace and resuming this “coherent” ignorance in their simplistic directions.  Their political consultants felt relieved from exposing  elaborate concepts and detailed knowledge that would upset the limited mind of their Presidents.

Bush Junior must have prayed to fail in the first presidency.  Somehow, he succeeded by a very short margin.  A genius in his team knew his weaknesses and must have whispered in his ear: “God wanted you to win.  God has a project for you.  You cannot fail God’s wishes.”

Bush Junior took seriously this infamous hint and started to believe that he is fulfilling God’s directives.  His political chaperon, Dick Cheney, was too sick physically to educated his protegee and he indeed became senile quickly to be of any value to Bush Junior.  The consultants and aids were selected to be one-sided individuals who were not professional politicians, rather half cooked academics.

The world had to lick his wounds, and the million of collateral  CIVILIAN DAMAGES HAD TO BURY THEIR DEAD.

We all agree that doing politics is a serious profession.  Not anyone is capable of assuming his mandate to serving the community: a voted in political candidate is to be at the beck of his community 24 hours a day and fielding all kinds of requests; he has no reliable methods to control his daily activities and set aside relaxation periods.

And yet, candidates to “serving the public” are not taught and trained in schools like all the other professions.

Actually, most of the students graduating from high schools and universities have a terrible bad connotation for the term “politics” or “doing politics”.

The field of political science does not train people in the social and psychological behavior of people, which are the right tools for doing politics.

Acquiring sketchy understanding of the macro politics by lumping whole nations as a single entity or whole regions as potential enemies is not the correct way for training politicians to thinking rationally and for the good of the people in the long term.

Our problems with our politicians stem from two factors:

First, most of the politicians inherit their jobs, one way or another; they realize soon that they are not up to the requirements and don’t want the hassle; and thus they delegate their responsibilities to people who were not elected in the first place.

Second, politicians don’t work for the long term success because they don’t find the time to read, reflect, and grow their inner power.

Among the very few politicians who satisfy the two criteria of proven records of capable providers and verbal intelligence only those who realize the need to strengthen their inner power through reading and reflection and actually taking short “sabbaticals” away from the media have the potentials to become leaders of people.

In “Hiroshima my love”, Marguerite Dora says:

“Human political intelligence is a hundred folds lower than scientific intelligence”   On the face of it, many would be nodding their heads in consent.

We have got to analyze political intelligence from a different perspective to appreciate that the previous statement is not correct.  When we deal with human behaviors that are:

First, in the hundreds of varieties and ever changing with time and conditions,

Second, the inability of human cognitive powers to assimilate the different interactions of even 4 factors or variables at the same time and

Third, juggling these interactions in real time and under pressure then we can grasp the far complex intelligence requirements of doing and thinking politics.

Democracy is the most difficult and intricate political system: voters have to know the detailed personal characteristics of the candidates that qualify them to be professional politicians.

Instead, voters are sidetracked by political programs that can be altered though individual characters and attitudes.  Without prior selection of politicians based on cognitive and emotional testing for mental capabilities, is tantamount to more of the same repeated errors and mistakes for the public good.

Political intelligence would then be vastly appreciated to its own merit when candidates satisfy cognitive and emotional criteria before submitting their applications to public political posts.

The vote of the people would make much more sense when people are initiated and exposed to the complexities of serving the people and offering a higher value for the term “doing politics”.  

The necessary condition, but not sufficient for a politician, is to have proven that he loves to communicate with people and to field requests around the day as the main job of public server:  He learns to be pragmatic because he is listening to the demands of the people. 

Michelle and Barack Obama; (Jan. 26, 2010)

            The journalist Peter Nicolas of the Los Angeles Times followed Barack Obama on the Presidential campaign trails and wrote: “I cannot say with any certainty who is Obama.”  Law professor Mark Sawyer who once attended Obama’s law classes said: “Barack is how you see he is.  Barack is enigmatic in his positions, brilliant, able to defend the positions of opponents, and he is distant (as if called somewhere else).”

            Barack planned for his presidency since 2002, even before being elected Senator to Illinois: Anthony Lake (Bill Clinton’s National Security advisor) aided Barack forming his “diplomatic team”.  Obama knew in the minute details George W. Bush 2004 campaign. Obama has no need to prove (like Clinton) that he is the smartest among his team members and counselors: he has the capacity to dominate without provoking.  The few instances of weariness are results of experts expounding indefinitely on issues Barack knows about.

            A young lady wrote an article saying “we are fed up of drama”.  Obama picked up the message for his slogan “Obama- No drama” and then the next slogan “Changes we can believe in”.  Obama said on CBS: “I tolerate no ego trips in the team for personal promotions.  I tolerate no back stabbing to go ahead.  A few warnings and then you are out of the team”.  With Obama the crux of the matter is “Problems are complex: There is no unique resolution.”  Obama is very conscious that he is a public figure and thus, “What I say or do is what I mean”.

            Michelle Robinson Obama was a successful lawyer and a Harvard graduate when she married Barack in 1992.  Michelle focused her energy, as recommended by the campaign advisors, submitting to interviews for family magazines.  Mark Sawyer stated “People were not yet ready to admit that highly educated black women have potentials to make any difference in society: they are accepted as assistants and dedicated to family.”  Michelle is fundamentally a sarcastic person and skeptical that black personalities are taken seriously: she frightens audience when she looks serious.

            Michelle’s brother Craig was basketball star in Princeton when she applied and admitted in 1981.  Her sociology thesis was on how black students integrated in white socio-cultural structure and how blacks ended up feeling alienated of their community of origin after graduation.  The skeptical tone of her thesis was that Michelle felt that she will always be relegated to the peripheries of the successful elites.

            In 1989, Michelle was a lawyer at a firm and she was asked to take care of new recruit from Harvard.  She and barrack had their first kiss at Baskin-Robins on 53rd Street: they had first seen a Spike Lee movie.  Michelle quits private practice and joined Chicago’s Mayor Office. She was Vice-president of external relations at the university hospital in Chicago when Obama was elected Senator in 2004.  Michelle’s salary climbed from $121,000 to $317,000 in 2005.  The couple was living in a single family home worth $1.65 million: the two published books of Barack Obama were best sellers at the time.

            “Do you want to know how Barack prepares for debates? He spends a few minutes with me and Barack is set and ready” said Michelle.

Exclusive Rights

Note:  written during Bill Clinton love affairs 

1.   I’m mad.

The President made my hand

Touch his crotch.

I just discovered that

He did it with many other women.

Many less beautiful than me.

Many downright ugly.

2.   I’m mad.

The President grabbed my breasts.

They were young, round, and stone hard.

I’m finding out that

He did it with so many others.

Many were flat chested.

Many right down sagging.

3.   I’m mad,

Very mad now.

I didn’t mind then what He did.

I may have been flattered, I think.

I was honored, definitely.

He is more than My President:

He is the First Stud.

4.   I’m mad.

Studs have no rights over non studs.

They may be spared a slap.

A swift, ringing slap.

I have the right to be mad.

I have the right to claim

Exclusive rights.

How Superpowers behave toward the smaller States (June 1, 2009)


The ex-French Foreign Affairs, Hubert Vedrine once told Lebanon ex-President Lahoud: “When our relations with the US Administrations are closer to cooperation than competition we communicate our information to them but they fail to return the honor.  When our relations are fine then the US tends to horde the solution.  When world politics deteriorate then the US asks us to resolve the problems on their behalves, on conditions that the signing of any agreement is done in Washington, DC.

Bill Clinton insisted on the sick and dying Hafez Assad for a month to meet him in Geneva in February 2000 on the ground that a deal is ready for the return of the occupied Golan Heights.  The two Presidents met in March.  Clinton knew very well that Assad is not ready to negotiate for less than 100% on the returned land. Clinton proudly declared “Ehud Barak is willing to return 98% of the Golan Heights”.  The meeting was over in ten minutes.  Clinton lost a golden opportunity for peace in the Middle East.

Madeline Albright, US Foreign Affairs during Clinton tenure, met in Beirut with Lebanon’s Salim Hoss PM in September 1999.  It was the first high ranking US emissary in 16 years.  Without preambles, Albright ejaculated “The USA wants the two highjackers of the TWA of 1985; the USA wants the perpetrators for the blowing up of the Marines headquarter in 1984; the USA wants those who demolished the US embassy in Beirut and the one who assassinated our Ambassador” Our Prime Minister retorted “When the TWA was high jacked I was subjugated to an assassination attempt and three of my bodyguards died.  At the time of this civil war Lebanon witnessed 150,000 civilian victims’ dead and over 400,000 severely injured” The same Albright confronted President Lahoud to desist demanding an accurate demarcation line (The Blue Line) on the southern borders after Israel withdrew in May 24, 2000.  

The Syrian young President Bashar Assad described the superpower games saying “The first fundamental principle is that superpowers and especially the USA try hard to convince the smaller States that they are too weak and need urgent aids.  They claim that the smaller States have practically no “products” to transact.  They insist on “market demand and offer” and barely care about State values or the logic of Statehood.  The second principle is that superpowers care to the extent they need to resolve a problem.  It does not matter the level of rhetoric or the squeeze of economical and financial embargo on the smaller State; once a superpower is in need then everything is forgotten and relations resume normally.”


In October 2000, Hezbollah took prisoners three Israeli soldiers in the Shabaa Farms and then lured the retired Israeli Colonel El Hanane Tanenboum to Beirut.  Israel had withdrawn from south Lebanon unilaterally in May 24, 2000 but had failed to vacate the Shebaa Farms. Albright demanded the release of the Israeli prisoners and Ehub Barak gave an ultimatum of 4 hours. Lahoud answered the US Ambassador Satterfield “Consider the 4 hours have ended.  I will not negotiate the release of the Israeli prisoners” Lahoud was in strong position because the Lebanese army was not on the borders so that Israel could not exercise any pressures on the President and Lahoud won his bet and Israel refrained temporarily from any incursions.

Foreign diplomats and officials view the problems of Lebanon from the outside in; they never consider the precarious social and political conditions of Lebanon.  Emile Lahoud refused to deploy the army across the Litany River since he was appointed army chief in 1989 and then President of the Republic till July 2006 when Hezbollah agreed under UN resolution 1701 to withdraw his military presence behind the Litany River.  During all these years the international community and the Arab States had constantly pressured Lahoud to send the Lebanese army to the borders with Israel.  Lahoud kept steadfast and never obeyed any of these orders and he was completely right; he had said: “As long as there are no guarantees that Israel will not violate Lebanon’s integrity and security then the Lebanese army will refrain playing the police force and antagonizing our resistance to easing Israel’s security at the expense of jeopardizing Lebanon internal security.” (To be continued)




March 2023

Blog Stats

  • 1,518,631 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by

Join 764 other subscribers
%d bloggers like this: