Skip to comments.The Great Prevaricator
Posted on 09/30/2006 3:03:14 PM PDT by Iam1ru1-2
Each of you has undoubtedly seen the clips of Bill Clinton bushwhacking Chris Wallace in a Fox News interview last Sunday. Claiming that his interlocutor was doing the bidding of the right wing, Clinton lectured Wallace with the same finger-wagging intensity he unleashed on the American people back in 1998.
Clintons now-famous Lewinsky lie makes for an instructive comparison because it reminds us that this man, this former U.S. president, is a peerless prevaricator. Clintons an unusually good liar, said former Democrat Senator and Medal of Honor recipient Bob Kerrey. Unusually good.
Indeed. Even the New York Times once lamented Clintons mysterious passion for lying and for lying about his lies. And the liberal New Republics Andrew Sullivan noted, From the beginning, Clinton has lied with indiscriminate abandon. Given all this, why should we be surprised when, in a desperate attempt to repair his legacy, Clinton now erroneously claims to have done everything in his power to kill Osama bin Laden?
Clinton apologists have long insisted that he was distracted by the Lewinsky investigation at a time when his focus would have otherwise been on the increasing lethality of al-Qaida attacks against U.S. targets. Thus, they say, the Republicans were to blame. It was conservative Republicans, after all, who manufactured a public outcry, ultimately venting their contempt for the president with mean-spirited hearings and an ignominious impeachment. It was a Republican prosecutor who persecuted Clinton by digging into his amorous activities. Clinton argued that his private life is not a public matter, and went on to enlighten America on the semantics of the word is.
Contrary to Clintons claim, the alleged wall between a leaders private virtue and his ability to act with public virtue is a fiction.
Contrary to Clintons claim, the alleged wall between a leaders private virtue and his ability to act with public virtue is a fictionand a dangerous one. Our nations Founders understood this truth from the beginning. As John Adams wrote to historian, poet and playwright Mercy Otis Warrenperhaps the most important woman of the Revolutionary erain 1776, during Americas first war, Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics. Adams continued, There must be a positive passion for the public good, the public interest, honour, power and glory, established in the minds of the people, or there can be no republican government, nor any real liberty: and this public passion must be superiour to all private passions.
John Adams cousin, Samuel Adams, agreed. Writing to fellow patriot James Warren, President of the Provincial Congress of Massachusetts, Revolutionary War general and husband of Mercy, he said, Since private and publick Vices, are in Reality, though not always apparently, so nearly connected, of how much Importance, how necessary is it, that the utmost Pains be taken by the Publick, to have the Principles of Virtue early inculcated on the Minds even of children, and the moral Sense kept alive, and that the wise institutions of our Ancestors for these great Purposes be encouraged by the Government. Sam Adams concluded that public virtue must be the foundation of public life, citizenship and leadership, For no people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue is preservd. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauchd in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders.
Our Founders understood the inextricable connection between national security and the private virtue of a nations people and her leaders.
Clearly, our Founders understood the inextricable connection between national security and the private virtue of a nations people and her leaders. Confronted with an enormous, looming threat on the horizon and uncertain of the nascent nations future, private virtue was foremost in these leaders minds. Without it, they knew, they would sink under their own weight, British regularsor Islamic fascistsnotwithstanding.
How would these men react to Bill Clintons claims that criticisms of his private life distracted him from the execution of his public duties? Most certainly by concluding that this disgraced former presidents decadent private life was the distraction that precipitated his many derelictions of duty.
In fact, there would have been little distraction if Clinton had simply told the truth. For the Democrats standard-bearer, however, the truth is whatever means serves his particular end. Clintons in-your-face denials were an invitation to investigate, and his stonewalling at every stage of the ensuing investigation was a profile in cowardice.
Contrary to Clintons claim that his vigorous denials were to protect his private life, he lied to protect his political fortunes. To admit that hed sexually used an intern would have exposed his limitless hypocrisyafter all, Clinton fostered a pretentious image as a womens liberationist, which is why soccer moms, his largest constituency, elected him twice.
An admission of truth would have lent substantial credibility to all the other accusations of sexual abuse prior to and during his presidencyclaims which Clintonista confidant Betsey Wright, Deputy Chair of Clinton/Gore 1992, wrote off as bimbo eruptions.
If Sundays charade was any indication, the Great Prevaricator still has it in him to work his way around the truth. This latest foray into falsehood allows him to mend fences with liberal partisans while doing his wifes dirty work in advance of her 2008 presidential bid. Perhaps this is just Bills way of making amends, but his penchant for prevarication will once again take its toll on the truth. As his former press secretary Mike McCurry once confessed, The White House lies about everything; our credibility is zero. Six years out of office, Bill Clinton is still taking his toll on the security of the nation he swore to defend
Throw the lying bum out!!!!!!!
When bill's lips are moving, he's still lying. ssdd
"In the previous administration, we had an attack on the World
Trade Center, on Khobar Towers. We had attacks on both embassies
in Kenya and Tanzania, an attack on the USS Cole. Also, Osama bin
Laden in February of 1998 made it clear that he not only intended
to wage war on the United States, but he wanted to use Iraq as a central battleground. In short, there was a gathering threat. In those years, bin Laden noticed that the United States had, in fact, been cutting back dramatically on intelligence assets and on military assets."
---White House Press Secretary Tony Snow
A classic sociopath.I hate to admit it,but when BC denied having sex with Monica,i still wanted to believe him.Of course that was before i got on the net.
"There's nothing wrong with getting angry if you're right, as
Chris Matthews put it. But when Clinton went after Wallace, he
inadvertently allowed his mask to slip. America got a glimpse
not just of a former president who feels mischaracterized,
but of a man filled with contempt for the lesser mortals who
would seek to undo him. His inner Gollum was visible beneath a
roiling rage... Experience tells us, too, that manipulators are
always contemptuous of those they manipulate... Clinton's marmish
scolding of Wallace was a telling moment, much like another time
he wagged his finger on television."
---columnist Kathleen Parker
"So where did that poise go as Mr. Wallace asked a thoroughly
mannerly question about the Clinton anti-terror record? The
answer is revealed in the first words out of his presidential
mouth. 'First I want to talk about the context in which this
arises. I'm being asked this on the Fox Network.' Huh? How in
the world does that matter? Is there something otherworldly
about fielding a question from someone who might not share your
politics? Ask Ronald Reagan or either President Bush about any
interview conducted over the years by CNN, ABC, CBS or NBC, to say
nothing of the agenda-setting major newspapers. Can you imagine
a Republican president angrily obsessing about the questioner
to the questioner's face before attempting an answer?"
---Dallas Morning News columnist Mark Davis
said former Democrat Senator and Medal of Honor recipient Bob Kerrey. Unusually good.
Medal of Honor?????
The lack of editing discredits the entire article.
THE BIG LIE
"At least I tried [to get Osama bin Laden]. That's the difference
in me and some, including all the right-wingers who are attacking
me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to
try. They did not try. I tried. So I tried and failed."
---Bill Clinton, the Great Prevaricator, responding to Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday"
I thought it said John Kerry was a medal of honor recipient.
Words fail me.
Both Clintons Suck.
Except that, at least in extreme cases, he has a "tell": getting angry.
This is just my arm chair pyschologizing, but I don't think (as many do) that Clinton is completely, ah what's the word, anti-social, amoral? IOW he does understand to some degree the difference between right and wrong. Therefor when he "has to" lie he gets angry with however is "making" him lie, that, and the psychic energy required to convince himself of the "truth" or at least the "justness" of his lies, come out in anger.
IOW the anger is not feigned, nor part of Clinton "working himself up" to a lie, but rather is the result of the lying.
If he was a really good liar he'd be able to do it, even in an adversarial environment, and consistently keep his cool. But Clinton isn't that good a liar.
So do his "lovers".
I'm not a psychologist either and my opinion isn't as a professional,but rather an amatuer."Wouldn't a true sociopath be able to lie without getting angry about it?"Good question.Maybe/maybe not.They experience anger just like us.They're also consumate actors,so if "anger"is appropriate at the time......
That is the name of the medal that was erroneously given to him. Not a statement of fact. So the article is CORRECT!!
how do you tell a clinton is lying...hold a mirror under their nose...if there is condensation and they are drawing a breath....they are lying!!!!
We may disagree with his liberal politics, but please, let's not confuse Bob Kerrey, a true American hero, with the J. F. Kerry who recently suckered 48% of the electorate into voting for him.
Don't feel too bad. John Kerry got confused for a long time WRT Bob Kerrey as well. His website claimed that he, John Kerry, was on a certain committee (or was chairman, I've forgotten), when it was actually Bob Kerrey. True story. Kerry didn't even know that he wasn't on that committee.
(Can someone correct me on the details, please?)
I don't think Clinton is always being a prevaricator.
Sometimes he's simply mendacious.
He was busted by NewsMax and forced to "just shut up and take it" as Republicans suggested that his record of missing 76% of the public meetings of that committee might have something to do with his inability to remember whether he'd been its vice-chairman.
Clinton is not only a professional liar but a professional actor. I think in his appearance with Wallace two things were at work: First, it was partly contrived. He was putting on a show for the Dem base and performed accordingly. Second, even though he was putting on a "show" I think there was real anger there.
The anger came from the threat to his legacy. All human motives are complex and I think one can be a sociopath and still be genuinely bellicose and defensive.
I think Drudge had the best reaction to the episode: He said Chris Wallace should have had some mace handy!
That would now be up to Hillary as he's no longer in office.
Why is anyone suprised that such a narcissistic personality as WJC would lie? This is what narcissists do, and do well.
If you want to play armchair shrinkologist, the way to go is to understand that their entire ego structure, the story they tell themselves about who they are and how they fit into the world, is at stake and, as they see it, to lose would be worse than death. So they HAVE to fight for their version of reality. It's life or death for them.
He gets angry in classic fits of narcissistic rage. Clinton wanted to play the great leader on the big stage. It was a vallidation for the Woodstock-ME generation which he is the poster boy. Now that history is showing him to be a dangerously naive, self obsessed buffoon with no self control- He explodes with rage. We have seen behind the curtain.
Thank you. Good post.
If I were still teaching interview techniques, I'd have the audio off, and copy Slick's motions into slo-mo. He is a classic* sociopath who is having his world cave in around him.
The shoulders forward movement is threatening - more than just a bit aggressive. Reaching into Wallace's space like that was actually a bit of 'sleigh of hand'. Slick knew he'd be lying and wanted the hand distraction to give him some 'breathing room'.
He reflects the actions of a coward. He wanted to hurt Wallace, but is even too big of a coward to do it.
Wallace would be wise to have someone else start his car in the morning though.
*Full disclose: I'm not a licensed pyscoholgist, just a old street copper who did 20 without getting injured. ( Dagnabit, couldn't even claim disability - gotta pay taxes on my pension)
As were all of yours on the thread -- thanks back!
What bothers me most about Bill Clinton is the fact that this country voted him President twice.......not just once, but twice.
I cannot express my disgust with this, even after these years........
He put on a damn good show. Scripted all the way ... Wallace in on it.
Contrary to Clintons claim, the alleged wall between a leaders private virtue and his ability to act with public virtue is a fiction
A competent editor is needed for this piece...