Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Great Prevaricator
PatriotPost.com/US ^ | PatriotPost.com/US

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.

Clinton’s 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. “Clinton’s 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 Clinton’s “mysterious passion for lying” and for “lying about his lies.” And the liberal New Republic’s 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-Qa’ida 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 Clinton’s claim, the alleged wall between a leader’s “private virtue” and his ability to act with “public virtue” is a fiction.

Contrary to Clinton’s claim, the alleged wall between a leader’s “private virtue” and his ability to act with “public virtue” is a fiction—and a dangerous one. Our nation’s Founders understood this truth from the beginning. As John Adams wrote to historian, poet and playwright Mercy Otis Warren—perhaps the most important woman of the Revolutionary era—in 1776, during America’s 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 nation’s people and her leaders.

Clearly, our Founders understood the inextricable connection between national security and the private virtue of a nation’s people and her leaders. Confronted with an enormous, looming threat on the horizon and uncertain of the nascent nation’s future, private virtue was foremost in these leaders’ minds. Without it, they knew, they would “sink under their own weight,” British regulars—or Islamic fascists—notwithstanding.

How would these men react to Bill Clinton’s claims that criticisms of his “private life” distracted him from the execution of his public duties? Most certainly by concluding that this disgraced former president’s 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. Clinton’s 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 Clinton’s claim that his vigorous denials were to protect his “private life,” he lied to protect his political fortunes. To admit that he’d sexually used an intern would have exposed his limitless hypocrisy—after all, Clinton fostered a pretentious image as a women’s 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 presidency—claims which Clintonista confidant Betsey Wright, Deputy Chair of Clinton/Gore 1992, wrote off as “bimbo eruptions.”

If Sunday’s 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 wife’s dirty work in advance of her 2008 presidential bid. Perhaps this is just Bill’s 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


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: bj; bjclinton; bluedressstain; clintonistas; demagogue; ididnothavesex; liarinchief; nationaldisgrace; outfoxed; perjury; socialist; sperm; stainedbluedress; stainedovaloffice; suckmycigar; whileclintonslept

1 posted on 09/30/2006 3:03:15 PM PDT by Iam1ru1-2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Iam1ru1-2

Throw the lying bum out!!!!!!!


2 posted on 09/30/2006 3:07:29 PM PDT by verbal voter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iam1ru1-2

Synopsis:
When bill's lips are moving, he's still lying. ssdd


3 posted on 09/30/2006 3:11:46 PM PDT by pipecorp ( Al Lahsuchs...Islam: nothing that a good crusade wouldn't fix ;; mercy is wasted on the merciless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

"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


4 posted on 09/30/2006 3:19:45 PM PDT by Iam1ru1-2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iam1ru1-2

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.


5 posted on 09/30/2006 3:20:51 PM PDT by Thombo2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

"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


6 posted on 09/30/2006 3:23:33 PM PDT by Iam1ru1-2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: All

"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


7 posted on 09/30/2006 3:25:21 PM PDT by Iam1ru1-2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Iam1ru1-2

said former Democrat Senator and Medal of Honor recipient Bob Kerrey. “Unusually good.”

Medal of Honor?????

The lack of editing discredits the entire article.


8 posted on 09/30/2006 3:25:26 PM PDT by Jaysin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

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"


9 posted on 09/30/2006 3:26:44 PM PDT by Iam1ru1-2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jaysin

oooppppsss.

I thought it said John Kerry was a medal of honor recipient.

my bad!


10 posted on 09/30/2006 3:27:24 PM PDT by Jaysin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Iam1ru1-2

Words fail me.

Clinton sucks!

Both Clintons Suck.


11 posted on 09/30/2006 3:35:31 PM PDT by chatham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iam1ru1-2
“Clinton’s an unusually good liar,” said former Democrat Senator and Medal of Honor recipient Bob Kerrey. “Unusually good.”

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.

12 posted on 09/30/2006 3:41:19 PM PDT by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thombo2
Ah, that's the word: "Sociopath". I think I disagree. See my preceding. Wouldn't a true sociopath be able to lie without getting angry about it? However maybe this is not contradictory at all. I'm no psychologist.
13 posted on 09/30/2006 3:45:16 PM PDT by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: chatham
"Clinton sucks! "

So do his "lovers".

14 posted on 09/30/2006 4:01:29 PM PDT by Iam1ru1-2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Stultis

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......


15 posted on 09/30/2006 4:03:49 PM PDT by Thombo2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Jaysin
"Medal of Honor????? The lack of editing discredits the entire article."

That is the name of the medal that was erroneously given to him. Not a statement of fact. So the article is CORRECT!!

16 posted on 09/30/2006 4:04:24 PM PDT by Iam1ru1-2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: pipecorp

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!!!!


17 posted on 09/30/2006 4:06:30 PM PDT by hnj_00
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Iam1ru1-2
Just for the record: The article correctly mentioned and quoted Bob Kerrey, who earned the Congressional Medal of Honor in Vietnam "[f]or conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while serving as a SEAL team leader during action against enemy aggressor (Viet Cong) forces."

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.

18 posted on 09/30/2006 4:41:12 PM PDT by umbagi (Monthly Donor [entry level])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Jaysin

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?)


19 posted on 09/30/2006 4:52:05 PM PDT by savedbygrace (SECURE THE BORDERS FIRST (I'M YELLING ON PURPOSE))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Iam1ru1-2

I don't think Clinton is always being a prevaricator.

Sometimes he's simply mendacious.


20 posted on 09/30/2006 5:12:32 PM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace; Jaysin
You're pretty straight on the facts. In 2004, John Kerry posted on his website that "John Kerry served on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for 8 years and is the former Vice Chairman of the Committee" -- although he had never served in that position and was falsely claiming Sen. Bob Kerrey's record as his own.

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.

21 posted on 09/30/2006 5:46:00 PM PDT by umbagi (Monthly Donor [entry level])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Stultis

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!


22 posted on 09/30/2006 5:58:59 PM PDT by T.L.Sink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: verbal voter

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.


23 posted on 09/30/2006 6:01:54 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Father of an American Soldier fighting in the WOT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Thombo2
My experience is that they get angry that their word is doubted or questioned. The ones I've dealt with seem to think that their natural due is not only agreement but admiration. When you PRESUME to question what they say or their judgement or what ever, they respond with threats and anger.

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.

24 posted on 09/30/2006 6:10:57 PM PDT by Mad Dawg (Reality is not optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Stultis

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.


25 posted on 09/30/2006 6:19:04 PM PDT by ffusco (Maecilius Fuscus,Governor of Longovicium , Manchester, England. 238-244 AD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: umbagi

Thank you. Good post.


26 posted on 09/30/2006 6:59:34 PM PDT by savedbygrace (SECURE THE BORDERS FIRST (I'M YELLING ON PURPOSE))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg
So they HAVE to fight for their version of reality. It's life or death for them.

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)

27 posted on 09/30/2006 7:01:44 PM PDT by investigateworld (Abortion stops a beating heart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace
Thank you. Good post.

As were all of yours on the thread -- thanks back!

28 posted on 09/30/2006 7:08:40 PM PDT by umbagi (Monthly Donor [entry level])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Iam1ru1-2

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........


29 posted on 09/30/2006 7:33:08 PM PDT by RightOnline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T.L.Sink
Clinton is not only a professional liar but a professional actor....it was partly contrived.... putting on a show for the Dem base

He put on a damn good show. Scripted all the way ... Wallace in on it.

30 posted on 09/30/2006 7:42:36 PM PDT by Kenny Bunk (What does it matter if we’re all dead, as long as the French respect us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Iam1ru1-2
Contrary to Clinton’s claim, the alleged wall between a leader’s “private virtue” and his ability to act with “public virtue” is a fiction.

Contrary to Clinton’s claim, the alleged wall between a leader’s “private virtue” and his ability to act with “public virtue” is a fiction—

A competent editor is needed for this piece...

31 posted on 09/30/2006 9:25:49 PM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson