Skip to comments.Do we really want the Clintons back?
Posted on 02/06/2014 11:42:10 PM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
When I left the 2012 campaign trail, I was exhausted and hoped the next presidential election would slowly creep back into the news. More than a year has passed and 2016 is unfortunately done waiting.
Much of the 2016 speculation currently revolves around a single person: Hillary Clinton. Will she run? Who can beat her? Is Hillary unstoppable?
Democrats experiencing buyer's remorse want her to run again after regretting their votes for Barack Obama the first time around and Republicans aren't quite sure yet how to combat another historic campaign theme. Members of the media already have their Clinton pompoms out.
But what Democrats and the media are forgetting about is the dramatic personal and political baggage another Clinton presidency would bring back into the White House. And the election of Hillary Clinton as the first female president would put Bill Clinton back in the Oval Office.
In a recent CBS-Vanity Fair poll, Americans named Bill Clinton the country's most forgivable liar. The key here is the determination by voters that Bill Clinton is, in fact, a liar. His wife is no different.
In 2008, columnist Dan Calabrese interviewed Democrat Jerry Zeifman, who served as chief counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate years. During the interview, Zeifman revealed that he fired a young Hillary Clinton after her work on the Watergate investigation because she was a liar and an unethical, dishonest lawyer.
On the issues of leadership and accountability, Clinton fails miserably. Her last year in public office proved to be a disaster and she left the State Department in shambles. Her own dabbling in unethical behavior throughout her career paved the way for her to ignore the unethical behavior of others, including diplomats preying on young women and girls overseas.
Under Clinton's watch, a State Department security official stationed in Beirut was accused of engaging in multiple sexual assaults. Many members of Clinton's security detail were accused of regularly hiring young female prostitutes during official State Department trips in countries around the world. U.S. Ambassador to Belgium Howard Gutman was accused of routinely ditching his protective security detail in order to solicit sexual favors from both prostitutes and minor children in a nearby park. In 2013, a U.S. Embassy official was removed for allegedly trading visas for sexual favors. Punishments for the abusers were swept under the rug.
Then there's Benghazi, an issue Clinton seems to think makes a difference only when the sympathy cameras are rolling. On Sept. 14, 2012, the day the bodies of the four Americans killed in the 9/11 anniversary terror attack came home, Clinton stood in front of their flag-draped caskets and lied about a video. During the ceremony, Clinton gave a hug to the mother of slain Information Officer Sean Smith and promised her the killers would be brought to justice. One year and five months later, the terrorists responsible are still on the run and nobody seems to be looking for them.
The Clintons might be popular now but when the bright light of campaign scrutiny starts to shine on them again, America will be reminded of the drama they don't want to vote back into the White House.
Katie Pavlich is the news editor of Townhall.com. This is the first of her exclusive Trib columns, which will appear the first and third Fridays of each month.
As First Man Bill Clinton would keep the media employed, and Hillary busy too.
Shouldn't be long before we hear that Bill and Hillary are going to be grandparents.....ahhhhhhhhhhh.
Don't think about how they're practiced grifters, ready to advance Obama's transformation of America.
Coochie-coo - says Grandpa Bill.
No More Clintons! No More Bushes! No More Chaneys! No More Kennedys! Put in term limits at 2 terms for every office! And once you’ve served 12 years in government service, you’re done - off to the private sector to reap what you’ve sowed!
Do we really want the Clintons back? Does anybody want a relapse of his syphilis? What kind of question is that?
If you like your Clinton, you can keep your Clinton.
Wasn’t that part of the big deal?
The fat cankled bitter drunk murdering old biotch is headed for the glue factory.
The Chinese probably want them back so that they can re-install their turnstile in the front entrance of the white house. You know, the one that lets them enter with cash and exit with american technological secrets.
And I’m sure al qaeda wants them back so that they can re-establish terrorist cells within our own borders.
And im sure castro will want them back so that cuban citizens are kidnapped and returned to cuba.
And im sure all those hit men that ccontributed names to the clinton death list will want their old jobs back.
And im sure the united nations will want them back so that american sovereignty will be surrendered to the international community.
And im sure all the illegal aliens will want them back so that their amnesty can be fast tracked, complete with no criminal background checks.
And im sure the BATF will want them back so that they can go back to killing off law abiding gun owners.
“The Clintons might be popular now but when the bright light of campaign scrutiny starts to shine on them again, America will be reminded of the drama they don’t want to vote back into the White House.”
I hate to have to disagree, but I do. Americans will look at those faults listed above and rationalize that the world is complicated and we should, despite her countless failures, simply reward her for “trying.”
This electorate, like media-trained rats, is convinced the Clintons represent the great old heady days of budget surpluses and the blissful, carefree times that preceded all that nastiness of 9/11. Somehow all the national and international scandals and disasters of that era will be overlooked.
She gets an awful lot of free advertisement—just asks that her name be spelled right. Morality and care of others are no longer features of our present political forum.
1. Who said “What difference does it make now?”
2. Who gave the latest SOTU speech
"The world is full of obvious things which nobody by any chance ever observes." Sherlock Holmes Quote -The Hound of the Baskervilles Chapter 3: "The Problem"
“Under Clinton’s watch, [her husband Bill] was accused of engaging in multiple sexual assaults.”
Why ask this question? According to the rest of the media, she’s inevitable. And the opposition party is “divided” and their frontrunner dragged down by Bridge-gate.
So, don’t ask this question - doesn’t matter what you voters want. /s
Oh, and she’s bringing single-payer healthcare.
Uh, the Clintons never left.
No. Next question.
1) Clintons own words show his often expressed innate hostility to, and utter contempt for, the core principles of the American founding:
``If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the governments ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees. -- President Bill Clinton, August 12, 1993
``The purpose of government is to reign in the rights of the people - Bill Clinton during an interview on MTV in 1993
``We cant be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans that we forget about reality. -- President Bill Clinton, quoted in USA Today, March 11, 1993, Page 2A, ``NRA change: `Omnipotent to powerful by Debbie Howlett
When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans, it was assumed that the Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly that they would work for the common good, as well as for the individual welfare However, now theres a lot of irresponsibility. And so a lot of people say theres too much freedom. When personal freedoms being abused, you have to move to limit it. Bill Clinton, April 19, 1995
2) Clinton inevitably pursued his own political advantage at the expense of American interests and national security. Here is just one of many possible examples:
It is well documented that Clinton and the Democrats took illegal campaign money from groups and individuals tied directly to the Chinese Peoples Republican Army. It is therefore not surprising that In January 1998 Clinton went against the advice of then-Secretary of State Warren Christopher and Pentagon experts by lifting long-standing restrictions against the export of American satellites to China for launch on Chinese rockets. Not only did he move control over such decisions from the more security-focused State Department to the Commerce Department, but he intervened in a Justice Department investigation of Loral Space & Communications, retroactively enabling Loral to sell critical missile technology to the Chinese. Interestingly enough, Clintons decision was made at the request of Loral CEO Bernard Schwartz, whose earlier $1.3 million campaign donation made him the single biggest contributor to the Democratic election effort.
The result, as stated eloquently by syndicated columnist Linda Bowles, was that the Democrats got money from satellite companies and from Chinese communists; China got supercomputors, advanced production equipment and missile technology; Loral got its satellites launched at bargain basement prices . . . and the transfer of sensitive missile technology gave China [for the first time] the capability of depositing bombs on American cities. Incidentally, Loral ultimately failed to benefit from this permanent injury to Americas security interests: in July 2003, the company filed for bankruptcy protection, and in order to raise cash was forced to sell its most profitable business a fleet of communications satellites orbiting over North America.
3) On two occasions, Clinton used military action for the specific purpose of distracting the American public from the fallout of the Lewinsky affair:
On August 20, three days after Clinton finally admitted publicly to the Lewinsky affair, the news media was poised to focus on that days grand jury testimony by Monica Lewinsky. That same morning, Clinton personally went on national television to gravely announce his bombing of a Sudanese chemical weapons factory, and a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan. It was the first time most Americans ever heard the name of Osama bin Laden. The factory bombing in Sudan killed an innocent night watchman, but accomplished little else. It later was proven that the plant was making badly needed pharmaceuticals for people in that poverty-stricken part of the world, but no chemical weapons.
Several months later, the U.S. Center for Nonproliferation Studies, part of the Monterey Institute of International Studies, stated: "...the evidence indicates that the facility had no role whatsoever in chemical weapons development." Kroll Associates, one of the world's most reputable investigative firms, also confirmed that there was no link in any way between the plant and any terrorist organization. As for the Afghanistan bombing, it failed to do any damage at all to bin Laden or his organization. Clintons action was accurately characterized by George W. Bush when he said right after 9-11: "When I take action, Im not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt.
Clintons pointless and murderous military actions did not make Americans safer that day, although they did destroy an innocent life, and for all the good they did certainly could have been delayed in any case. But they did succeed in diverting media attention from Lewinskys grand jury testimony for a 24-hour news cycle, which was the main point. So I guess, they werent a total loss.
On December 16, 1998, on the eve of the scheduled House vote on his impeachment, Bill Clinton launched a surprise bombing attack on Baghdad. As justification for this exploit, he cited the urgent threat that Saddams weapons of mass destruction posed to America, and the need for immediate action. Almost immediately, the House Democrats held a caucus and emerged calling for a delay in the impeachment proceedings. House minority leader Dick Gephardt made a statement: "We obviously should pass a resolution by saying that we stand behind the troops. I would hope that we do not take up impeachment until the hostilities have completely ended."
Conveniently, a delay so near the end of the House term would have caused the vote to be taken up in the next session when the newly elected House membership would be seated with more Democratic representation, thereby improving Clintons chances of dodging impeachment.
The Republicans did, in fact, agree to delay the hearings, but only for a day or two. Amazingly, Clinton ended the bombing raid after only 70 hours -- once it became clear that in spite of the brief delay, the vote would still be held in the current session.
Once the bombing stopped, Clinton touted the effectiveness and importance of the mission. As reported by ABC News : We have inflicted significant damage on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction programs, on the command structures that direct and protect that capability, and on his military and security infrastructure, he said. Defense secretary William Cohen echoed the point: We estimate that Saddam's missile program has been set back by at least a year.
Whether or not one buys Clintons assessment of that mission, it is difficult to believe that its timing was so critical that it required commencement virtually at the moment the House was scheduled to vote on the impeachment. I think the most reasonable conclusion is that Clinton cynically deployed US military assets and placed military personnel in harms way for purely political reasons.
4) Clintons reckless sexual behavior was a threat to American national security:
Clinton and his supporters have been very effective in persuading large numbers of Americans that the Lewinsky scandal was only about sex. But I see a bigger issue here, because Clinton is on record as saying that he would have done anything to keep knowledge of the Lewinsky affair from becoming public.
To me, that statement raises a very serious question: What if, instead of sending her recorded Lewinsky conversations to Ken Starr, Linda Tripp had instead secretly offered them for sale, say, to the Chinese government? Or to the Russians? Or even to agents of Saddam?
What kind of blackmail leverage would those tapes have provided to a foreign government in dealing with America on sensitive trade, security or military issues? One of the few things Clinton ever said that I believe is that he would have done anything to keep the Lewinsky affair secret. Given his demonstrated track record of selling out American interests for personal or political gain (and there are more examples that I could have cited here), how far would he have gone in compromising Americas real interests in order to protect his own neck when threatened with blackmail?
Pretty far, I believe. Equally distressing is the prospect Clinton might, in fact, have succumbed to foreign black mail on other occasions in order to hide different sexual episodes that ultimately did not become public. There is no way to know, of course, but I prefer presidents for whom such a scenario is not a plausible possibility.
And dont even get me started on the war crime in Kosovo.
WAR IN KOSOVO
During Bill Clintons 1999 NATO-led war in Kosovo which according to some estimates cost as much as $75 billion we bombed Belgrade for 78 days, killed almost 3,000 civilians, and shredded the civilian infrastructure (including every bridge across the Danube.)
We devastated the environment, bombed the Chinese embassy, came very close to engaging in armed combat against Russian forces, and in general, pursued a horrific and inhumane strategy to rain misery on the civilian population of Belgrade in order to pressure Milosevic into surrendering.
Why did we do all that? The US did not even have an arguable interest in the Balkans, and no one ever tried to claim that Serbia represented any kind of threat to our nation or our interests.
But for months the Clinton administration had told us that Milosevic was waging a vicious genocide against Albanian Muslims, and needed to be stopped. The New York Times called it a humanitarian war. In March 1999 the same month that the bombing started Clintons State Department publicly suggested that as many as 500,000 Albanian Kosovars had been murdered by Milosevics regime. In May of that year, as the bombing campaign was drawing to a close, Secretary of Defense William Cohen lowered that estimate 100,000.
Five years after the bombing, after all the forensic investigations had been completed, the prosecutors at Milosevics War Crimes trial in the Hague were barely been able to document a questionable figure of perhaps 5,000 bodies and body parts. During the war, the American people were told that Kosovo was full of mass graves filled with the bodies of murdered Albanian Muslims. But none were ever found.
BILL CLINTON ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE
During the election cycle of 1992, George H.W. Bush lost his job after Bill Clinton hammered him relentlessly for having caused the worst economy of the last 50 years.
In fact, as CNNs Brooke Jackson has reported: Three days before Christmas 1992, the National Bureau of Economic Research finally issued its official proclamation that the recession had ended 21 months earlier. What became the longest boom in U.S. history actually began nearly two years before Clinton took office. See (See http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/10/31/jackson.recession.primer.otsc/).
By the same token, Clinton is generally perceived as having a stellar economic record during his own presidency, in spite of the fact that the economy was already starting to decline during the last year of his term after the stock market crashed in March 2000.
According to a report by MSNBC: The longest economic expansion in U.S. history faltered so much in the summer of 2000 that business output actually contracted for one quarter, the government said Wednesday in releasing a comprehensive revision of the gross domestic product. Based on new data, the Commerce Department said that the GDP the countrys total output of goods and services shrank by 0.5 percent at an annual rate in the July-September quarter of 2000. See: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3676690/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/t/gdp-figures-revised-downward/.
The Clintons are lower than a snake’s belly. God knows what the Bush family sees in Billy Jeff.
I have had appendicitis twice and still have an appendix, in both bouts of it I experienced some of the worst pain I have ever known and heaved until my entire torso was as sore as the thumb of a cross eyed carpenter. If I had to choose between having the Clintons back in the white house and another round of appendicitis I would either take the appendicitis or just shoot myself in the head, it is hard to say which.
Reagan himself in his prime would not be able to straighten out this mess. Not in eight years or even sixteen.
One of the things I find most distressing about the current state of America is that so many seem to buy into the myth that Slick Willie was one of our greatest presidents.
That's why I post my essay on pretty much every FR thread that mentions Bill Clinton.