Posted on 10/24/2001 10:24:31 AM PDT by CT
Is there a ground shift taking place among liberals concerning Clinton? How about minor tremmors? That would seem to be the case, as liberal commentators can't bring themselves to tar and feather Clinton wholesale for his malfeasance and corruption during his eight years. But in a history-judging and encouraging turn of events, many no longer attach the word "great" or even "good" when speaking of him. This most recent example, while defending him for at best lax national security and defense policies, crowns him with a new label - DUBIOUS!
Yes, He Was A Dubious President, But This? DANIEL RUTH While we're at it, let's blame Bill Clinton for the anthrax scare, Britney Spears' flu bug and the fact that Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert appears to have no neck.
Well, why not? Was not Clinton alive at the time all this stuff manifested itself? Coincidence? Draw your own conclusions.
Since Sept. 11, there have been more myths, urban and otherwise, floating about water coolers, smoking plazas and the Internet to keep the Nostradamus crowd in heat for years to come.
And certainly one of the goofiest pieces of pure, unadulterated ..., uh, balderdash making the rounds in cyberspace is the notion that former President Clinton is ultimately responsible for the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
There's no denying that Clinton will go down in history as John Belushi's ``Animal House'' character - the John ``Bluto'' Blutarski of presidents.
After all, this is a guy who was acting like the ``Man Who Came To Dinner'' from hell in the waning minutes, literally, of his term.
But to saddle Clinton with the culpability for 5,000 lost souls - nine months after he left office, no less - seems to border on either A) obtuse ignorance and/or B) demagoguery on a Joseph Goebbels-like scale.
Pile Of Hooey At the moment, circulating through the ether of cyberspace is the indictment of Clinton as a terrorist co-conspirator.
And it goes something like this: After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, after the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, after the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya, and after the 2000 attack on the USS Cole in Yemen, Clinton promised each time ``that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.''
``Maybe if Clinton had kept his promise, an estimated 7,000 [actually the number is closer to 5,000] people in New York and Washington that are now dead would be alive today,'' the Osama bin Clinton diatribe concludes.
There's just one problem with that logic: It's a huge pile of hooey. Other than that, Clinton still remains a morally flawed president, but hardly a tool of international terrorism.
Indeed, you could make an argument that for a guy whose word is about as good as Snidely Whiplash, the promise to hunt down and punish the perpetrators of the bombing was one of the few commitments honored by the Clinton administration.
Many In Hoosegow Let's take the accusations in order.
At the moment, the mastermind of the earlier World Trade Center attack, Ramzi Yousef, is serving a 240-year prison term, plus another life sentence just in case, all to be spent in solitary confinement. Five conspirators involved in the bombing were also captured, and all are also doing life.
Earlier this year, 14 suspects believed to be members of Saudi Hezbollah were indicted in the Khobar Towers bombing, many of whom have been held by the Saudis since shortly after the attack.
And it was during the Clinton administration that the four al-Qaida terrorists involved in the embassy bombings were caught, tried and convicted. Last week, all four received life prison terms.
As for the Cole bombing, it is true efforts to have six suspects in the case extradited to the United States have been stymied. But the six men remain in a Yemen jail, which certainly can't be a lot of laughs.
To suggest Clinton blithely pranced around the Oval Office playing the bongos and did nothing to apprehend those who committed acts of terrorism at home and abroad is simply flat-out wrong and certainly a case of revisionist history at its most venal.
Could all these investigations have been handled better, or more expeditiously? Maybe. But in each case, those responsible were caught. You could argue those chaps who are doing time in a Yemeni or Saudi prison are experiencing far harsher conditions than they would in this country.
Clinton did a good enough job, all on his own, tainting his presidential legacy, without his detractors adding blood splatters.
Columnist Daniel Ruth can be reached at (813) 259-7599.
I must disagree. If you say he it is dubious,that means there is some doubt. There is no doubt, no "dubiousness" about it. Clinton is the worst President in the last 100 years if not ever.
Keep in mind, some of these people now telling us Clinton's was a dubious presidency were some of his most ardent supporters the last ten years. The message I am reading is that many are now re-examining their defense of him and stepping further away.
They will never likely be like us in terms of the condemnation. But if they shun him, as they should, he will have no one left to lie to (to coin a Hitchins phrase and book title).
He will be considered a whole lot more than simply dubious.
The truth hurts, doesn't it?
Humor me if you have a minute and drop Mr. Ruth a note of your own. His email addy is: DRuth@tampatrib.com.
My original email:
Horse hooey. Bush isn't taking terrorists to court and ignoring the nations that breed and harbor them. Clinton did. Why? He had "other" things on his mind.
*Your* logic doesn't hold up.
The "author's" resonse to me:
You stilllllllllllllllll don't get it.
My follow up:
Well, one of us doesn't.
Clinton never went after the roots of terrorism. He chopped away at the tail of the snake, but was too timid to go after the head. It does no good to incarcerate flunkies without making a serious effort to stop the state-sponsorship of terrorism.
Plus, in another major faux pas, all he managed to do was get the weapons inspection program stopped in Iraq, helping Saddam achieve Iraq's goal.
Clinton was a "personality," not a leader. And you, sir, are a groupie.
By this standard, nothing needs to be done about 9/11, since the hijackers are all dead. Were WJC President, we might be hearing that explanation.
I can just just picture hin sitting on WhiteHouse floor in the last night of his administration saying, "There goes eight years of the Presedency right down the drain. I guess I'll have to join the frigking peace corps."
On so many levels this is good news.
I wonder if he stillllll hasn't a clue....?????
Good points.
Strange that such a careful journalist like Mr. Ruth would overlook those details. /sarcasm
Then, we'll know that the landslide has started.
Well, I certainly do. The final nail in the coffin was his non-response to the bombing of the Cole.
As to Mr. Ruth, he's like an attorney who is willing to cop to a lesser plea on the part of his client. That way, he doesn't have to 'fess up to the really big misdeeds.
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.