Rehabilitating the Clinton legacy
“[or How Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton failed America, and Kerry wants to]”
____________________________________________________
“WASHINGTON – The government’s former top counterterrorism adviser testified Wednesday that the Clinton administration had ‘no higher priority’ than combating terrorists,” began an Associated Press news article on the March 24 testimony of Richard Clarke before what is described in the same piece as “a bipartisan commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks”. Clarke then said that though President Bush made terrorism one of his main concerns, it was not at the top of the list, compared to Clinton.
Clarke’s “testimony” comes on the heals of his publishing a book on the subject, which falls along typically partisan lines for the stalwart Democrat. Nor is the message limited to Clarke. Like the so called “news” fixture of a month or so ago – Kerry’s lie about Bush allegedly “dodging the draft” when the President was actually flying fighter planes – this new line of attack on the Bush administration was raised recently almost as soon as the “draft dodger” myth fizzled out in the mainstream media outlets. Thus far, the election news coverage has followed a predictable pattern. First, the left raised the cry of “Bush lied,” because America did not find warehouses full of biological weapons or nuclear bombs. This was mixed with charges of “intelligence failures” which persist to this day. Of course, Saddam Hussein’s regime did have a weapons of mass destruction program for the production of WMD’s, or unconventional weapons, as they used to be called. He did have the missiles to deliver such devices, in violation of agreements that ended the last gulf war One of said missiles crashed in Kuwait nearly flattening a reporter. Perhaps, had the reporter been blown up by the missile, the media would not be so eager to deny that there was any prohibited arms in Iraq. But they have, with remarkable tendency for criticizing the specific examples given by President Bush – without saying anything to refute the basic, larger picture: Saddam was developing, seeking, and maintaining WMD, the missiles to deliver it, and the infrastructure to make more. Moreover, these events do not occur in a vacuum. In addition to Saddam’s WMD program, there was his history of such programs, including a nuclear program that would have given Iraq nuclear status had Israel not blown up the Iraqi reactor in an airstrike some 20 years ago. To the surprise of no one, this Israeli airstrike is never mentioned in the context of Iraqi WMD. But that is the context. As to intelligence failure, it is true that Iraq’s WMD program was less significant than reported. But so was the atomic program of Nazi Germany. Where reports that the Germans were close to going nuclear in World War II -- the very things that spurred America to gain nuclear arms first – an intelligence failure? Hardly. After the war, it was found that the Nazis did indeed have a nuclear program. It was behind schedule, but it existed. And they did not intend the research to be purely speculative. Had they obtained the weapon, it would have been put to use against America and it’s allies.
About what did Bush lie? He quoted some intelligence examples in a speech that were later found to be based on suspect information supplied by another country’s intelligence service. But about the big picture, he was right; Iraq sought and had WMD. As soon as the mainstream media wore out the “Bush lied” line, it began harping on “Bush dodged the draft”, a myth put up by the Kerry campaign, though Kerry denied initiating the lie and some Democrats still believe it is gospel. At the same time as this three decade old myth was getting serious news time, no one bothered to examine what either candidate had done since Vietnam. There is good reason for this. Since Vietnam, Bush has become President and in three years taken decisive action on two fronts against terrorists who have been attacking America for years, culminating in 9-11. Meanwhile, after Vietnam, Kerry also got into politics; his first venture was a series of anti-war protests, including membership in an antiwar group whose members actually debated assassinating congressmen at a 1970s Kansas City meeting. Kerry denies being at the meeting and says he resigned form the group afterwards, but there is no evidence he ever warned the congressmen targeted, or told the police. Moreover, Kerry continued to associate with the group and use its name.
John Kerry then began a series of other anti-military ventures, including throwing his military service medals over a wall for the press to watch. Obviously the Massachusetts Senator believes the American citizenry possesses a short memory – or maybe he just thinks that way about the people from New England – for his real medals are on display in his office. As Senator, Kerry voted to cut intelligence spending, and yet now whines about every specific overestimation our intelligence services have made regarding Iraqi WMD.
Moreover, Kerry has never repudiated his anti-military views nor his disdain for the U.S. soldiers, which was expressed shortly after his leaving military service for the public sphere, when he accused American troops of committing atrocities on a routine basis without any evidence. Indeed, even when these statements are brought up, Kerry’s defenders claim they are true, fudging the line between generalizations and specifics, between one or two examples and the big picture. Were there civilians killed during Vietnam? Yes. Sometimes that happens in wars. But to take one or two incidents and use them to generalize the character of American soldiers – and by extension, America – is too great an error to let slip by the public perception. Yes, there were such incidents, but that is not what Kerry is talking about, and his defenders know it. Yet they point to one or two specifics, ignoring the fact that Kerry’s words damning American soldiers are not about this or that incident, but about American soldiers as such. Kerry voted for the war in Iraq but never really supported it; he did what he felt he had to, politically. He voted for the war in Iraq because it was the politically popular choice at the time. Now that we are fighting terrorists in Iraq instead of Saddam Hussein’s troops –even as the left screams that Iraq had no terror connections -- the fair weather patriots have shown their true colors and now the popular message is to blame Bush, not the terrorists. Bush advocated the war in Iraq because at some level, he understood how important it was for the U.S. to assert itself against its enemies in a post- 9-11 world. Iraq was a small-scale player in terrorism compared to Saudi Arabia or Iran. But then again, so was Afghanistan, until September 11, 2001.
The goal of attacking Iraq goes beyond the removal of a specific dictator or whatever weapons he might have and was certainly seeking: The goal was to try and reverse the last thirty or so years of American military history. Kerry never understood this because he has been on the sidelines cheering for this history and patting himself on the back every time America is misused, neglected, or marginalized.
That history Bush has set about reversing? Since Carter the U.S. has capitulated to Islamicist terror, though some can trace the trend back even further. But Carter is as good a place to evaluate the beginning as any because that time saw the Islamicists in Iran taking Americans hostage. Carter did nothing to stop them. In the 1980’s, terror again increased; Terrorists blew up an American barracks in Lebanon and killed 241 U.S. Marines. President Reagan did much to win the confrontation with the Communists, but failed to act on the other growing threat of Islamic terrorism and militancy. Reagan made a political choice not to attack those responsible, even though intelligence officials knew of the perpetrators.
Then, the first Bush administration bungled the first Gulf War due to the political considerations voiced by its advisers, leaving Saddam Hussein in power with a grudge, hemmed in only by toothless U.N. resolutions and the occasional use of U.S. firepower. By the time Bill Clinton took office, the Islamicist terror cells and belligerent anti-American nations in and around the Arab world, and their supporters, knew they could do whatever they wanted and America would sit on its hands.
Clinton did not disappoint; in eight years of his Presidency, the U.S. saw nearly half a dozen or so major terrorist strikes costing hundreds of lives each, some of which, like the bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, wounded thousands. In his eagerness to placate the world demanding sacrifice of Americans on “humanitarian” missions, Clinton made a goal of U.S. military intervention on Bosnia, as well as other far-off places, and used U.S. military forces to install the recently ousted dictator Aristide in Haiti. Clinton sent further messages of America’s unwillingness to stand up to Islamicist-Arabist terror, by bullying Israel into negotiating with terrorist leader Yassir Arafat, who after the negotiations rewarded Israel for its capitulation by unleashing waves of terrorist bombings.
In terms of defending America against the terrorist attacks that were escalating towards a deadly climax during his eight-year occupation of the White House, President William Jefferson Clinton did virtually nothing. His only reaction was a token airstrike on the eve of his impeachment, which seemed timed for maximum political effect. Moreover, Clinton refused to meet with intelligence advisers and even refused at least one offer to extradite Bin Laden.
When these points are raised, the Clintoneers giddily list the various good deeds of that embattled President, which most often begin – in foreign policy terms – with U.S. intervention in Bosnia and the “Kyoto Protocol” on nonexistent global warming. Neither of these things is a particularly convincing point; the Kyoto Protocol was never ratified by Congress and never supported by most Americans. Nor has the media been eager to tell the truth about it; it is a scheme to starve the technologically advanced nations of the world blind, by shutting off their energy, under the guise of preventing environmental threats that do not exist! This pandering to green fanatics is not only bad for America, it was also a bad political choice, for it splits the Democrats between two of their stalwart allies, the environmental fanatics and the die-hard labor unions – since one of the many results of Kyoto rationing of energy would be joblessness in untold numbers of industries. And American intervention is The Balkans was hardly a glowing moment, either, whether you are judging the intervention in terms of itself, or as a political move. First of all, our involvement was unilateral. Second, it had nothing to do with American interests. And, third, it only raises the question: If Clinton was going to intervene unilaterally in a bloody civil war which had no relationship to America, why not do anything about terrorists and their supporting governments which were threatening and attacking us?
The Clintoneers claim Clinton wanted to openly attack the terrorists, but an opposition congress wouldn’t let him send troops the way we did after September 11. So we are left with the impression – and reality – that he did, essentially, nothing. This is where the Clintoneers get desperate. They invent all sorts of behind-the-scenes scenarios where the brave Mr. Clinton had spies and secret commandos trying to attack the terrorists. Of course, when asked to produce evidence of this, they shrug, and say that it was behind the scenes. This is awfully convenient for the Clintoneers. They seem to forget that the President’s job is not just that of an administrator, but a leader. Certainly things go on behind the scenes, and a president is not expected to broadcast the whereabouts of secret missions. But the President of the United States also has a duty – it is part of his job – to advocate forward motion on the issues of the day facing our country. And none can be a greater issue than that of being blown to bits. This isn’t some far-off ethnic struggle, or pie-in-the-sky environmental conjecture. What we are faced with – and fighting against – is our annihilation. Even if Clinton did things behind the scenes – which is pure speculation on the part of his supporters – he still had a job to convey something of the threat. Reagan didn’t disclose the whereabouts of American spies in Europe, but he made it darn clear where we stood relative to the Soviet Union’s attempt to take over the world. Presidents can take a stand without giving up their play. The fact that Clinton allegedly had things being done “behind the scenes” doesn’t mean he still couldn’t – or shouldn’t – have acted as a leader. He didn’t, which is why the Clintoneers are taking the “secret” route; Clinton didn’t actually do anything for them to refer to. These people have made Clinton out to be a “hero” in the fight against terrorism when he was just the latest – and most culpable – do-nothing. Yes, Clinton didn’t start the trend of permissiveness towards Arab/Muslim terror. But just because it was that way when he got to office doesn’t mean he shouldn’t have tried to change it. Indeed, the escalating pattern of attacks during his term make his relationship to the “war on terror” all to clear: It is that of a bystander. The words of the media hyping Richard Clarke’s supposed revelations about Clinton fighting terrorism ring as hollow as a spent shell casing. If that was so, America wouldn’t have waited until the attacks on September 11, 2001 to attack nations that supported Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups – the Clintoneers’ tales of daring secret missions notwithstanding -- or to take a hard line with terrorist leader Yassir Arafat.
Clinton, like Bush, was President during a wave of terror attacks. The only difference is that they were overseas, but they were no less acts of war than September 11. Clinton did nothing. More importantly, he didn’t say anything either. This is significant, because the President isn’t just the elected figurehead for America; he also serves a valuable function of advocating America’s ideas, either to the citizenry or to the world at large. The only time Clinton mentioned terrorism was after the Oklahoma city Bombing by domestic terrorist McVeigh and Terry Nichols, which Clinton used to grandstand and slander anyone who wasn’t a card-carrying leftist as “dangerous” and being one of the “loud and angry voices” which encouraged the bombers. Aside from this partisan exploitation of Oklahoma City, Clinton said and did little about terrorism. And with respect to the Islamicist terrorism emanating from much of the Arab world, which is at issue here, he did – and said – virtually nothing.
Then September 11 happened.
Suddenly, terrorism was on the radar screen of concerns for the nation. Does this mean that the Democrats leapt over each other to address past errors of inaction and appeasement? Hardly. They paid lip service to stronger defense and justice for September 11’s victims, and never allowing another attack – then opposed every step aimed at preventing such another attack. Then, as soon as the Kerry anti-war bandwagon rolled onto the road, they jumped aboard, with the media following in a closely towed trailer and writing down every lie, myth, assertion and claim. Because Kerry epitomizes the left’s view of America: Internationalist capitulation and disdain for the military – his campaign happens to coincide with an attempt to redeem President Clinton. Clarke’s “testimony” is an attempt to portray Clinton as something he wasn’t, in order to help the chances of Clinton’s would-be successor, in ideology if not chronological order: John Kerry.
The attempt to paint Clinton as a fighter of terrorism is both an attempt to glorify Clinton, and an attack on President Bush. But once again, examine the history: Clinton had two terms to stop America’s weak-kneed response to terror. Instead, he took the U.S. government’s abdication of its defense obligations to a new low. The facts are clear: Clinton had eight years to prevent 9-11; Bush had eight months. Moreover, once terrorists attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001, President Bush took action, took to the airwaves, and made sure that American troops took after the terrorists, bringing about the end of the negligent “defense” provided by Clinton and earlier administrations. Nevertheless, the Democrats, in a purely partisan fashion, choose Clinton over Bush as far as terror concerns go. There is a reason for this, and it goes to the fact that at one time, both parties had specific ideology – and in some respects they still do.
Bill Clinton, the President who actually lost the satchel of nuclear launch codes, who took money from communist Chinese spies, who hosted Arafat, who held the U.S. armed forces in contempt, and whose big claim to fame is his wife’s attempt to socialize the health care industry behind closed doors – this is the man who the left itself views as the embodiment of its ideas, as its greatest proponent. The perception didn’t fade with the defeat of the Clinton Legacy’s heir Albert Gore in 2000. Rather, the left has assumed a “The king is dead, long live the king!” mentality, idolizing the Clinton years even more so now that they are taking up residence in the dustbin of history and C-Span re-runs.
Bill Clinton, who was always seeking for a legacy besides for his own dishonor, statism, and do-nothing-ness, may have finally found one he didn’t even know about: His status as a terrorist fighter and protector of American lives.
Even the notoriously wooden Al gore would surely get a chuckle out of that one.
Testimony indeed.
_____________
Back
