PAYING THE PRICE FOR CLINTON

Paying the Price for Clinton

Back to the Clinton's Role in This Attack Page

David C. Stolinsky
Friday, Nov. 9, 2001

On November 7, less than two months after more than 5,000 innocent Americans were slaughtered at the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, former President Clinton spoke at Georgetown University. He sought to explain the atrocity to the students and faculty.

Clinton declared that our nation is still "paying a price today" for its past of slavery and mistreatment of Native Americans. He went on to recount the misdeeds committed in the first Crusade, which occurred over 900 years ago, adding that "we are still paying for it."

We? Clinton was invoking the Nazi practice of Sippenhaft, in which the relatives of those who opposed Hitler were punished. This vengeful notion holds that the accused person's family is tainted with "blood guilt."

But this primitive idea goes even further. It attaches guilt not only to the accused person's family but also to his whole "tribe." For example, all American whites are guilty for slavery, even if their ancestors arrived after slavery ended.

All Christians are guilty for the Crusades and Inquisition, even those whose ancestors suffered from them. And of course, all Jews are guilty for the death of Jesus, not just those who were in Jerusalem that day and called for it.

How can an apparently well-educated man hold such primitive, anti-democratic beliefs? The beliefs are also irrational – if the terrorists aren't responsible for what they do, how can we be responsible for what other people may have done in other times and other places?

How can a former president justify, even partially, the mass murder of his own people? We are, indeed, still paying a price – for having elected him. Who is Bill Clinton, really?

For years I had a vague feeling that I knew Clinton before he first ran for president in 1992. I never heard of him till then, but I could not shake the feeling that somehow he seemed familiar. Then something odd happened.

While rearranging my books, I came to Tom Clancy's novels and realized that Clinton reminds me of Clancy's hero, Jack Ryan. Harrison Ford portrayed him in "Patriot Games" and "Clear and Present Danger."

But even more oddly, President Clinton reminds me of Jack Ryan in reverse. It is as if some mad genius built a replica of Ryan, but then connected the positive wire to the negative terminal, reversing all the circuits:

Ryan makes money, then goes into government service; Clinton goes into government service, then makes money.

Ryan enters politics reluctantly; Clinton sought personal power all his life.

Ryan picks a person of moral courage and integrity as his vice president; Clinton picks a person who is compliant and learns to fabricate "facts" and reinvent himself repeatedly.

Ryan believes in national defense; Clinton halves our forces and puts them under U.N. control, making one doubt that he believes in the concept of nation, much less defense.

Ryan inspires loyalty in the military despite difficulty and danger; Clinton's armed services lose experienced personnel and cannot meet enlistment quotas despite cash bonuses.

Ryan is respected by the military because he risks their lives to defend America; Clinton is scorned by the military because he demoralizes them by incessant deployments, to far-flung places, with diminishing resources, for dubious reasons.

Ryan studied naval strategy; Clinton allows the Panama Canal to fall under Chinese control.

Ryan opposes foreign agents; Clinton works with them.

Ryan combats terrorism; Clinton sells missile and nuclear technology to China, which sells it to Iraq, North Korea, and perhaps other terrorist states.

Ryan uses the military to protect Americans from foreign tyrants; Clinton uses paramilitary thugs to snatch a child from his rescuer at gunpoint and return him to a foreign tyrant.

Ryan deals with foreign crises; Clinton causes a domestic crisis.

Ryan uses military force against enemies of our nation; Clinton uses it against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory to divert attention from his legal problems.

Ryan has indifferent looks; Clinton is attractive to many women.

Ryan is loyal to his family, his country, and his principles; Clinton is disloyal to the first two and lacks the third.

Ryan's motto is semper fidelis, Clinton's is semper infidelis.

Ryan served in the armed forces; Clinton evaded service.

Ryan lies poorly, being out of practice; Clinton is described by a senator of his own party as an unusually good liar, and he dupes associates into lying for him.

Ryan understands the significance of an oath; Clinton is often photographed carrying a huge Bible but sees an oath as a technicality.

Ryan was trained as a historian and uses language to clarify and inform; Clinton was trained as a lawyer and uses language to confuse and conceal.

Ryan speaks bluntly; Clinton speaks glibly but disputes the meaning of "is."

Ryan's word is his bond; Clinton promises a tax cut and signs an increase, but people are not angry because they suspected he was insincere.

Ryan believes what he says should reflect reality; Clinton believes what he says is reality.

Ryan expects his performance as president to be judged by what he actually does; Clinton hopes his performance as president will be judged as a performance.

Ryan is guided by principles; Clinton is guided by opinion polls and "focus groups."

Ryan believes he must do his duty; Clinton believes he can get away with anything. Both are correct.

Ryan has difficulty concealing his emotions; Clinton has difficulty controlling his desires.

Ryan grieves privately for dead friends; Clinton laughs and jokes at a friend's funeral, then pretends to wipe away a tear when he sees cameras.

Ryan is troubled when he nears the limits of the law; Clinton is troubled when he nears the limits of detection.

Ryan seeks the advice of business executives; Clinton seeks their contributions.

Ryan allies himself with persons of integrity; Clinton allies himself with gunrunners, former bar bouncers, and pornographers.

Ryan often struggles with his conscience; Clinton struggled with his conscience, won by a knockout and sent it into retirement.

Ryan values young life; Clinton pays lip service to "the children" but vetoes restrictions on late-term abortion, thus condoning violence against almost-born children.

Ryan never presumes to sleep in the Lincoln bedroom; Clinton rents it out to campaign contributors, some of whom use the bed as a trampoline.

Ryan appreciates the lofty significance of the Oval Office and often feels himself unworthy; Clinton is unaware of its significance and often proves himself unworthy.

Ryan stimulates interest, involvement, and autonomy; Clinton induces apathy, cynicism, and dependence.

Ryan is unimpressive initially but looks better on close inspection; Clinton is very impressive initially but does not bear close inspection.

Ryan risks his career out of loyalty to subordinates; Clinton induces subordinates to risk their careers out of loyalty to him.

Ryan is sometimes abrasive but leaves one better off for having known him; Clinton is often charming but leaves one worse off for having known him.

Ryan sees people as sources of ideas; Clinton sees them as sources of physical pleasure or contributions.

Ryan works with people and sticks by them; Clinton uses people and discards them.

Ryan tries to set a good example; Clinton does things (lying under oath, having sex with junior employees) that become acceptable to many because of his example.

Ryan taught history and strategy to naval cadets; Clinton teaches self-indulgence, narcissism, and instant gratification to Americans. Both are effective teachers.

Ryan believes his honor is a guide for living; Clinton believes his honor is a title for judges.

Ryan encourages our strengths; Clinton validates our weaknesses.

Ryan sees life (and encourages others to see it) as a high jump; Clinton sees life (and induces others to see it) as a limbo contest.

Granted, Jack Ryan is a fictional character. But is Bill Clinton real, or, like a movie set, composed of false fronts with nothing behind them? Is what he says sincere, or scripted by lawyers and staged by media consultants? In a sense, Clinton – like his pupil Al Gore – is as artificial a character as Ryan.

The characters an author creates provide a window into his own mind. Just as Jack Ryan provides insight into what Clancy considers an admirable character, in both senses of that word, so does Bill Clinton provide insight into what his author considers an admirable character. Of course, Clinton's author is Clinton himself.

We define ourselves by the choices we make. We cannot simultaneously jump over the bar and slither under it. We must decide whether to participate in the high jump or the limbo contest, and select our leaders and policies accordingly.

Choosing the high jump requires the honesty to face difficult problems, the courage to deal with them and risk criticism and failure, and the strength to raise the level of politics.

Choosing the limbo is much easier, but we must ask ourselves whether it is worth entering a contest to see who can sink the lowest. By what we do now, we will decide what kind of a country we will have and what kind of people we are.

Jack Ryan is a fictional character, but George W. Bush is not. To the degree that President Bush resembles Ryan more than he resembles Clinton, we can account ourselves fortunate. Indeed, we should thank God.

And to my eye, Bush resembles Ryan quite closely. Think about it.

A Clinton chorus of 'America the Ugly'

Wesley Pruden
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Published 11/9/2001

     When Chelsea Clinton gets settled in at Oxford she ought to send for the old man.
     Bill Clinton never finished the studies there that would have made him a Rhodes Scholar, and he needs remedial work in history. Additional studies in taste, decency and manners can't help. Not even the Oxford dons could sand off the rough spots and polish the man who long ago abandoned Hope.
     Mr. Clinton went to Georgetown University the other day to relieve himself of his heaviest thoughts about terrorism, and he couldn't resist taking a few potshots at the nation that honored him with two terms in the White House. Every time we think that not even Bill Clinton could caricature Bill Clinton's shabbiness, he does.
     What happened on September 11, he told the students, wouldn't surprise anyone as erudite as he is, because, well, America had it coming. The 5,000 innocents murdered on that day of infamy were paying the debt that America owes to the past. This is similar to the thoughtless remarks of the Revs. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson (who had the decency to apologize and clarify), except that Mr. Clinton inserted a different set of villains. We're all guilty, stupid.
     "Here in the United States," he said, "we were founded as a nation that practiced slavery, and slaves quite frequently were killed even though they were innocent. This country once looked the other way when a significant number of Native Americans were dispossessed and killed to get their land or their mineral rights or because they were thought of as less than fully human. And we are still paying the price today."
     He didn't say what the hundreds of foreigners killed at the World Trade Center were paying the price for, nor why any of the Americans slain on September 11 — none of whom ever owned a slave or so far as we know slew an Indian — owed a debt to anyone. And then he descended into a little history lesson with a story from his misspent youth in deepest, darkest Arkansas.
     "One example from my childhood," he began, as giggles spread through the audience, which was no doubt expecting a story about how he hit on his Sunday school teacher as a randy adolescent in Hot Springs. "In the Civil War, General Sherman waged a brilliant campaign that cut through the South and went to Atlanta." The laughter grew louder. "It was significant and helpful in bringing the Civil War to a close in a way that, thank God, saved the Union. On the way, Sherman practiced a relatively mild form of terrorism. He didn't kill civilians, but he burned all the farms and then he burned Atlanta, trying to break the spirit of the Confederacy. It had nothing whatever to do with winning the Civil War but it was a story that was told for a hundred years later and prevented Americans from coming together as we might have otherwise done. When I was a boy, growing up in the segregated South, when we should have been thinking how we were going to integrate the schools and give people equal opportunity, people were making excuses for unconscionable behavior by talking about what Sherman had done a hundred years ago."
     Mr. Clinton, muddling history to make a point of what a moral tyke he was in a sea of redneck scum, quickly achieved lift-off and was off on a riff, reminiscent of his famous yarn of how he was sickened as a boy in Arkansas by the sight of black churches in flames, torched by white klansmen. When this was too much even for his footmen, flunkeys and factotums back home, who reminded him that for all their sins the white folks in Arkansas had never burned anyone's church, black or white, the president confessed that well, yes, he had made up the story, but he was just trying to pander to an audience of carpetbaggers, scalawags and other Yankee trash.
     He missed an opportunity to let the Georgetown audience in on a little of the history the eager students probably had never heard. Sherman did not "cut through the South," but marched his army from Atlanta to the sea, and there was nothing "mild" about burning cities and most of the farms between. Sherman was a cruel general, not a terrorist, and his march was fully sanctioned by Abraham Lincoln. "I can make the march," Sherman told old Abe, "and I can make Georgia howl." Bill Clinton is wrong if he actually thinks it had "nothing whatever to do with winning the Civil War."
     He was merely adjusting the facts again to make a point, a skill he demonstrated often as president, but we never know whether he actually believes his stretchers, tall tales, fibs and lies, his duplicity and double-dealing, and to be scrupulously fair, he probably doesn't know himself when he's spinning yarns and fondling the facts. And so he went at it again, this time at the expense of the other 49 states. What else is new?