{"article":{"id":98432,"heading":"The Clinton's Real Legacy","author":"DL","created":"2003-12-23 21:49:04","modified":"2013-11-11 00:28:10","last_modified":"Mon, 11 Nov 2013 07:28:10","article":"

Former co-President Hillary Rodham Clinton, who usually denies she wants to be president again -- solo next time (you can be sure she won't share the reins with Bill) -- announced that she was tired of President Bush interfering with her and Bill's accomplishments.

Mrs. Clinton accused the Bush administration of nullifying the \"success\" of the Clintons' presidency. \"I cannot imagine four years of a second term of this administration, with no accountability and no election at the end,\" she said. I'm not sure what she meant by \"no election at the end,\" unless she thinks President Dubya intends to establish a monarchy and become King George. Now that would drive them batty, wouldn't it?

Mrs. Clinton added, \"I shouldn't take it personally. Because what (the Bush) administration was attempting to do was turn back the progress of the entire 20th century.\"

Drama aside, obviously Mrs. Clinton does take it personally and resents President Bush's undoing of her co-legacy. Mrs. Clinton is apparently unaware of an excellent book on the market right now that disputes her vision of the Clinton Legacy.

Perhaps someone should get her a copy of Rich Lowry's \"Legacy, Paying the Price for the Clinton Years.\" With this informative book in hand, perhaps she can avoid making the same mistakes she and her husband made the first time around, in the event she is eventually elected to a third term.

Ironically, Bill Clinton benefited in a way from the myriad scandals that pervaded his tenure. Were it not for the diversion, the public might be better apprised of his many miserable policy failures. Rich Lowry has done a great service by refocusing our attention on the Clinton legacy beyond the scandals -- not that he ignores the scandals. He covers those too, but he does much more.

\"The most shocking thing about Bill Clinton's presidency is the smallness of it, both personally and politically,\" writes Lowry. This \"do nothing presidency\" left America weak and vulnerable, he says. And he proves it in a book that is rich with scholarship but highly fascinating and readable.

How dare we forget his appeasement toward North Korea, virtually inviting her to cheat on her nuclear agreements? Or how about his immediate retreat at the first sign of blood in Mogadishu and his persistent inaction in the face of recurring Al Qaeda terrorism against American targets, both of which virtually invited the September 11 attacks?

How about Clinton's emasculation of the FBI and CIA? He not only loathed the military, but our vital intelligence services as well. And, as Lowry details, he \"refocused the CIA on humanitarian interventions, economic security, the environment, and a host of issues associated with global crime …\" Terrorism was buried in a blizzard of other boutique, post-historical priorities.\"

Lowry shows that Clinton treated terrorism as a law enforcement matter, rather than warfare. At Clinton's direction, the FBI became the lead agency in the war on terror -- \"a task for which it was inherently unfit.\" As a law enforcement agency, honor bound and structured to operate within the rules of evidence and the high standards of proof of American courtrooms, its hands were tied, and it was rendered ineffectual working against terrorism.

The Clintons brag about deficit reduction during their years, but they conveniently omit that they tried to bankrupt the federal government through Hillary's grandiose and clandestine scheme to socialize health care. They also forget to mention that the Republican Congress restrained their other efforts to spend during the last six of their eight years in office.

As Hillary is trying to recapture the White House in 2008, we will also need to be armed with Lowry's legacy corrections as to the Clinton economic record, which \"benefited from two big lies. The first was the dishonest picture Clinton painted of the American economy in 1992. … The other lie is that his 1993 economic package transformed the federal budget, and hence the American economy.\" In fact \"it didn't cause interest rates to fall, it didn't significantly reduce the deficit, and it didn't cause the economy to grow.\"

As you would expect from National Review's Rich Lowry, this is an intelligent book that not only chronicles the events, but trenchantly analyzes their historical significance.

Buy this book for yourself and a friend this Christmas. Read it, and put it in a safe place. Then bring it out for the 2008 campaign and spoil Hillary's plan to campaign on a revised version of the Clinton legacy.

David Limbaugh<\/p>\n","contact":"","link":"","address":"","phone":"","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"text\/plain","summary":"Bill Clinton benefited in a way from the myriad scandals that pervaded his tenure. Were it not for the diversion, the public might be better apprised of his many miserable policy failures.","numcomment":7,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/","filesize":null,"article_url":"\/news\/2003\/12\/98432.php"},"attachments":[],"comments":[{"id":104567,"heading":"Clinton","article":"From - CMDR Hamilton McWhorter, USN (ret.)\r\n \r\nPromises\r\n \r\nYou know, it is easy to forget the 'promises' that Bill and Hillary made while in office. It strikes home when it is listed like this:\r\n \r\nAfter the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1000; President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.\r\n \r\nBUSH COVERED IT!\r\n \r\nAfter the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.\r\n \r\nBUSH COVERED IT!\r\n \r\nAfter the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.\r\n \r\nBUSH COVERED IT!\r\n \r\nAfter the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible! would be hunted down and punished.\r\n \r\nBUSH COVERED IT!\r\n \r\nAfter the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.\r\n \r\nBUSH COVERED IT!\r\n \r\nMaybe if Clinton had kept his promise, an estimated 3,000 people in New York and Washington, D.C. that are now dead would be alive today. \r\n \r\nBUSH TOLD THOSE FIREMAN -- THEY WOULD HEAR US, TOO!\r\n \r\nAnd, now that Bush is taking action to bring these people to justice, we have Democrats charging him with being a war monger...\r\n \r\nAN INTERESTING QUESTION: \r\nThis question was raised on a Philly radio call-in show. Without casting stones, it is a legitimate question. There are two men, both extremely wealthy. One develops relatively cheap software and gives billions of dollars to charity. The other sponsors terrorism. That being the case, why was it that the Clinton administration spent more money chasing down Bill Gates over the past eight years than Osama bin Laden?\r\n \r\nTHINK ABOUT IT!\r\n \r\nIt is a strange turn of events. Hillary gets $8 Million for her memoir. Bill gets about $12 Million for his memoir yet to be written. This from two people who have spent the past 8 years being unable to recall anything about past events while under oath!\r\n \r\nSincerely, \r\n \r\nCmdr Hamilton McWhorter USN(ret.)\r\n \r\n---------------\r\n \r\nAddendum from JRL:\r\n \r\nI didn't like Clinton. For a variety of reasons. But he's gone now, so what? Well, I think there is one legacy, a'snapshot' of how he ran his regime, that was not so obvious as his classic line "I did not have sex with that woman." It is this: When one attacks a larger, vastly more powerful adversary, it MUST be done with the element of surprise on your side. To do otherwise, it suicidal. Your attack will fail. Secondly, you pick what you feel are his weakest points to attack (not his strongest) and - after attacking - you wait a while and see what kind of response your attack draws. If it awakens and enrages a snarling, vicious, huge grizzly bear, you run for cover and hide out for a while. If your 'bear' is focused and *relentless*, then he's not going to stop until he finds you and kills you. You lose; he wins. End of game. On the other hand, if you get little or no response, (in other words, he does not counter-attack in a serious way), then you attack again, but the next time a bit harder, a bit more audaciously. Then - again - you wait for a response. And so on. This process continues. What you (in this case, terrorists, bin Laden, etc.) do is in large measure a function of how your adversary reacts. Clinton's most damning, long-term, result of his years as president is the fact he was so occupied with defending the various mis-steps, scandals, poor judgements, etc., that he was virtually asleep at the switch when it came to dealing with a looming crisis - the terrorists who were developing a credible threat to our nation. Clinton was dealing with his wife's law firm fraud, the corrupt land deals he was involved in, the travel agency firings, the murder of Vince Foster, the missing papers which were not found for a year, the Red Chinese political contributions, - and that's not even counting Jennifer Flowers, and his "intern" problems. He was just too busy defending his foolish actions to pay attention to what was coming down the road our way - terrorism.\r\n \r\nClinton didn't react. He didn't counter-attack. He just talked and threatened and blustered. Based upon actual results, not Clinton's jawboning, Osama bin Laden grew more confident, more self-assured. His enemy (us) seemed stunned into immobility, showing an inability, unwillingness, or lack of motivation to fight back. While Americans grew more agitated, more fearful, and more frustrated, Clinton did nothing but talk. So, bin Laden said "Let's go for broke! Let's hit them in their largest, most well-known city - and add insult to injury by using their own aircraft as the weapon that does the killing! How outrageous and hideously wonderful!" bin Laden must have *LOVED* cooking up this planned 9\/11!!!\r\n \r\nFact is, Clinton probably could have prevented it. 'The best defense is a good offense.' Clinton knew that - he's a friggin Rhodes Scholar, after all!! So, does bin Laden, but only bid Laden put it into practice.\r\n \r\nBill Clinton should be put up on criminal charges - dereliction of duty as a federal office (Commander in Chief). His biggest obligation is to protect the American people, as chief of all armed forces, but he failed.\r\n \r\nNow, Bush is doing Clinton's dirty work, 'taking out the trash', getting payback, or whatever you want to call it. AND Clinton's own party is now nickel-and-diming BUSH over "details" (missing WMD's). We shouldn't even be having this discussion! Clinton should have attacked years ago! He had the Con for 8 years while all these earlier attacks took place! Bush doesn't need any WMD's, except to placate the most squeamish, to go to war! We already were in a war! bin Laden (et. al.) started it. \r\n \r\nTo borrow from an old adage: "An enemy of my enemy is my friend.", I say "A friend of my enemy is my enemy." Afghanistan\/Taliban provided a place of refuge and training camps. We took them out. Saddam isn't a terrorist, per se, but he provided moral and financial support to terrorists. (Heck, why do you suppose Hitler sunk American ships enroute to England long before Pearl Harbor when we entered the war? Because were helping England with supplies and arms with whom Hitler *was* at war.) Saddam attacked TWO neighbors, Kuwait and before them, Iran without warning and without just cause. He thumbed his nose at the U.N. for a decade - and us, too! Bush didn't need a WMD excuse, but he actually *believed* the WMD's existed, as it Clinton, Madeline Albright, etc. It's a matter of public record.\r\n \r\nBah, humbug! Kerry, Tom Dashle, and James Carvile can all go to hell! Their facetious political posturing make me want to throw up! Give Bush a break! He's doing the best he can. Kerry, et. al. really don't offer any better alternatives, except a vague "go get the U.N. involved and turn it all over to them", as if that is going to make it all better - somehow. Bush is acting forcefully to protect America from a broad range of threats. The world is a damned violent place! If you think he's 'over-reacting', fine. I can accept that opinion or argument, but if Bush has to error, I would PREFER that he err on the conservative side - the side which gives the best chance of USA left standing after the fight is over.\r\nJRL\r\n\r\n","author":"JRL","parent_id":98432,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2004-03-08 14:53:27","modified":"2004-03-08 14:53:27","fileurl":""},{"id":104568,"heading":"christ! you waste our time","article":"lots of words \r\nif you are too dull to understand that these assholes as liars and bastards you must be retarded.\r\npointing at Clinton does not make Bush better.\r\nI suspect you either don't have a clue or are another PR hack.\r\nget a real job.","author":"Bogus","parent_id":98432,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2004-03-08 15:23:26","modified":"2004-03-08 15:23:26","fileurl":""},{"id":104583,"heading":"No No - not bogus","article":"There have been some assholes, liars and bastards operating out of the White House. However, that stopped when Clinton moved out. \r\n\r\nThe current administration is A+++ and totally honest.","author":"JRL","parent_id":98432,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2004-03-08 22:05:21","modified":"2004-03-08 22:05:21","fileurl":""},{"id":104586,"heading":"JRL","article":"well that settles that.\r\nAll of the above\r\nA clueless PR hack\r\nbecause you expect us to\r\nswallow that as Bush Admirer would.\r\nThe moron was sure on the ball 9-11\r\nwith the goat story as the WTCs \r\nburned \r\nnow that's leadership (!??!)\r\nha ha ha ha ha \r\nIt's difficult to believe that there are\r\nhard core idiots like you around\r\nthat havn't collected their own private Darwin award.\r\nSoon perhaps.","author":"Bogus","parent_id":98432,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2004-03-08 22:18:27","modified":"2004-03-08 22:18:27","fileurl":""},{"id":104587,"heading":"oh and............","article":"Does JRL stand for your real name, Bush Admirer?","author":"Bogus","parent_id":98432,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2004-03-08 22:23:54","modified":"2004-03-08 22:23:54","fileurl":""},{"id":104595,"heading":"I don't blame you for trying to change the subject","article":"You're obviously not capable of refuting the points raised in the above article. Therefore you've attacked the messenger. Why am I not surprised?","author":"JRL","parent_id":98432,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2004-03-09 04:41:14","modified":"2004-03-09 04:41:14","fileurl":""},{"id":104598,"heading":""Why am I not surprised"","article":"you need to have a brain to be surprised.\r\n\r\nWhy can't you refute MY observations?\r\nis JRL your real initials?","author":"Sheepdog","parent_id":98432,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2004-03-09 06:35:38","modified":"2004-03-09 06:35:38","fileurl":""}]}