The DNC's '14/'16 point man, Bill Clinton
By Mark Alexander
Some polls and politicos suggest Bill is more popular among Democrats than Barack Hussein Obama, though that's not saying much. Thus, Clinton is now the Democratic National Committee's point man in states and districts where Obama is considered a liability to Democrat candidates seeking re-election to the House and Senate in 2014.
So, after saving Barack Obama's bacon in the 2012 election, Slick Willie will attempt to do the same for vulnerable House and Senate Democrats.
Clearly Clinton's campaigning helped his lapdog, New York native and former DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe, win the Virginia gubernatorial election last November. Still, McAuliffe couldn't win a simple majority, even though Republican Ken Cuccinelli lost votes to a Libertarian spoiler, and to a colossal political blunder that resulted in a "Republican" government shutdown a month earlier -- including furloughs for many northern Virginia voters.
But Bubba's first true test case for the 2014 midterms was the special congressional election between Florida Republican David Jolly and his high-profile Democrat opponent, Alex Sink -- in a District that Obama carried in 2008 and 2012 and was considered a must-win for Democrats. Sink outspent Jolly nearly 4-1, and despite the fundraising and campaigning by Clinton, she still sank.
That notwithstanding, Clinton is still considered the Demo cadres' last best hope for 2014, and Hillary's only hope for 2016. So let's review the Clinton record -- which has largely been suppressed by his adoring Leftmedia sycophants and constituent lemmings -- for a profile of the three things that most define his legacy.
1. The Notorious Liar
Clinton is a close second to Obama in his manifestations of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, which in both cases is most notably characterized by their penchant for lying about anything and everything that promotes the perception of who they are and advances their political agendas.
Clinton is most infamously remembered for wagging his finger at prosecutors insisting, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," referring to the sex he had with a young White House intern. And he followed that with his second-most memorable line, uttered while being prosecuted for perjury: "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is."
Of course, Clinton had mastered the lie long before Monica Lewinsky came along, and long before he began waging his one-man War on Women.
The New York Times lamented Clinton's "mysterious passion for lying" and for "lying about his lies." One of The Times' most liberal columnists, Bob Herbert, confirmed "the Democrat Party made a pact with Mr. Clinton that was the equivalent of a pact with the devil. And he delivered."
The editors of the New York Observer, the Left-elite's favorite rag, concluded Clinton is "an untrustworthy lowlife who used people for his own purposes and then discarded them. How could they have been fooled so badly?" The editors concluded that Clinton "is terrifyingly close to the caricature his enemies drew of him. They were right after all."
The New Republic's uber-leftist Andrew Sullivan noted, "From the beginning, Clinton has lied with indiscriminate abandon." And then there is this condemnation from former Democrat Senator Bob Kerrey: "Clinton's an unusually good liar -- unusually good."
The erudite editors of First Things offered this assessment of Bill Clinton and the American Character: "The political philosopher Leo Strauss liked to say that the American system was built on foundations that are low but solid. The Clinton presidency was built on foundations that are low and sordid. For all his successes in life, it seems that Bill Clinton as a person never rose above his origins. That is a difficult subject not untouched by the delicate question of class, but the fact is that Clinton plays to the pit." Maureen Dowd of the Times, who nonetheless opposed the impeachment, writes: "He campaigned and governed using lowbrow forums of popular entertainment ... and now the lowbrow culture he cultivated has engulfed his presidency and, most likely, his legacy. Just as movie and television comedy is permeated with the ill-mannered, self-indulgent mentality of adolescent boys, Mr. Clinton has reversed the usual pattern of the presidency, switching from a paternal model to an adolescent model. He expects us to clean up, ignore, or forgive his messes. ... You might call it a vast gross-out conspiracy."
But the Democrats insist you can trust Bill now.
2. Bill and Osama
Although Barack Obama personally and erroneously claimed credit for finding and killing Osama bin Laden, that announcement marked a long-awaited triumph for the United States. But it came much too late and at a very high price.
Six years into Clinton's tenure of national security malfeasance, a well organized al-Qa'ida terrorist cell under the direction of Sheik Osama had settled into American suburbs to prepare a strike on our homeland.
Eight long years passed between the first World Trade Center attack early in Clinton's first term and the devastating attacks of September 11, 2001, eight months after George W. Bush took office.
During that interim period, Bill Clinton had numerous opportunities to capture or kill bin Laden. Indeed, when our Special Forces Operators had Osama in their sights, Clinton declined to give a green light. In fact, the Clinton administration refused an FBI field agent's efforts to open a case file on Arab nationals who were, curiously, taking flight instruction on commercial aircraft simulators, but showed no interest in takeoff or landing instructions. The stated reason for the case file denial was to avoid any presumption of religious bias against Muslims.
Retired Air Force Lt. Col. Robert Patterson, who carried the "nuclear football" during the Clinton years, says Clinton missed not one but several opportunities to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. According to Patterson, Clinton's failures to act directly facilitated a decade of terrorist attacks against the U.S. leading up to 9/11. "[W]e could have prevented the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, we could have prevented 9/11 and we could have prevented the bombings of the embassies in Africa if President Clinton had taken one of these opportunities." Patterson continued, "We had eight chances at least to either nab bin Laden or to kill him."
The 9/11 Commission concluded that in 1998, the year that al-Qa'ida bombed our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, U.S. assets had the opportunity to capture bin Laden at his Tarnak Farms compound in Afghanistan. According to the commission's report, "Before it was canceled, [senior CIA operations officer in Afghanistan, Gary] Schroen described it as the 'best plan we are going to come up with to capture [bin Laden] while he is in Afghanistan and bring him to justice.' No capture plan before 9/11 ever again attained the same level of detail and preparation."
Michael Scheuer, former CIA chief of the team responsible for hunting bin Laden, confirmed that SpecOps had two opportunities to kill him long before 9/11. With bin Laden literally in their sights, however, Clinton pulled the plug on both operations.
Clinton, in an off-the-record speech to the Long Island Association in 2002, confessed to turning down an opportunity to take custody of bin Laden: "He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan, and we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."
Why were we so blatantly unprepared?
In 2001, the U.S military had been severely downsized with the Justice Department and CIA operating under very restrictive Clinton budgets and mandates. Clinton's final national security policy directive (in December 2000) did not mention "al-Qa'ida" once in its 45,000-word text, and mentioned "Osama bin Laden" only four times. The directive remains a self-incriminating document that lays bare the Clinton administration's "strategy" of swatting flies -- of lobbing the occasional cruise missile at a nearly empty building (excepting for poor janitors) and of treating terrorists as mere "fugitives" who should be extradited to "answer for their crimes."
Now, while Obama snoozed, al-Qa'ida is thriving again, and yesterday, Obama said of "the number one security threat to the United States, I remain much more concerned about the prospect of a nuclear weapon going off in Manhattan."
But the Democrats insist you can trust Bill now.
3. Seeding the 2008 Economic Collapse
In 2006, five years into two warfronts with al-Qa'ida and a slow recovery from the devastating 9/11 attacks, the domestic mortgage markets began to unravel and take the rest of the American economy down with them. By 2008, Barack Obama was waltzing to the White House amid the ashes of the near-total collapse of the American financial markets.
But George W. Bush, whom Obama reflexively and incessantly blamed for the nation's economic woes, did not sow the seeds of that disaster -- Bill Clinton did.
On 20 November 1994, Clinton signed the United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Article V(e)(iii) of that treaty asserts that all people have a "right" to housing.
A year later, Clinton signed legislation making it easier for minority constituents with bad credit to obtain mortgages. His Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, rewrote the lending rules for the ill-conceived Community Reinvestment Act (which had been signed into law by none other than Jimmy Carter), opening the Fannie Mae (Federal National Mortgage Association) and Freddie Mac (Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation) subprime floodgates.
In other words, mortgage lenders were able to make millions of loans to borrowers who, had they been subject to free-market lending practices, would not have been able to qualify for loans. And all of these loans were guaranteed by American taxpayers. The mortgage markets, of course, welcomed their new customers with open arms, fueling a real estate boom across the board.
In short, Clinton's legislation applied affirmative action to the lending industry. And despite what Democrats and their Leftmedia minions would have you believe, the resulting crisis was not a "free market failure" but the failure of central government's socially engineered housing and lending policy.
Five years later, the New York Times noted, "Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people... In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the [thrift industry] savings and loan industry in the 1980's."
Indeed, the article quoted American Enterprise Institute economist Peter Wallison, who warned, "If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry." But the S&L bailout was a drop in the bucket compared to the gathering storm over mortgage lending practices.
In October 2008, Bill Clinton admitted, "I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress ... to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."
Democrat Rep. Artur Davis was a bit more direct: "Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues, I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In retrospect I should have heeded the concerns in 2004. Frankly I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit that when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong."
But the Democrats insist you can now trust Slick Willie as their 2014 midterm election point man -- at least if you're among their mass-constituency of dullard fools.
In 1776, John Adams wrote, "Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics." Those words are eternally true in the context between Liberty and tyranny, though they fall on deaf ears of most Democrats.
Mark Alexander is the executive editor of the Patriot Post.