April 7, 2001
by Gary Aldrich - Volume 2, Issue 18
This article appeared on WorldNetDaily.com on Thursday, April 4, 2002.
Itís ironic and a bit unfair that "vast right-wingers" like me are still hounded by individuals who insist that we drop the entire Bill and Hillary issue because "itís time to move on." A walk past the newsstand with a pensive Bill Clinton plastered on the cover of Newsweek seems evidence enough that it is not we who refuse to move on.
Inside, we find another puff-ball article that permits Clinton to put the best spin on every lousy thing he did. Clinton tries to blame his amazingly bad decisions on "politics," still unwilling to admit that he did anything wrong. He will admit that he made bad political decisions, but even that he excuses as victimization he was given bad advice.
In the article, we learn that the bad rap Clinton is now receiving is caused by the "permanent right-wing establishment" who "felt entitled to rule." Evidently, according to Clinton, "we live in an historical period when the fanaticism of America is on the right, and it has an apparatus to support it." He claims that the right wing has been determined "to deny his legitimacy as president from day one and sully every part of his record, even after he left office."
Now, why is it that he feels his record has been sullied? Is there reason for him and his victim wife, Hillary, to feel sorry for themselves? Have they truly been wrongfully accused by this now "permanent" (no longer "vast") right wing, victim to vicious attacks?
Letís take a minute to recall the record of our former president given so much attention in Newsweek.
The first time I ever spoke to Bill Clinton, he was trying to put a smiley face on Waco. The Branch Davidian complex had burned to the ground and 20 or more children of tender years had died a horrible death. Nevertheless, he told me that Waco was a mass suicide. I looked into his eyes and saw nothing. Well, virtually nothing. There was no sympathy, no remorse, no care, no feelings at all for the children. What I did see was a disconnected coldness.
I had seen that look before in the eyes of sociopath criminals who laughed as they stole the life savings of little old ladies. I put a number of these con-man types away. They were all the same they would not admit that they had done anything wrong, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Of course, we found out later that it was Clintonís White House who pushed Attorney General Reno to get the Waco standoff ended in a hurry. Why? Because Waco was causing Bill Clinton political embarrassment, and he wanted it over. So, a fumbled, hurried plan ended up killing the guilty, but not without many innocent lives lost.
But, can we condemn him for that? That was OK with Bill Clinton because it was all about politics.
I also recall Billy Dale, director of the White House Travel Office, being framed by the Clintons. In an effort to avoid firing him (for fear of media retaliation), they attempted to use the Justice Department and the FBI to send an innocent man to prison. Why? Because Dale got in the way of Hillaryís political plan to staff the office with "her own people."
But Clinton didnít care that he was railroading an innocent man. He was doing it for political reasons, and that made it OK.
Osama bin Laden struck us in Somalia and then continued to kill our citizens all around the world. Clintonís response to these attacks was measured and timid actions that only encouraged bin Laden. But, you see, it was all about politics. Bill Clinton didnít do anything wrong. He simply took bad advice; so it must be somebody elseís fault.
Perhaps we should overlook these wrongs, recognizing them as "just politics." But when "politics" is exonerated above our national security, I cannot, will not forget.
When I was able to get some answers to why a president of the United States would be so blasé about national security, I became more concerned. It was in this area, I believe, that Clinton became most dangerous. My fear for the nationís safety and my anger were so great that it caused me to "go public" about the administration.
He and his followers cultists, actually, when you consider that they would follow him anywhere and forgive him for just about anything were willing to trade our national security in an effort to seek a bigger, broader political agenda that had less to do with the United States and more to do with the agenda of the United Nations.
My background is not in foreign relations, but I could see how much the Clinton administration was giving away to hostile nations. For example, they gave away our best technology and the most advanced computer equipment along with access to our most closely guarded facilities. Meanwhile, they were busy downgrading, and in some cases abandoning altogether, the safeguards that prior presidents had built to protect American lives.
And, still they wonder what generates the keen interest of people like me who insist that somebody keep an eye on this amazing human being, Bill Clinton.
How can we let the Clinton matter drop when his friends in the media just cannot let him go? Why should we stand by silently and let the mainstream media airbrush Clintonís dismal record? Where is the virtue in remaining silent while his media friends try to rehabilitate this seriously flawed manís legacy?
As long as Clinton is praised for his legacy, we will continue to remind the public of the truth of this manís past. The fact that so many need to ask why we bother and why we canít move on, should do nothing but heighten our concern.
"I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience; I have no way of judging of the future but by the past." Patrick Henry