Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Clinton Calls Military ‘Racist, Sexist, and Homophobic’ — Will the President Disavow It?
© National Review Online 2012 ^ | November 4, 2012 10:00 P.M. | By Pete Hegseth

Posted on 11/04/2012 8:14:16 PM PST by Behind Liberal Lines

At a campaign rally on Saturday, former President Bill Clinton made an astonishing statement about America’s military:

One of the things the decider-in-chief has to do is decide whether he’s going to bring this country together across all its diversity or let it drift apart. Look at how much stronger the American military is because it is less racist, less sexist and less homophobic and we’re just looking for people who can do the job.

Let me get this right: Bill Clinton believes that President Obama has made the military less racist, less sexist, and less homophobic during his four years in Washington. This statement—by extension—specifically implies that the military was, and is, a racist, sexist, and homophobic institution.

(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 11/04/2012 8:14:17 PM PST by Behind Liberal Lines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines
For those who may have forgotten what kind of a President Bill Clinton was:

1) Clinton’s own words show his often expressed innate hostility to, and utter contempt for, the core principles of the American founding:

``If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government’s ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees.’’ -- President Bill Clinton, August 12, 1993

``The purpose of government is to reign in the rights of the people’’ –- Bill Clinton during an interview on MTV in 1993

``We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans…that we forget about reality.’’ -- President Bill Clinton, quoted in USA Today, March 11, 1993, Page 2A, ``NRA change: `Omnipotent to powerful’’’ by Debbie Howlett

“When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans, it was assumed that the Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly… that they would work for the common good, as well as for the individual welfare… However, now there’s a lot of irresponsibility. And so a lot of people say there’s too much freedom. When personal freedom’s being abused, you have to move to limit it.” – Bill Clinton, April 19, 1995

2) Clinton inevitably pursued his own political advantage at the expense of American interests and national security. Here is just one of many possible examples:

It is well documented that Clinton and the Democrats took illegal campaign money from groups and individuals tied directly to the Chinese People’s Republican Army. It is therefore not surprising that In January 1998 Clinton went against the advice of then-Secretary of State Warren Christopher and Pentagon experts by lifting long-standing restrictions against the export of American satellites to China for launch on Chinese rockets. Not only did he move control over such decisions from the more security-focused State Department to the Commerce Department, but he intervened in a Justice Department investigation of Loral Space & Communications, retroactively enabling Loral to sell critical missile technology to the Chinese. Interestingly enough, Clinton’s decision was made at the request of Loral CEO Bernard Schwartz, whose earlier $1.3 million campaign donation made him the single biggest contributor to the Democratic election effort.

The result, as stated eloquently by syndicated columnist Linda Bowles, was that “the Democrats got money from satellite companies and from Chinese communists; China got supercomputors, advanced production equipment and missile technology; Loral got its satellites launched at bargain basement prices . . . and the transfer of sensitive missile technology gave China [for the first time] the capability of depositing bombs on American cities.” Incidentally, Loral ultimately failed to benefit from this permanent injury to America’s security interests: in July 2003, the company filed for bankruptcy protection, and in order to raise cash was forced to sell its most profitable business – a fleet of communications satellites orbiting over North America.

3) On two occasions, Clinton used military action for the specific purpose of distracting the American public from the fallout of the Lewinsky affair:

• On August 20, three days after Clinton finally admitted publicly to the Lewinsky affair, the news media was poised to focus on that day’s grand jury testimony by Monica Lewinsky. That same morning, Clinton personally went on national television to gravely announce his bombing of a Sudanese “chemical weapons factory,” and a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan. It was the first time most Americans ever heard the name of Osama bin Laden. The factory bombing in Sudan killed an innocent night watchman, but accomplished little else. It later was proven that the plant was making badly needed pharmaceuticals for people in that poverty-stricken part of the world, but no chemical weapons.

Several months later, the U.S. Center for Nonproliferation Studies, part of the Monterey Institute of International Studies, stated: "...the evidence indicates that the facility had no role whatsoever in chemical weapons development." Kroll Associates, one of the world's most reputable investigative firms, also confirmed that there was no link in any way between the plant and any terrorist organization. As for the Afghanistan bombing, it failed to do any damage at all to bin Laden or his organization. Clinton’s action was accurately characterized by George W. Bush when he said right after 9-11: "When I take action, I’m not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt.

Clinton’s pointless and murderous military actions did not make Americans safer that day, although they did destroy an innocent life, and for all the good they did certainly could have been delayed in any case. But they did succeed in diverting media attention from Lewinsky’s grand jury testimony for a 24-hour news cycle, which was the main point. So I guess, they weren’t a total loss.

•On December 16, 1998, on the eve of the scheduled House vote on his impeachment, Bill Clinton launched a surprise bombing attack on Baghdad. As justification for this exploit, he cited the urgent threat that Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction posed to America, and the need for immediate action. Almost immediately, the House Democrats held a caucus and emerged calling for a delay in the impeachment proceedings. House minority leader Dick Gephardt made a statement: "We obviously should pass a resolution by saying that we stand behind the troops. I would hope that we do not take up impeachment until the hostilities have completely ended."

Conveniently, a delay so near the end of the House term would have caused the vote to be taken up in the next session – when the newly elected House membership would be seated with more Democratic representation, thereby improving Clinton’s chances of dodging impeachment.

The Republicans did, in fact, agree to delay the hearings, but only for a day or two. Amazingly, Clinton ended the bombing raid after only 70 hours -- once it became clear that in spite of the brief delay, the vote would still be held in the current session.

Once the bombing stopped, Clinton touted the effectiveness and importance of the mission. As reported by ABC News : “We have inflicted significant damage on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction programs, on the command structures that direct and protect that capability, and on his military and security infrastructure,” he said. Defense secretary William Cohen echoed the point: “We estimate that Saddam's missile program has been set back by at least a year.”

Whether or not one buys Clinton’s assessment of that mission, it is difficult to believe that its timing was so critical that it required commencement virtually at the moment the House was scheduled to vote on the impeachment. I think the most reasonable conclusion is that Clinton cynically deployed US military assets and placed military personnel in harm’s way for purely political reasons.

4) Clinton’s reckless sexual behavior was a threat to American national security:

Clinton and his supporters have been very effective in persuading large numbers of Americans that the Lewinsky scandal was “only about sex.” But I see a bigger issue here, because Clinton is on record as saying that he would have done anything to keep knowledge of the Lewinsky affair from becoming public.

To me, that statement raises a very serious question: What if, instead of sending her recorded Lewinsky conversations to Ken Starr, Linda Tripp had instead secretly offered them for sale, say, to the Chinese government? Or to the Russians? Or even to agents of Saddam?

What kind of blackmail leverage would those tapes have provided to a foreign government in dealing with America on sensitive trade, security or military issues? One of the few things Clinton ever said that I believe is that he would have done anything to keep the Lewinsky affair secret. Given his demonstrated track record of selling out American interests for personal or political gain (and there are more examples that I could have cited here), how far would he have gone in compromising America’s real interests in order to protect his own neck when threatened with blackmail?

Pretty far, I believe. Equally distressing is the prospect Clinton might, in fact, have succumbed to foreign black mail on other occasions in order to hide different sexual episodes that ultimately did not become public. There is no way to know, of course, but I prefer presidents for whom such a scenario is not a plausible possibility.

And don’t even get me started on the war crime in Kosovo.

2 posted on 11/04/2012 8:16:00 PM PST by Maceman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines

Does anyone know when the Secret Service agent who ‘committed suicide in his car’ occurred in relation to 0bama recently flying to Florida without campaigning then immediately flying back to D.C.??? Was there a coup attempt at the WH? Are these two events connected somehow? I’m sure the military is PO’d enough at 0bama over Benghazi, now these comments by Clinton.. If 0bama is re-elected, what’s to stop him from an all out assault on the last threads of our Flag?


3 posted on 11/04/2012 8:29:31 PM PST by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maceman
“``If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government’s ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees.’’ — President Bill Clinton, August 12, 1993

``The purpose of government is to reign in the rights of the people’’ –- Bill Clinton during an interview on MTV in 1993”

These statements are entirely consistent the the narcissism that draws people to public office and to high-profile (i.e. in the public eye) political activism. Of course Clinton wanted more power vested in government. That would make him more important. I strongly believe that unless and until we start treating all who are elected to office - even to the Presidency - as public servants who work for us and who are beholding to us, we will never fully have the kind of nation the founders intended, and we will continue to attract the wrong kinds of people to public office.

Getting elected to office should not make you a King/Queen, a rock star, or anything other than a public servant privileged to work for the citizens of the United States of America.

4 posted on 11/04/2012 8:30:35 PM PST by pieceofthepuzzle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Maceman

Your post was really good!

I have no doubts there were more than just Lewinsky. I heard rumors of them, but they never came out.


5 posted on 11/04/2012 8:54:02 PM PST by The_Media_never_lie (Actually, they lie when it suits them! The crooked MS media must be defeated any way it can be done!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines

Why is anyone surprised by this? He and Hillary have hated the military, and treated them with contempt since even before they entered the White House, all those years ago.


6 posted on 11/04/2012 9:03:28 PM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maceman
And don’t even get me started on the war crime in Kosovo.

I want to hear about it....

7 posted on 11/04/2012 9:22:08 PM PST by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines

The military was desgregated in the Korean War. How has the military been “racist” in the recent past?


8 posted on 11/04/2012 9:23:36 PM PST by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines

Clinton, as the former CIC of the US Military, your insults to our fine men and women in uniform - past, present, and future, are particularly heinous. But then, I would expect no-less from a person like you.


9 posted on 11/04/2012 9:48:26 PM PST by ThunderSleeps (Stop obama now! Stop the hussein - insane agenda!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines

I actually agree with him 2/3.


10 posted on 11/05/2012 12:47:02 AM PST by jimfree (In Nov 2012 my 12 y/o granddaughter has more relevant&quality executive experience than Barack Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines

Doing away with DADT is going to be the cause of a DRAFT in the future, girls included, because decent men and women will NOT wnt to be with all these open gays.


11 posted on 11/05/2012 12:54:44 AM PST by Ann Archy ( ABORTION...the HUMAN Sacrifice to the god of Convenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PGR88
I want to hear about it....

OK.

During Bill Clinton’s 1999 NATO-led war in Kosovo – which according to some estimates cost as much as $75 billion – we bombed Belgrade for 78 days, killed almost 3,000 civilians, and shredded the civilian infrastructure (including every bridge across the Danube.)

We devastated the environment, bombed the Chinese embassy, came very close to engaging in armed combat against Russian forces, and in general, pursued a horrific and inhumane strategy to rain misery on the civilian population of Belgrade in order to pressure Milosevic into surrendering.

Why did we do all that? The US did not even have an arguable interest in the Balkans, and no one ever tried to claim that Serbia represented any kind of threat to our nation or our interests.

But for months the Clinton administration had told us that Milosevic was waging a vicious genocide against Albanian Muslims, and needed to be stopped. The New York Times called it a “humanitarian war.” In March 1999 – the same month that the bombing started – Clinton’s State Department publicly suggested that as many as 500,000 Albanian Kosovars had been murdered by Milosevic’s regime. In May of that year, as the bombing campaign was drawing to a close, Secretary of Defense William Cohen lowered that estimate 100,000.

Five years after the bombing, after all the forensic investigations had been completed, the prosecutors at Milosevic’s “War Crimes” trial in the Hague were barely been able to document a questionable figure of perhaps 5,000 “bodies and body parts.” During the war, the American people were told that Kosovo was full of mass graves filled with the bodies of murdered Albanian Muslims. But none were ever found.

12 posted on 11/05/2012 3:34:33 AM PST by Maceman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines

..not to mention the source of domestic terrorism when they become civilians.

/SARCASM/


13 posted on 11/05/2012 4:49:48 AM PST by ripley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines

Bill Clinton was the white Obama, in every way — except he was willing to correct his course when repudiated.


14 posted on 11/05/2012 4:54:33 AM PST by Lazamataz (The Pravda Press has gone from 'biased' straight on through to 'utterly bizarre'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam

“The military was desegregated in the Korean War. How has the military been “racist” in the recent past?”

The Progressive playbook demands that Americans be characterized as bible-thumping, gun-loving,
knuckle-dragging, science-hating, racist, homophobe,
moron, Christian cattle; no ifs ands or buts, forever and ever.

They will continue to slander, libel, calumniate and do whatever they can to destroy any positive virtues
that America has stood for since the beginning and will propagandize Progressives as being the most wonderful, brilliant, perfect people in the world.

IMHO


15 posted on 11/05/2012 5:03:20 AM PST by ripley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson