Q ERTY4 + Q ERTY6 = rodham clinton REALITY CHECK!


Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history

Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize

Bill Clinton may not be the worst president America has had, but surely he is the worst person to be president.*

---GEORGE WILL, Sleaze, the sequel

Had George Will written Sleaze, the sequel (the "sequel" is, of course, hillary) after 9-11-01, I suspect that he would have had to forgo the above conceit, as the doubt expressed in the setup phrase was, from that day forward, no longer operational.
Indeed, assessing the clinton presidency an abject failure is not inconsistent with commentary coming from the left, most recently the LA Times: "Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize."
When the clintons left office, I predicted that the country would eventually learn--sadly, the hard way--that this depraved, self-absorbed and inept pair had placed America (and the world) in mortal danger. But I was thinking years, not months.
It is very significant that hillary clinton didn't deny clinton culpability for the terrorism. (Meet the Press, 12-09-01), notwithstanding tired tactics (if you can't pass the buck, spread the blame) and chronic "KnowNothing Victim Clinton" self-exclusion.
If leftist pandering keeps the disenfranchized down in perpetuity, clinton pandering,("it's the economy, stupid"), kept the middle and upper classes wilfully ignorant for eight years.
And ironically, both results (leftist social policy and the clinton economy) are equally illusory, fraudulent. It is becoming increasingly clear that clinton assiduously avoided essential actions that would have negatively impacted the economy--the ultimate source of his continued power--actions like, say, going after the terrorists.
It is critically important that hillary clinton fail in her grasp for power; read Peggy Noonan's little book, 'The Case Against Hillary Clinton' and Barbara Olson's two books; it is critical that the West de-clintonize, but that will be automatic once it is understood that the clintons risked civilization itself in order to gain and retain power.
It shouldn't take books, however, to see that a leader is a dangerous, self-absorbed sicko. People should be able to figure that out for themselves. The electorate must be taught to think, to reason. It must be able to spot spin, especially in this age of the electronic demagogue.
I am not hopeful. As Bertrand Russell noted, "Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so. "

Mia T, hillary clinton blames hubby for terrorism

(SHE knew nuttin')

Meet the Press, 12-09-01

*George Will continues: There is reason to believe that he is a rapist ("You better get some ice on that," Juanita Broaddrick says he told her concerning her bit lip), and that he bombed a country to distract attention from legal difficulties arising from his glandular life, and that. ... Furthermore, the bargain that he and his wife call a marriage refutes the axiom that opposites attract. Rather, she, as much as he, perhaps even more so, incarnates Clintonism

Q ERTY3 co-rapist bump!
also:
it won't s-p-i-n
CLINTON-WAS-AN-UTTER-FAILURE Containment Team Scheme Fails Again
Ollie North Laughs Ann Lewis Off Stage
clinton Positively Reinforces 9/11 Terrorist Acts
Helen Thomas Syndrome: THE SYMPTOMS
Will Riefenstahl-esque "editing to perfection" resurrect the clintons?
WHOSE DOG WAS WAGGED?
Frankenstein, The Sequel:
'Black Hawk Down' Was Set to Blame Clinton for 9/11
hillary's head revisited:
hillary clinton's brain (such as it is) II
Buddy Death Report Raises More Questions Than It Answers
Fraudulent Democrat Scheme Fails as Bush Soars: BUSH: NATIONAL SECURITY 1^st PRIORITY. . ."I will not wait on events, while dangers gather."; THE CLINTON LEGACY PLACED IN STARK RELIEF
hillary clinton, Congenital Bottom Feeder, Cowers Below Network Radar,
Continues to Subsist on Cozy Clintonoid Interviews of Colmes Kind

"The Daschle Scheme"
THE HILLARY, YOU KNOW, CLINTON TRANSCRIPT:: Analyzed and Annotated
Can the President Think?
THE MYTH OF HILLARY'S BRILLIANCE
Mindless rhinestone-studded-and-tented kleptocracy
OFF THE RECORD: AN OLD DOG NEEDS NEW TRICKS
The man is an artist: He's not just 'Slick Willie' anymore
Hey, what a party!
New Year's at the White House
Senator Dim Bulb by Gary Aldrich © 2001 WorldNetDaily.com
Annotated by Mia T

Daschle's Gamble

The Democrats take on the war

It had to happen eventually. Last week saw the first attempt by the political opposition to mount a real attack on the war on terrorism. On Wednesday, Senators started subjecting deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz to withering questions about the expanding war effort. "We seem to be good at developing entrance strategies, not so good at developing exit strategies," opined Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia. "If we expect to kill every terrorist in the world, that's going to keep us going beyond doomsday," he went on. "How long can we afford this? We went [to Afghanistan] to hunt down the terrorists. We don't know where Osama bin Laden is or whether he is alive or not. We don't know where Mullah [Mohammad] Omar is hiding ... When will we know we have achieved victory?" Senator Ernest Hollings from South Carolina chimed in, "We've got a deficit and we know it will exceed $350 billion." He went on characterizing the Bush administration's argument as: "Since we've got a war, we've got to have deficits -- and the war is never going to end." He predicted that sooner or later, "this town is going to sober up."

By Thursday, in what had the appearance of a coordinated campaign, the Democratic Senate Majority leader, Tom Daschle, put the boot in: "Clearly, we've got to find Muhammad Omar, we've got to find Osama bin Laden, and we've got to find other key leaders of the Al Qaeda network, or we will have failed." Failed. That's a trial balloon for an argument this autumn. Senator Joseph Biden, one of the biggest blow-hards in Washington, added more diplomatically, "I think right now the administration is rightfully very proud of how far they've brought us from Sept. 11. But I also think there's a little hubris at work here."

What's going on here? Is this the beginning of another Vietnam? Or are the Democrats toying with throwing themselves off a political cliff? So far, the latter scenario seems the most likely. The latest polls show massive public support for the war on terror and huge backing for taking the war to terrorist-sponsoring states aiming to deliver weapons of mass destruction to the enemy. A Fox News poll, taken last Tuesday and Wednesday, shows some subsidence of urgency among the public about the war, terrorism, security and related issues. But the public still believes that these related issues comprise the biggest problem the country faces, and should remain the main task of the government. 82 percent still approve the military actions being taken in response to September 11. That number has subsided slightly from around 89 percent a month ago - but it's still a margin of support no-one but a masochistic politician would counter. It's also true that the latest numbers show president Bush's approval rating moderating somewhat. But it's still 77 percent. Last October, it was 80 percent. That's not exactly a collapse. And it's still historically unprecedented.

The reason for the Democrats' shift is, in part, desperation. Over the last year, they have watched helplessly as Bush has neutralized them on some key domestic issues, and soared ahead of them because of the war. Look at the poll results on what were, until recently, Democratic strong points: the economy, education, and healthcare. The Democrats have long hoped that they could make gains in the upcoming Congressional elections by ceding the war issue to Bush but taking him on domestically. Now, they're beginning to believe that strategy won't work. The economy is pulling out of a recession - and, in fact, may never have been in a recession in the first place. Numbers released last week showed the U.S. economy growing by 1.2 percent in the fourth quarter of last year. On the same day, the Democrats decided to put the emphasis back on the war. Coincidence? I don't think so. Last July, some 55 percent of Americans said they were very or somewhat optimistic about the economy. Last week, that number had risen to 66 percent. The opposition is rattled. Bush's Education Bill, passed last year with the help of Senator Ted Kennedy, has also neutralized a key Democratic issue - and the parties are close to even on the matter. Only on pensions do the Democrats have a real lead, but it is outweighed by massive Republican margins on homeland security and defense policy. The polls also show Republicans as a party opening up a lead in Congressional races for the first time in fifteen years.

So the Democrats have realized that if they don't dent Bush's war leadership, they're doomed. They also realize that the impact of Bush's tax cut last year and increases in defense spending scheduled for the next four years means almost nothing left for domestic spending - the Democrats' main tool for pleasing voters and appeasing their special interest groups. They feel trapped. They tried, with the aid of the media, to pin the Enron scandal on Bush. It didn't stick. So they're trying something that can only be called desperate - and enormously risky.

The liberal intelligentsia is egging them on. The liberal Washington Monthly this month bemoaned the lack of aggression among Democrats. "The Bush team can attack Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, lose $4 trillion of the surplus, and meet with campaign contributors whose company stock they own, and Democrats just watch," the magazine's editor complained. "And then there's Enron. Is there any doubt that if the situation were reversed, Republicans would be exploiting the scandal more aggressively? Would they have hesitated, as Democrats have, to frame Enron as a political scandal, or to bombard the White House with subpoenas? Democrats can't afford to go all wobbly, especially now." The left-liberal American Prospect's editor argues in this week's issue: "The moment for bipartisan triumphalism and unquestioning support for a wartime commander in chief is over. Dissent should be back in fashion. Mainstream critics need to give voice to their private second thoughts, not just on Bush's dismal domestic program or his odd global geography but on his dubious notion of permanent war."

Is this the Democratic theme for the foreseeable future? Some Republicans are praying that it is. They believe that if they can reinforce the notion that the Democrats are soft on terrorism and soft on defense, then a small margin in the Congressional races this summer and autumn could become a rout in their favor. The House Republican whip, Tom Delay, felt the need to issue only a one-word response to Daschle's statements question the conduct of the war: "Disgusting." For what it's worth, I think those Republicans are right. As long as the administration keeps its nerve, and as long as military competence continues, the Democrats could be handing Bush a political gift of massive proportions. The fall elections may well be held as military action in Iraq reaches a critical point. If that happens, the Democrats could not only risk losing the Senate and the House, they could undo many, many post-Vietnam years devoted to persuading middle America that the party could be trusted on foreign policy. If I were Tom Daschle, I'd be worried sick. Suicide isn't pretty for a political party - but the Democratic leadership for short-term political reasons - or for lack of any other viable strategy - is contemplating it once again.

March 3, 2002, The Sunday Times of London
copyright © 2002 Andrew Sullivan

MY COMMENT:

Andrew Sullivan has it almost right. What we are witnessing is not suicide but the death throes of a political relic.