I liked this quote (George Will, wasn't it?):
And ironically, both results (leftist social policy and the clinton economy) are equally illusory, fraudulent. It is becoming increasingly clear that clinton covertly cooked the books even as he 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.
I think it puts the finger on a question I've had ever since it became apparent that, in the words of another pundit, Bill Clinton The Rapist spent eight years "kicking the can down the road" on the subject of terrorism.
Why did he do that? Didn't he realize the dishonor that accrues to a president who fails -- much less wilfully fails -- to respond appropriately to international atrocities aimed directly at his citizens?
What on earth could he have been thinking? Did he think historians wouldn't notice? Or did he just not care?
|
thx.
The quote is mine... It is my view that clinton failed to go after the terrorists for two main reasons: (1) For clinton, job security always trumped national security (2) His essential stupidity and cowardice. "It was the TERRORISM, stupid." Indeed, given clinton's obsession with his legacy, there is no greater measure of clinton's essential stupidity and cowardice than his failure to take on the terrorists, his only possible path to a semblance of success... |
Why did The Rapist opt to avoid engaging the terrorist threat from Al-Q'aeda, Iraq, and the Iranians, and let the North Koreans snow him on their nuclear programme -- a feat the Iranians seem to have duplicated?
Why did Clinton willingly allow problems in this area to fester and intensify, when it would be evident to a blind horse that he would inevitably be judged harshly for his nonfeasance?
I've got a hole in my picture that needs a piece of the puzzle. Any FReepers got any ideas about this, please FReepmail me.
Still wondering -- what could the boy have been thinking? Hell, he was supposed to be a Rhodes scholar!
One last thought: for years, one of the advantages accruing to American politics, in the view of some historians, is that it never followed Mediterranean personality-cult tendencies, like the Peronists in Argentina who, like all Latin America, were heirs to the classical world's Romanized view of politics as personal and dynastic.
Looks like we're screwed now, as long as the Clintons are around. The mephitic odor of late-republican Roman politics, complete with libels, scandals, kangaroo-court trials of political liabilities, "access" boodling, and dead bodies, rises to a stinking cry above the Clintons and their hangers-on.