Who Was William Jefferson Clinton?

Toogood Reports ^ | April 21, 2003 | Bernard Chapin

[Stand Watch Listen]

I purchased a book the other day at a Borders in downtown Chicago and while the sales clerk rang me up his eyes widened at the sight of the cover. I assumed he was going to give me a lecture about Clinton bashing (it has happened before) and how I should not support it by buying books “obsessed with him.” Gladly, no lecture was forthcoming. Instead he asked quizzically, “What is that in his mouth? My Gosh, that looks like a joint.” Then it was I whose eyes widened. I took the book out of his hand and studied the photo on the cover. “No man, that´s a golf tee” I said. In fact it was a golf tee. On the cover Clinton has a white one sticking prominently out from his teeth. “Well, you never know” the clerk concluded.

William Jefferson Clinton is a president who will be studied in photos, films and books for generations to come. He may be the most famous man in America. This famous man was given an opportunity to lead the greatest and most powerful nation on earth and in due course he turned his administration into a “carefree `saxophone, dark sunglasses, and boogie-down anything goes´” parade of self-interest, so says Lieutenant Colonel Robert “Buzz” Patterson in his Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Endangered America's Long-Term National Security. Through Patterson, the reader is privy to many occasions when Clinton´s view of national security was no better than fluff and circumstance.

Patterson was one of the military aides who carried the “nuclear football,” which is an attaché case containing America´s nuclear launch codes. He, or whichever officer was assigned to carry it, was supposed to be at the president´s beck and call 24 hours a day in case of a nuclear attack. From this vantage point, Patterson, in eight quickly moving chapters, spins a highly grim yarn. One of the job functions of the president is to keep a set of nuclear codes on his person at all times no matter where he is, but, at one point, when Patterson comes to him to replace last year´s codes with new ones, he discovers that Clinton has lost them. Clinton said “I don´t have mine on me. I´ll track it down, guys, and get it back to you.” [p.56] He never did and, despite a frantic search, the old codes were never found.

The book is both a political and a personal tale. We learn much about the Clinton Administration but we also learn much about Lieutenant Colonel Patterson. He is at first awed by the White House and slightly awed by Clinton himself. “I was immediately impressed by his presence, his charisma, and the way he looked me straight in the eye. I couldn´t help instantly liking him.” [p.44] I personally don´t know President Clinton and if I stay in my current tax bracket I undoubtedly never will, but I suspect that Patterson´s first impression of him is quite similar to what the majority of others have experienced. Clinton, as we all already know, casts a mighty spell indeed.

Many stories told about Clinton cite his reported mental pathology as their focal point, sometimes he is described as having antisocial personality traits or as being the adult child of an alcoholic. Patterson does not do this. His analysis does not include a clinical angle but the conclusions that he does make are based on common sense which seems to be abundantly available to twenty year, highly decorated, Air Force veterans.

The strongest sections in Dereliction of Duty are when Patterson lets events speak for themselves and the narration has a “just the facts” approach. The facts in isolation are able to speak bombastically without further support or qualification. The incidents that Patterson witnessed are unusual as they depict a president who was criminally irresponsible and unable to sacrifice an infatuation with his own life long enough to allow time for managing our nation´s defense. By the end of the book, the reader is profoundly grateful that Clinton´s inattention, passivity and indecisiveness did not get us involved in a nuclear conflagration (where those lost codes would have actually been needed).

Again and again Patterson illuminates that Clinton had no business being our commander in chief. On September 13, 1996, Clinton attended the President´s Cup golf tournament in Virginia and, while the president mingled and gladhanded, an opportunity presented itself to thwart the Iraqi massacres of the Kurds. Sandy Berger, at the time the National Security Council deputy director, called repeatedly to get the president´s okay for launching air strikes against Iraqi positions. Patterson tried many times to get his attention but Clinton viewed golf and socializing as being his work for the day. He dismissed Patterson and refused to speak to Berger. Nighttime air cover was soon lost and the strikes against Iraq were never launched.

A wonderful tidbit of insider information is conveyed in the story of “Operation Bojinka.” As he was organizing the notes in one of Clinton´s Presidential Daily Briefs, he found reference to an “Operation Bojinka” which was Osama Bin Laden´s plan for using airplanes as flying bombs and kamikaze instruments. The author unearthed this helpful find during the summer of 1996 which makes one wonder how the press could have used reports like this one against the current president and concluding that “he knew the attacks were coming.” By the same measure or standard, Clinton would have known five years before 9/11.

The most egregious error made by Clinton was when he turned down the opportunity to take out the same Osama Bin Laden. It was in the fall of 1998 and Bin Laden was located and our forces had a two hour window in which to act. Berger attempted for a hour to locate Clinton but was told he was unavailable. Finally, when they located him, Clinton would not act. He wanted to study and consult with other staff members about the issue. By the time he was done mulling it over, Bin Laden was gone. Had a dirty bomb been in Al Qaeda´s hands before 9/11 the indecisive and uninterested, President Clinton may well have really managed to have dropped the nuclear football.

Patterson provides a rather humorous summary of what the Clinton Doctrine would have been had he ever decided to dictate one: “we´re doing so much more with so much less that we should be able to do everything with nothing.”[p.116]

The malaise that Patterson describes the Clinton military as suffering from was acute. As Michael Mandelbaum put it, Clinton´s approach to the world was “foreign policy as social work.” Patterson describes the military´s reactions to one such assignment. He often heard the question while stationed in Haiti, “What the hell are we doing here?” [p.37]. Is it really a surprise that Clinton´s operations were rudderless when he was a full-time product of the anti-military ethos of the 1960´s? It reminded me of that old line from a song of the era “It´s one, two, three, what are we fighting for? Don´t ask me I don´t give a damn.” Clinton clearly didn´t either.

Who was William Jefferson Clinton? Patterson´s book gives us some insightful glimpses. Clearly, as alluded to above, he was the embodiment of the sixties mentality that our own leadership in the United States of America is the cause or at least a few degrees of separation from being the main actor behind every imbroglio that affects the rest of the world and, unlike other veterans of the 1960´s like David Horowitz or Ron Radosh, Clinton has never acknowledged the illogicality of this worldview. Regarding Clinton´s failure to divorce himself from his radical past, the words of Steinbeck are instructive, “The man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 30 has wasted 20 years of his life.”

Clinton´s understanding of America´s place in the world was and is perverse. In a speech on November 7th 2001 he revealed that he had learned nothing from 9/11 and was in no hurry to learn anything in the future. He equated the Islamofascists perpetrators of Al Qaeda with ourselves saying

“Even in the twentieth century in America people were terrorized or killed because of their race. And even today, though we have continued to walk, sometimes to stumble, in the right direction, we still have the occasional hate crime rooted in race, religion, or sexual orientation. So terror has a long history.” [As quoted in David Frum´s The Right Man: The Surprise Presidency of George W. Bush, p.146]

Clinton equated the occasional act of a psychopathic mind as being the same as a terrorist plotted, state-sponsored, mass murder of innocent citizens. Thanks to President Clinton the reader can glean, that not only terror, but geopolitical ignorance and the bafflement of what constitutes human nature also has a very long history.

Patterson, perhaps accidentally, defines in his text exactly what is missing in the minds of most leftists like Clinton which is a rudimentary understanding that human beings are not inherently good and that the world is not a few million dead conservatives away from being Disneyland. Patterson says that he “…was taught the manifest truth that the world is a dangerous place.” [p.21] One wishes that Clinton was taught the same thing somewhere down the line.

The anti-Amerika and anti-military bias in our culture from the sixties will take many years to dissipate and until then we have to react to the boilerplate forcefully from whatever source it emanates. The first course to the leftist is to condemn our reaction to hostilities more than they condemn the hostilities themselves. The far left holds that our defense of America is the true barrier to peace on this earth and that anybody who worries about the nation´s defense is paranoid. As an example, Patterson makes mention of one administration member´s now infamous quote about the Marines being a bunch of extremists.

This fundamental misunderstanding about who our international neighbors actually are is finally interfering with the left´s electoral success and hopefully their misconstructions will continue to plague them in the future. The majority of our citizens now understand that America is not the root of all evil in the world. Their futile desire to “gain understanding” about why someone or some nation hates us will not bring the left victory in the elections to come. Their habit of blaming us before blaming the truly guilty has been evident again and again over the course of the last fifty years. Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, and even the Soviet Empire prove my assumption true. Clinton´s speech above demonstrates these delusionary tendencies quite accurately. Thank G-d Clinton wasn´t in office on September 11th or we would have sent well-dressed lawyers to Afghanistan as opposed to the field dressed special forces operatives who freed and provided democracy for yet another nation full of suffering souls.

If there is one major drawback to the book it is that it is too brief. Patterson is an exciting candidate for historians as his memoirs of presidential service will be viewed as a primary source document but he offers up too few parcels of his former master´s words and conversation. More direct quotations or paraphrases would have been appreciated as the few occasions that Clinton is quoted make for the most memorable reading in the work. Most likely, a man like Patterson will provide the best descriptions of Clinton´s personality but, in Dereliction of Duty, there is not enough firsthand material to make the book a “must read.” It is probable though that this book will tell the reader more about Clinton than the president´s own autobiography will - should it ever be completed.

Perhaps maybe we should avoid reading the autobiography anyway as it will contain more spin than a tilt-o-whirl ride at Great America. Patterson´s words add to the growing consensus that the best way to sum up the Clinton Administration is via a corruption of a famous quotation: full of sound and pleasure, signifying nothing.

[lilylangtree]

"Clinton´s understanding of America´s place in the world was and is perverse"

Best defined sentence in the whole article. With few words, the explanation is quite apparent.

[Slyfox]

As he was organizing the notes in one of Clinton´s Presidential Daily Briefs, he found reference to an “Operation Bojinka” which was Osama Bin Laden´s plan for using airplanes as flying bombs and kamikaze instruments.

That means CLINTON KNEW.

Oh, Hillary? Where are you? Your silence is deafening. Hillary? I can't hear you!

[Matchett-PI]

"The fact that this conartist has no connect to the reality of his criminal behavior makes me wonder if pathology is involved."

And what's worse, he is only a "symptom" of the real problem.

Two-bit jackasses like him and his low-life wife are a dime a dozen --- but in order to ascend to high office they must obtain the votes of vacuous useful idiots and criminals just like themselves.

The underlying *problem* is the people who voted for him not just once, but twice --- and would vote for him again if they had the opportunity.

His legacy is their legacy. DemocRAT policies weakened America and therefore invited every attack that has been made against us at home and abroad.

They can run, but they can't hide. Their legacy is epitomized by, and culminated in 9-11, and they know it.

The DemocRAT ex-mayor of NYC, Ed Koch recently stated, "It is not safe to vote DemocRAT yet". Indeed -- on 9-11 he flat-out said how grateful he was that Gore wasn't president at this time.

He knows what DemocRATS are made of, and what they stand for. He ought to, he's one of them and inexplicably continues to choose to be one of them.

It is NEVER safe to vote DemocRAT. We cannot allow them to ever get ahold of the country again.

[Slyfox]

Surely you missed some! I would add coercion and intimidation of the media.

Coercion is near the top of the list. I'm only adding offenses that would stand in a court of law, uh, that is it dealt with a regular person and not Bill Clinton - master manipulator and hugely successful white collar criminal.

[Maria S]

More interesting parts in the book:

1. What caused Slick to fall late at night when he and golfing partner Greg Norman (?) were up so late in Florida;

2. What Colonel Patterson really thinks about Hillary and how SHE would run the country if given the chance.

Good book; read it if you get the opportunity.

[ought-six]

George Will, a gentleman, scholar, and a very fine writer, had this to say about Bill Clinton:

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

[w_over_w]

--- but in order to ascend to high office they must obtain the votes of vacuous useful idiots and criminals just like themselves.

Idiots whose minds are bombarded by the leftest/bias reporting of the news media. It's interesting how rapidly their infestation is getting exposed on the internet and by emerging organizations like FOX.

No, many Democrats' problem, which threatens to disqualify their party from presidential responsibilities for a generation, is their incontinent love of snobbery and nostalgia -- condescension toward a president they consider ignorant, and a longing for the fun of antiwar days of yore.

~George Will

[wayoverontheright]

Who Was William Jefferson Clinton?

It is surely correct that Clinton's character flaws, including his penchant for chasing interns and his inability to accept responsibility for anything, harmed our country a great deal. Attributing the damage we are now realizing exclusively to his character flaws, however, will prove to be extremely costly as we move forward. I am Bill Clinton's age, and I too was a campus lefty in the early seventies. I used to sit around with my similarly patriotism-impaired comrades and plan for the overthrow of the "military industrial complex". We dreamed of the day when we could somehow get "one of us" in the White House, and we knew that we could definitely change the course of history, should that occur.

We realized that this person would have to be special. This person would have to be the ultimate con-man, the quintessential chameleon, first in order to get elected, but then to pull off implementing our leftist agenda, which included crippling capitalism and neutering the military.

What Bill Clinton did to this country was not as much the result of character flaws as it was the product of a deliberate, life-long plan to maneuver and manipulate his way to the top, and then proceed to do everything in his considerable power to weaken this country from within.

The fact that it is finally being recognized by some in the media that Clinton's character did our country harm is a good thing, but falls way short of what is needed to explain the phenomenon that was Bill Clinton, and what we have yet to face in the spectre of his plan to return to power through Hillary's election to the office of the Presidency.

Unlike Bill Clinton, I left college and got a job in the private sector. I changed. He never worked a real job, and he never changed.

[CyberAnt]

There was a story going around after the 2000 election that the Bush admin had paid Pat Buchanan to take over the Perot party machine. The object was to destroy it prior to the election, in order to avoid another debacle with the Perot bunch.

I always thought Pat would never have taken on such a project.

[TheSpottedOwl]

You've been busy, great post :)

[TheSpottedOwl]

When you see it laid out like that, then remember that he's never spent a night behind bars, you gotta wonder how he gets away with it.

Unless I missed it, and I went over the list again, is Clinton's military AWOL. He was classified as 1-A, but never showed up; he hornswaggled the National Guard officer also. You folks know what I'm talking about, I just can't remember exactly how that went. He got away with that one also...

[Steve Van Doorn]

Is that all? >: )

[UCANSEE2]

I am sorry, I have to disagree.

He destroyed the Black family unit with his great society and we are still in the aftermath of that destruction which has never been effectively repaired.

One man destroyed the black family unit? Who are you kidding? Yourself?

You mean the mothers of black families just gave up because LBJ 'founded' the great society? That black men decided to get black women pregnant, then ditch them, because LBJ was President?

He horribly botched Vietnam.

Are you aware of the state of the world when LBJ had the office of President dropped in his lap? That he and his wife were afflicted with mental depression over becoming President through Kennedy's death? That Lady Bird and Lyndon were horribly upset over the deaths of American soldiers in Vietnam? That it was the infighting between Republicans and Democrats, CIA and Army Intel,the Media and the public that led to the indecisiveness over Vietnam. That LBJ was being torn this way and that, while wanting to do the right thing, and being told he couldn't? That he didn't run for re-election because of the strain the Presidency caused on his body and soul? That he died in pain shouldering responsibility for the wrongs of Vietnam and the unneeded deaths of our soldiers?

LBJ was President during he Vietnam conflict, and took the responsibility for the botched job, but was he the sole reason for it's failure ?

SIDE QUESTION: How many POSTERS on FR know why we can drive on AMERICA's FREEWAYS and HIGHWAYS and get unobstructed, uncluttered views of the surrounding countryside??????????????????????????????????????

[reformjoy]

How did this woman end up looking so much like Hitler?

The nose, chin, lips, cheekbones, forehead, eyebrows, soul.

[Pagey]

bttt

[dozer7]

"SIDE QUESTION: How many POSTERS on FR know why we can drive on AMERICA's FREEWAYS and
HIGHWAYS and get unobstructed, uncluttered views of the surrounding
countryside??????????????????????????????????????"

Lady Bird Johnson I beleive.

[Husker8877]

I wrote this out of sheer frustration and disbelief in mid-1998:

"I have coined a new term. The term is mine and no one else’s. If and when it gets used later, I’ll know I created it. The word is a descriptor for the lies that are full and complete lies (as opposed to little white lies) but can be parsed upon scrutiny so as to become legally in-actionable.

The word is “Clingo”--short for Clinton Lingo.

Clinton lies are the defining lies of the genre. If there ever is a dispute whether a lie fits into a “lie” category or the “Clingo” category, one must look to the source, Bill Clinton, and his legally accurate yet indisputable lies.

If it strikes at the heart of the matter, and the result of an answer to a question would be entirely different but for the lie, but can still be spun beyond recognition, than it is a Clingo. See also “Clintalk”.

A perfect Clingo example is the Clingo Bill told us in ’92 to get the nomination. He knew he had to lie. And he told us a whopping Clingo which allowed him to pass go and collect the $200.

Was it about some terrible thing? No, it was just a sex thing about Gennifer Flowers. It was the first Clingo we were treated to--one of thousands to follow, we now know. The draft dodge, the no-inhalation, the no anti-American Rhodes protest, the campaign cover-ups, the various “gates”, all the rest of the women (probably at least four score and seven, and that’s just in the Lincoln bedroom), and of course Monica.

But we as a country aren’t concerned! These were all Clingos, they effected the outcome of many crucial tests, and though they were just "little" lies, they were absolutely required in order for him to survive. They were Clingos.

Without the Clingo, he’s not our president! Any one of them. Some white lies, huh? But I’ll bet every Clingo can and will stand up in a court of law. Doesn’t matter. None of them stand up in the court of public opinion. Not even with those #ss-suckers who are forced by their choice to defend the slimy eel.

Nearly anything that has escaped the lips of the (former) president is a potential Clingo. Anything he said can and will be spun against us in a court of law or the senate. He will wait until all the facts of whatever investigation happens to be coming out, then he and his bootlickers will spin those facts beyond recognition. That is what Clintonites do..."

[altura]

Wow!

You are the first person I have encountered in a long time to defend LBJ.

Even my yellow dog demo friend hated him and was furious that he was selected for the VP.

I admire your passion for the man, but I still think his Great Society was responsible for much of the ills of the Black population. Not that they aren't culpable also but ....

[UCANSEE2]

Very good.

How many remember good past acts? It is always easier to remember bad things, or complain about them. This act is one of the most visual to the entire country, and I think a very important one, and yet anyone under 40 probably wouldn't have a clue.

[UCANSEE2]

Well, Thank You. I defend the accomplishments, the heartaches, the frustration that LBJ incurred.

Imagine being President and having the Vietnam situation and Presidency dumped in your lap, while facing a public that had their nose jammed up Jane Fonda's arse.

I defend LBJ because I have taken the time to learn the truth, rather than have knee-jerk reactions supplied to me by the media.

So many believe that LBJ had Kennedy assasinated so he could be President. There is nothing further from the truth.

The ones that want the public to buy that are the ones that control many politicians and the media. It boils down to one person, actually. A person that may have had a President killed because the President was involved in the death of a major source of income for this person and his business. That person is still in control of the business, and maybe after he dies, the truth will come out. Maybe not.