The Clinton Melt Down Explained
By Ted Baiamonte Comments: bje1000@aol.com (10/04/06)
Bill Clinton was asked on Fox News why he hadn't done more to get Osama Bin Laden at which point he had an extreme emotional melt down while he very angrily explained the little he had done. Of course if he had been able to say, "I'm sorry you're so mistaken, I did realize the threat OBL represented early on, I did kill him and many of his followers, and thereby did prevent 9/11," there would have been no melt down. As it turned out Clinton slept for 8 years ignoring exactly 10 opportunities to kill OBL (as reported by Michael Scheuer, the CIA operative who gave him the ten opportunities) in the face of repeated attacks and did nothing which apparently makes him very angry, frustrated, defensive, and quasi-violent.
When Clinton was asked by Chris Wallace of Fox why such a simply question was not legitimate, Clinton was taken aback and literally sat back in his chair, defensively; then quickly blurted out, "you didn't ask the Bush administration that question did you?" He was conceding despite his outburst that ok maybe it was a legitimate question after all but that it should have been asked of the Bush Administration too. That impetuous argument quickly fell apart though when Fox instantly produced tapes of Rumsfeld fielding the same question, and in a civilized manner too. Clinton ventured further into the realm of desperation by suggesting that his best argument for sleeping after the USS Cole was attacked was that the CIA and FBI would not "certify" that the attack had been carried out by Al Qaeda. But that argument instantly fell apart too, almost as it left his lips, as everyone immediately wondered why on earth he needed them to certify exactly who or what group had bombed our ship and killed many American sailors. FDR didn't need certification to declare war on Germany when their ally, Japan, attacked us in 1941 and Bush didn't need certification to attack Afghanistan and Iraq when Al Qaeda attacked us?
After 9/11 one of Clinton's first and most narcissistic public utterances had to do with how nothing as significant as 9/11 had happened while he was President and therefore he wouldn't have the opportunity to be among the pantheon of great American Presidents who had been called upon to act during times of great international emergencies. With Wallace's question and the recent ABC News movie, (endorsed as substantially accurate by the Chairman of "The 9/11 Commission), which dramatized Clinton's impotence during his eight years in office it was beginning to look not as if Clinton was going to look neutral in history, but rather, dangerously inept and even asleep at the stick as the nation blindly plummeted toward 9/11.
One might guess, even pray in my case, that as Hoover and the Republicans took much of the blame for the Depression because they occupied the White House when it started (although it was caused by monetary illiquidity created by the independent Federal Reserve System), that the Democrats will take the blame for 9/11 because they were in the Whitehouse and did absolutely nothing during 8 long years of attacks that clearly led to 9/11. One might also suspect and hope that while the Democrats prolonged the Depression for 10 years with tax and spend stupidity and then turned it into a world war that killed 60 million, but still tricked the country into liking them, that George Bush, despite almost completely blowing the war on terrorism, might be able to accomplish the same trick. Certainly Bush has a good start in that he has prevented any further attacks on the continental United States since 9/11 while the Democrats have reflexively opposed every measure taken.
When Clinton got to the Fox interview he was concerned from the get go. He had just had a very successful week with his "Clinton Global Initiate" (CGI) which focused on third word issues. The Fox interview was to be 50% devoted to his success there because Clinton could not negotiate a better deal that would have been 100% public relations for his CGI charitable work; so he reluctantly accepted the 50% deal. Once Clinton's inaction prior to 9/11 came up in the interview it seemed to him that the ABC movie and then the Fox interview were making a mockery of his Presidency and, by close association, even his Global Initiative. It must have been very disconcerting indeed. He was angry and frustrated and so just had to lie to us again. In fact, we haven't seen his long index finger used so forcefully since he angrily shook it at us in the course of stating that "I never had sex with that woman - Ms Lewinski".
As importantly though was what was not criticized directly, namely, The Global Initiative itself. Clinton got a free ride there. As Clinton slept through one terrorist attack after another during his eight years in office and in so doing encouraged each of the next attacks, his "Global Initiative" has painful similarities. Clinton and the Democrats love to hallucinate that they can be all powerful and all wonderful with their tax and spend schemes, one of which is the CGI, although the money is mostly charitably given rather than taxed.
The truth is that America is the most prosperous nation on the face of the earth and became so in only the last 200 years while the third world has remained largely unchanged for 10,000 years. Why such an incredible and stark contrast? Is it because we received repeated rounds of charity which encouraged us to always expect the next round or because we received from Jefferson and the Republicans a belief in law and order, family values, and capitalism, i.e., the exact principals Democrats stand perfectly against?
Clinton's megalomaniacal and mistaken schemes for the third world are not intended to help as much as they are intended to feed his Democratic hallucination that he can have the kingly legacy his deformed ego so badly needs. If he was capable of helping them rather than himself he wouldn't need to assiduiously ignore the obvious lessons of history. It's tempting to suggest that the alleged rape of Juanita Broderick, the trysts with Monica and Paula, and the long time affair with Jennifer Flowers are evidence of an ego in great need or an ego willing to take any risk to find the comfort that is so desperately missing from an abused childhood, but this would not explain all the other Democrats who, to a lesser extent, feel much as he their hero on steroids does.
So what about Democrats is general? The only plausible explanation is they too are dumb and or/have big egos that make them hallucinate about themselves as engineers, through their gov't, of tax and spend schemes that can turn the world into a Disney Land for all. Some egos, like Clinton's, are so strong that despite very high intelligence, they are prevented from absorbing the wisdom of Jefferson that the American laboratory makes so clear. Other Democrats have more normal egos that lead them to need to do good too but they lack the intellect to see what to them is the very complex wisdom from the American laboratory so they must settle for tax and spend or donate and spend. If you doubt that Democrats can be so blinded by ego and ignorance consider that they stand foursquarely against law and order, family values, and capitalism, i.e., the Jeffersonian innovations that created civilization on earth, while the Democrats and the rest of humanity sem determined to be a part of the bloody non Jeffersonian tragedy that has marked the remainder of humankind before and after Jefferson.
Ted Baiamonte
(Printer friendly version) Email: Ted Baiamonte Comments: bje1000@aol.com
