As the corpse of the Clinton legacy chills and stiffens, a stunned silence falls over sundry sycophants and media apologists. Nowadays, it's hard to find a TV toady with even the brass to trot out the old "flawed-but-brilliant" blather as it becomes increasingly apparent that our last president not only failed to deal with the biggest threat to America since the demise of communism but, by his weakness and incompetence, actually enabled and emboldened the monstrous enemies of western civilization. Rather than as a great president, history is likely to remember Mr. Clinton as an embarrassing narcissist who, in an age requiring courage and perseverance, persisted in silly self-absorption while barbarians rammed the gate. The first scene of this strange, eventful history is the subject of one of this year's Oscar-nominated movies, the stunning Ridley Scott film based on Mark Bowden's best-seller, "Black Hawk Down," which details the 1993 debacle in which the Clinton administration sent young men into the meat grinder of Mogadishu, Somalia, while denying them the heavy armor the mission required. Eighteen soldiers died. Two were mutilated and dragged through the streets by the howling mob. Mr. Clinton immediately showed his true colors to the world by packing up and running from the field of battle. Less than two weeks later in Haiti, a handful of drunken Haitians dancing on the dock at Port au-Prince would prevent the USS Harlan County from landing in that island nation to restore order. Recall, if you will, Osama bin Laden's equestrian musings on his infamous 30-minute-long video tape: "When people see a weak horse and a strong horse, by nature they will like the strong horse." In 1993, under Bill Clinton, America became the weak horse. So it followed that ever more egregious acts of terror would be perpetrated against the United States while Mr. Clinton would prove to be ever more spineless. The first World Trade Center bombing in late 1993, the 1996 Khobar Towers attack, the 1998 embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya, and the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000, went totally unanswered. Oh there was an ineffective U.S. attack on a Sudanese aspirin factory in 1998, but that is now widely regarded as a wag-the-dog diversion to take attention off the Monica Lewinsky scandal, timed, as it was, three days after Mr. Clinton's disastrous grand jury testimony. Furthermore, former CIA agent Robert Baer, in his upcoming memoir excerpted in February's Vanity Fair, details how Kurdish rebels and elements of the Iraqi army put their lives on the line to topple Saddam Hussein only to see their cause abandoned by a timid Mr. Clinton when victory was at hand. Now we learn the Sudanese actually offered to turn Osama bin Laden over in 1996 but the Clinton administration "could not find a way to accept the offer." The excuse for inactivity was always the same. There was never enough reliable information to be actionable, former officials now explain. "You can keep setting the bar higher and higher," said one disgusted special services officer looking back over the sorry record, "so that nothing gets done." With a constant eye to his political viability, that is exactly what Mr. Clinton did. Nothing. And thus he became the midwife to September 11, not out of villainy, but out of weakness of character. But the love for Mr. Clinton remains strong and true in some quarters, and that tells a lot about the moral flab of our national psyches in the last decade of the last century. In an era uneasy with strong masculinity, Mr. Clinton reassured many in the same way as does a Phil Donahue or an Alan Alda. Always eager to talk about his feelings, bite his lower lip or shed a tear for the cameras, the man seemed too much of a pantywaist to kick anyone's butt. Some found that trait reassuring. Many of us were terrified by it. Unfortunately, bin Laden was in the first camp. We just have to accept the fact that strength, fortitude and resolve are desirable attributes, regardless of how disturbing some may find them. Mr. Clinton may have reflected his time, but he was not the man for his time. We should all know that now. When there are battles to be fought, planes to wrest back from hijackers, and burning buildings to enter, guts are required, not the questionable compassion of a charming dodger. D.B. Wells is a writer living in Kentucky. http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20020215-88424608.htm
-------------------- "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do."-King Solomon And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
|
That's all kind of crazy. Especially the Monica Lewinsky bit. Since it was those crazy Republicans who stirred up that whole thing into a craziness. And remember, Bill Clinton was working for peace in the Middle East, not just turning a blind eye to the bad stuff that Israel was doing to the other people. You'll never seen Bush hanging out with Arafat and Sharon at Camp David. And bombing the fuck out of every country that didn't like The America in 1998 wouldn't have stopped the terrorist attacks in September. But it was kind of stupid that thing where they were wanted to turn over Bin Laden. I heard about that before. But, think about what this new Bush's legacy will be. He'll probably get re-elected and he'll probably be remembered as a great president. I bet that's how he'll be remembered. Because he was president when those buildings blew up. Anyone could have been president then and got the same high approval ratings. All Bush had to do was make some nice speeches and wreck a country. And threaten some other countries and such. Clinton took The America through all that prosperity and such. He had to do more than make pretty speeches about "Make no mistake" and "Our resolve" and such. But , , , they're both stupid anways, so it doesn't matter. But that thing where the conservatives go on about Clinton causing the terrorist attacks in September, you'd think he bought the hijackers their tickets or something.
|