Humiliating a Nation

A series of stamps parodying the affair of the President and Monica Lewinsky, which has been issued in Abkhazia, a province of the Republic of Georgia (Photo by the Associated Press)

This and the three subsequent segments of the compilation are where Billy Blythe, who we all know as Bill Clinton, gets to shine on his very own. This is the story of his criminal empire. You've seen this guy mentioned in other segments, but now it's all Bill, all the time, wall to wall. Then your tour through hell will be over, and you can go put your new wisdom to work.

Note: the mass media carpet bombing of the Clinton sex scandal, and the impeachment proceedings based on it, constitute a campaign of psychological warfare orchestrated by the establishment elite. The effect is to divide the public in a socially destructive manner, and to display gross degradation of the President cum king. This latter effect is a variation of the "Killing of the Divine King" mass trauma - as played out either deliberately or incidentally in the 1963 assassination of Clinton's hero, John Kennedy (and later, with RFK and MLK). The goal with the Clinton campaign is to demoralize and politically disempower the population, heightening their intellectual and moral stupor, further securing their obedience and manipulability.

read The Starr Referral or download it as a zip file

from the Washington Post, 2007-May-25, p.A1, by Peter Baker and John Solomon, with Anne E. Kornblut and political researcher Zachary A. Goldfarb contributing:

Books Paint Critical Portraits of Clinton
2 Biographies Detail Marital Strife and Driving Ambition

Two new books on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York offer fresh and often critical portraits of the Democratic presidential candidate that depict a tortured relationship with her husband and her past and challenge the image she has presented on the campaign trail.

The Hillary Clinton who emerges from the pages of the books comes across as a complicated, sometimes compromised figure who tolerated Bill Clinton's brazen infidelity, pursued her policy and political goals with methodical drive, and occasionally skirted along the edge of the truth along the way. The books portray her as alternately brilliant and controlling, ambitious and victimized.

The Clinton campaign has nervously awaited publication of the books for fear they would include a bombshell revelation or, at the very least, revive memories of less-savory moments in the couple's rise to power. The books, both by longtime journalists and both obtained by The Washington Post yesterday, include a number of assertions and anecdotes that could confront her campaign with unwelcome questions.

"A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton," by Carl Bernstein, reports that Clinton as first lady was terrified she would be prosecuted, took over her own legal and political defense, and decided not to be forthcoming with investigators because she was convinced she was unfairly targeted. While in Arkansas, according to Bernstein, she personally interviewed one woman alleged to have had an affair with her husband, contemplated divorce and thought about running for governor out of anger at her husband's indiscretions.

"Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton," by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr., reports that during her husband's 1992 campaign, a team she oversaw hired a private investigator to undermine Gennifer Flowers "until she is destroyed." Flowers had said publicly that she had an affair with Bill Clinton while he was governor of Arkansas.

The book also suggests that Hillary Clinton did not read the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq in 2002 before voting to authorize war. And it includes a thirdhand report that the Clintons had a secret plan after the 1992 election in which he would have eight years as president and then she would have eight years, although last night a key source disavowed the story.

The Clinton camp hopes to brush off the books as mainly rehashing old news. "Is it possible to be quoted yawning?" asked Philippe Reines, her Senate spokesman. If past books on Clinton were "cash for trash," he added, "these books are nothing more than cash for rehash."

Howard Wolfson, a campaign spokesman, pointed to previous reports on some of the elements in the books to make the point that there was nothing new. "The news here is that it took three reporters nearly a decade to find no news," he said. He added: "Two overwhelming Senate victories in the toughest media market in the country demonstrated that voters have put these issues behind them."

Unlike many harsh books about Clinton written by ideological enemies, the two new volumes come from long-established writers backed by major publishing houses and could be harder to dismiss. Bernstein won national fame with partner Bob Woodward at The Post for breaking open the Watergate scandal, while Gerth and Van Natta have spent years as investigative reporters for the New York Times.

Their publishers have engaged in a race to the bookstores, moving up publication dates as the presidential campaign heats up. Alfred A. Knopf has printed 275,000 copies of Bernstein's "Woman in Charge," which will be available June 5; Little, Brown and Co. plans to put 175,000 copies of "Her Way" on sale June 8, after June 3 excerpts in the New York Times Magazine. The size of the print runs mean both publishers expect their books to be major bestsellers.

In the works for eight years, Bernstein's 640-page book is the more extensive biography and, while not unsympathetic, includes some damning observations from people once close to the senator.

Bob Boorstin, who worked for Clinton when she was pushing her plan to restructure the nation's health-care system in the early days of her husband's presidency, blamed her for its collapse. "I find her to be among the most self-righteous people I've ever known in my life," he told Bernstein. "And it's her great flaw, it's what killed health care," along with other factors.

Mark Fabiani, who as White House special counsel played a key role in defending the Clintons, said she was "so tortured by the way she's been treated that she would do anything to get out of the situation. . . . And if that involved not being fully forthcoming, she herself would say, 'I have a reason for not being forthcoming.' " Her logic, he said, was: "If we do this, they're going to do this to me. If we say this, then they're going to say this. You know, [expletive] 'em, let's just not do that."

Fabiani said Clinton personally directed the White House defense, telling Bernstein that private attorney David E. Kendall dealt mainly with the first lady and met only rarely with the president until the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal. "He was easy to deal with compared to her," Fabiani said of the first couple. The only time he saw Bill Clinton lose his temper, Fabiani said, was when the president saw his Whitewater partner, Susan McDougal, taken to jail in an orange jumpsuit and shackles for refusing to testify.

At one point, Hillary Clinton was convinced she would be next, worried that Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth W. Starr would indict her for perjury or obstruction of justice arising from statements she made under oath about her work for Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan, the Whitewater investment or long-missing billing records. "When I say there was a serious fear she would be indicted, I can't overstate that," Fabiani told Bernstein.

Bernstein reexamines the most sensational aspects of Clinton's life -- and to his subject the most painful -- namely her decisions to marry and remain married to Bill Clinton. She waited two years before deciding to become his wife and move to Arkansas, and Bernstein points to a little-known factor that may have contributed. Hillary Clinton failed the D.C. bar exam after law school, something she hid from her best friends for 30 years until disclosing it in passing in her autobiography, "Living History." Bernstein suggests that blow to her ego may have played a role in her decision to move to Arkansas, where she had passed the bar.

The women who also figured in Bill Clinton's life in Arkansas make a return appearance in the book, most notably Marilyn Jo Jenkins, a power company executive he fell in love with and almost left his wife over, according to Bernstein. Jenkins has been linked to Clinton before -- she was spirited into the governor's mansion at 5:15 a.m. for a final, furtive meeting with him the day he left for Washington to assume the presidency -- but Bernstein's account makes clear her pivotal role.

Bill Clinton wanted to divorce his wife to be with Jenkins in 1989, Bernstein reports, but Hillary Clinton refused. "There are worse things than infidelity," she told Betsey Wright, the governor's chief of staff. The crisis frayed Wright's relationship with Bill Clinton too, and she told Bernstein that she arranged for the two of them, Wright and Clinton, to see a therapist together.

Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, turned to her best friend, Diane Blair, obliquely raising the prospect of divorce during a long walk. "She was thinking that they had not made much money," Blair told Bernstein before her death in 2000, and she was concerned about her daughter. "Chelsea was there now. What if she were on her own? She didn't own a house. She was concerned that if she were to become a single parent, how would she make it work in a way that would be good for Chelsea."

The Clintons stayed together, but out of "anger and hurt" she considered running for governor in 1990, when he presumably would step down to prepare his 1992 presidential campaign. The idea ended after consultant Dick Morris conducted two polls showing she had no independent identity with Arkansas voters and compared her to George Wallace's wife, who ran to succeed him in Alabama -- an analogy that offended her.

By the time Bill Clinton was running for president, Hillary Clinton suggested to Blair that victory would be good for the marriage because her husband's sexual compulsions would be tempered by the White House and the ever-present press corps, Bernstein reports -- a flawed assumption, as it would turn out.

In Bernstein's account, both Clintons went to great lengths to keep the lid on his infidelities. At the behest of Wright and Hillary Clinton, two partners with Hillary Clinton at the Rose Law Firm, Webster L. Hubbell and Vincent W. Foster Jr., were hired to represent women named in a lawsuit as having secret affairs with the governor. Hubbell and Foster questioned the women, then obtained signed statements that they never had sex with Bill Clinton. On one occasion, Bernstein reports, Hillary Clinton was present for the questioning.

Bernstein also reports that Bill Clinton, with Morris's help, pressured Wright to issue a false statement denying comments she had made to David Maraniss, a Post reporter, for his book "First in His Class," in which she said Arkansas state troopers had procured women for the governor.

Gerth and Van Natta's 416-page book covers much of the same ground, but it explores Clinton's time in the Senate in greater depth and portrays her legislative career and her presidential campaign as parts of a broad, long-term plan for power that has its roots in the early 1970s.

According to Gerth and Van Natta, even before the Clintons were married they formulated a "secret pact of ambition" aimed at reinventing the Democratic Party and getting to the White House. The authors cite a former Bill Clinton girlfriend, Marla Crider, who said she saw a letter on his desk written by Hillary Clinton, outlining the couple's long-term ambitions, which they called their "twenty-year project."

Crider was first quoted about the letter in a book by a former National Enquirer reporter in 2000, at the time describing it as more about Bill Clinton's infidelities and the "little girls" he had. Gerth and Van Natta, however, report that they re-interviewed Crider and that she said the earlier book's account was "not totally accurate." In this telling, Crider described the note as being more about the couple's political plans, with little discussion of their personal relationship.

The authors report that the Clintons updated their plan after the 1992 election, determining that Hillary would run when Bill left office. They cite two people, Ann Crittenden and John Henry, who said Taylor Branch, the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian and close Clinton friend, told them that the Clintons "still planned two terms in the White House for Bill and, later, two for Hillary." Contacted last night, Branch said that "the story is preposterous" and that "I never heard either Clinton talk about a 'plan' for them both to become president."

The book looks in detail at Hillary Clinton's Senate vote in support of the Iraq war, suggesting she may have been motivated by a desire to not abandon her husband's tough-on-Iraq policy and a need "to prove that she was tough enough" as a woman. But Gerth and Van Natta suggest that she did not read the National Intelligence Estimate, which included caveats and dissents about reports of Iraq's weapons program.

Reines, Clinton's Senate spokesman, seemed to confirm last night that she did not read the NIE, saying by e-mail that she was "briefed multiple times by several members of the administration on their intelligence regarding Iraq, including being briefed on the NIE."

Gerth and Van Natta portray Clinton as fixated on secrecy and loyalty. She has used her Washington house as a staging ground for her presidential campaign, holding strategy meetings and fundraisers under strict confidentiality. "Visitors are asked to check their bags, cameras and cell phones at the door, pictures are taken by an authorized photographer," they write.

The authors assert that Clinton did not properly file paperwork with the Senate ethics committee to document many congressional fellows borrowed from universities to beef up her expertise on various issues. The ethics committee therefore could not determine if the free service, underwritten by university funds, created any conflicts, Gerth and Van Natta write.

The book portrays Clinton as constantly seeking the spotlight, pushing her way into Senate discussions without invitation. As Senate Democrats were wrestling with their approach to the Iraq war in mid-2006, for example, Clinton is described as inserting her name into a piece of legislation calling for a phased redeployment of U.S. troops. Although she was not originally a co-sponsor of the bill, she said she was, and after storming the floor of the Senate before her turn, she shifted her rationale for her original war vote, the authors write. Her behavior amazed Senate colleagues, they write.

As part of her presidential ambitions, they write, the Clintons plotted to steal some of the thunder of former vice president Al Gore on climate change, creating tension between the onetime partners. They recount how Bill Clinton filmed ads for a California ballot initiative that overshadowed a Gore ad.

from the Washington Post, 2005-Oct-8, p.A2, by Howard Kurtz:

Ex-FBI Chief Puts Clinton Critique in Print
In Book and Interview, Freeh Rails Against Former President's Actions

Former FBI director Louis J. Freeh has denounced Bill Clinton over the scandals that marred his presidency and for his record on terrorism, saying the level of distrust was so great that he stayed in his post so Clinton could not appoint his successor.

In a forthcoming book and "60 Minutes" interview, Freeh, whose strained relations with Clinton were no secret, says he was so determined to distance himself from Clinton that he sent back a White House pass so that all his visits would be deemed official. This, he said, antagonized Clinton.

In an interview with CBS's Mike Wallace to be broadcast Sunday, Freeh says: "The problem was with Bill Clinton -- the scandals and the rumored scandals, the incubating ones and the dying ones never ended. Whatever moral compass the president was consulting was leading him in the wrong direction. His closets were full of skeletons just waiting to burst out." Freeh cited investigations involving Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones and Gennifer Flowers.

Clinton spokesman Jay Carson said last night: "This is clearly a total work of fiction by a man who's desperate to clear his name and sell books, and it's unfortunate he'd stoop to this level in his attempt to rewrite history." He noted Freeh contributed nearly $20,000 to Republicans, including President Bush, in the last campaign.

In his book -- "My FBI: Bringing Down the Mafia, Investigating Bill Clinton, and Fighting the War on Terror" (St. Martin's Press) -- Freeh is scathing toward Clinton's handling of the 1996 bombing at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. He says Clinton refused to ask Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah to let the FBI question bombing suspects being held by the kingdom.

"Bill Clinton raised the subject only to tell the crown prince that he understood the Saudis' reluctance to cooperate and then he hit Abdullah up for a contribution to the Clinton Presidential Library," Freeh wrote. Carson said that was one of the "untruths in a book that's full of them" and that Freeh was not at the meetings between Clinton and Abdullah.

Daniel Benjamin, a former Clinton counterterrorism official, said Freeh is "factually wrong" and that the former president "pushed the crown prince quite hard," and eventually won Saudi cooperation that led to indictments in the case. "Freeh has been clearly discredited by the 9/11 commission and the congressional joint inquiry," Benjamin said.

The Clinton camp says "60 Minutes" would not accept any surrogate to rebut Freeh on camera once the former president declined to be interviewed.

During the Lewinsky probe that led to Clinton's impeachment, Freeh says, the FBI acted "very confidentially" when it needed to obtain a blood sample from the president to compare to the semen stain on the former intern's blue dress. During a dinner, Freeh says, Clinton said he was going to the bathroom but entered another room where FBI technicians were waiting.

Freeh says their relationship was so bad that Clinton began referring to him behind his back with an expletive as his middle name. Freeh says he did not care because his job was to investigate scandals, including those involving the White House.

from TPDL 1999-Jan-10, from NewsMax, by Thomas W. Hazlett:

Dirty Dozen
Twelve ethical legacies of the Clinton presidency

President Clinton is casting about for his legacy. When you look at his accomplishments--rescuing Haitian democracy, resurrecting George Bush's five-year budget plan, saving Social Security and Medicare from reforms that might unfairly slash the tax rate for future Americans below 84 percent--you've got to marvel at how the whole system just keeps on purring. Indeed, since November 1994, the Dow has increased from under 4,000 to around 8,000, arguably the greatest bull run in history. And no one can say that Clinton wasn't the magician who produced the impossible: a Republican Congress.

But Clinton will be remembered for even more profound changes: He has redrawn the rules of the political game itself. It used to be that if you got caught redhanded, you were ashamed--and you were gone.

Thanks to Clinton, however, disclosure of unethical behavior-- from a $100,000 bribe for then-Gov. Clinton laundered through Hillary's pork bellies account, to shaking down Indian tribes for campaign cash, to a national security adviser's failing to unload stock shares that violated ethics rules, to a sitting president's breaking campaign finance laws by agreeing to set aside $1 million to pay Federal Election Commission fines (signing off on the memo with a most descriptive "ugh")--just doesn't pack the same wallop. Clinton's ability to bob and weave--and to let his opponents punch themselves out--has allowed him to lead "the most ethical administration in history" by a revolutionary moral standard.

Here's a brief synopsis of Clinton's ethical legacy, a string of rationalizations for opportunism which have turned humiliation into ho-hum.

1. No controlling legal authority. You laughed--but it worked! Despite the testimony of one irate Democratic mark who dubbed White House-based phone calls a "shakedown," this was the fig leaf our Accomplice General Janet Reno donned to let the vice president and the president slide after violating the plain language of the statute prohibiting fund raising on federal property.

2. Personal foibles are off-limits. The press now dutifully reports that "womanizing" (expansively defined to encompass on-the-job solicitation of subordinates) is a matter of personal preference--a private issue for the First Couple. But, alas, these politicos keep pushing their family stories on us. These days, Bill boasts of Chelsea no less than Hillary, and who can forget tobacco farmer Al strategically recounting his sister's cancer death at the Democratic Convention in '96?

3. Who cares about Arkansas? There's a brand new statute of limitations: If you get elected president, all crimes committed prior to the election get wiped clean. Poor Spiro Agnew, getting busted on that petty theft as governor--of a small Southern state, no less.

4. Even if we did sell access, contributors weren't given anything of value. Donors like Roger Tamraz, various Indian tribes, and Johnnie Chung (who likened the White House to a toll gate) tell a different tale. The administration claims that the influence seekers who forked out millions to the Clinton-Gore '96 effort were just plain suckers. Right. And Al Capone was a legit businessman who just forgot to pay his taxes.

5. According to the polls, no one cares about political scandals. A groundswell of concern cannot logically precede revelations of skullduggery. The media must first expose and excoriate the banditos--which they have not done, citing the lack of public interest!

6. It's the economy, stupid. The received wisdom is that the citizenry is fat and happy: Why care about political shenanigans when fourth quarter GDP growth is above 3 percent? If only the Teapot Domers had thought of that.

7. These charges of wrongdoing are thinly veiled attacks by Republican partisans! Excellent point--as is the precisely opposite point that charges of Republican partisanship are pure Democratic partisanship.

8. The bumpkin defense. In violation of every administrative protection an innocent citizen has against his government, 900 FBI files are purloined and quarantined in the office of a political dirty trickster in charge of opposition research. Clinton's winning defense: It was just an "honest bureaucratic snafu."

9. All this illegal fund raising proves the need for campaign finance reform. Swallowed whole by the "watchdogs" of the press, this line suggests more than an "honest bureaucratic snafu." It declares: Passing laws is the business of government--not abiding by them.

10. Everybody does it. There's not a teenager in America who hasn't tried this one, but usually only those who grow up to be featured on America's Most Wanted actually get away with it.

11. It's nothing like Watergate. Well, Watergate was nothing like Watergate until people talked, subpoenas were answered, and the tapes played.

12. Prove it! As indictments and convictions mount, big shots above the Webb Hubbells and Mike Espys remain tough nuts to crack, especially when a code of silence kicks in. As FBI Director Louis Freeh observed last year during campaign finance hearings, he had seen so many witnesses flee the country or take the Fifth only once before in his career: when looking into organized crime.

The president promised to bring the American people change. Promise kept. Legacy claimed.

from TPDL 1998-Sep-28, from the Washington Times, from "Inside Politics: News and political dispatches from around the nation" by Greg Pierce:

Clinton tops Quayle

"Comedians have gotten so much material they could do all-Clinton monologues all the time," says Robert Lichter, president of the Center for Media and Public Affairs. "President Clinton is the best thing to hit late-night comedians since [former Vice President] Dan Quayle." Mr. Lichter's center has counted 1,138 Clinton jokes from late-night monologues so far in 1998, the Associated Press reports. That's on track to double the previous record -- Bob Dole with 838 in 1996, the election year. Mr. Quayle topped the jokefest in 1990 with only 162, back when shows were doing less political humor overall. A couple of examples noted by reporter Calvin Woodward: David Letterman said traffic was so bad "I had to squeeze through spaces that were narrower than President Clinton's definition of sex." Fellow comic Bill Maher dreamed up a cream rinse that the president could use "after a day of splitting hairs." However, it is unlikely Mr. Clinton will be hooted from office. "What's remarkable is that Clinton is a laughingstock and it doesn't seem to matter," Mr. Lichter said.

from TPDL 2000-Mar-25, from the Washington Times, by Wes Pruden:

Dissing a president can ruin a whole day

Can't this man get no respect?

Bill Clinton went to India to resolve the differences between India and Pakistan, willing to devote an entire week to the project, and all he got for his trouble was a humiliating public lecture from the Indian president.

Back home, Beijing's No. 2 man in Washington was conceding (in so many words) that not only was China not necessarily getting its money's worth for all those illegal campaign contributions, but he wasn't really any more useful to China than, of all people, Ronald Reagan and George Bush the elder.

Out on the campaign trail, Al Gore, who worked for seven fat years to clone himself after the man who used to be the kid from Hot Springs but is now the squire of Westchester County, was trying so hard to make people forget Bill Clinton that he had taken to comparing himself to John McCain.

Not even the groupie swoon of the New Delhi press could ease the sting of President K.R. Narayanan's toast at the state dinner, when he told Mr. Clinton that he didn't know what he was talking about when he called the subcontinent a place of unique peril.

"It has been suggested that the Indian subcontinent is the most dangerous place in the world today, and Kashmir is a nuclear flash point," Mr. Narayanan said, recalling Mr. Clinton's description, which he made at a White House prayer breakfast in early February. "These alarmist descriptions will only encourage those who want to break the peace and indulge in terrorism and violence."

Mr. Clinton, seated only a few feet away, and if he were seething inside, as any American president should have been, the expression on his face did not show it. It was an extraordinary moment, and when Mr. Clinton rose to give his return toast everyone in the room caught his breath, waiting to see if there would be a response. There was none. Could anyone imagine such a public rebuke, and in such a formal setting where dinner-party hyperbole and diplomatic bloviation is the norm, to Lyndon Johnson or Ronald Reagan or George Bush, or even to Jimmy Carter?

Mr. Clinton's aides insisted the rebuke, even if a rebuke bordering on impertinence, didn't mean a thing. Said an operative of the National Security Council, airily: "It doesn't faze us."

Probably not, and the next day Mr. Clinton and his daughter Chelsea resumed their tourist's look at India, their paths swept free of the beggars and dacoits whose ubiquitous presence make regular tourists earn their sensual delights.

The president got his own sensual delights in his visit to the parliament, where, after a tactful lecture on why India should give up its nuclear weapons, he did the riff for which he has no peer, his Gettysburg Address on how he feels their pain. India, he told them, has a great opportunity to get their satisfaction the way he gets (some of) his. India, he said, could "show its neighbors that democracy is about dialogue. It does not have to be about friendship."

It was one of his boffo performances. When the great hall erupted in a standing ovation, as one of the representatives later told the New York Times, her colleagues were "jumping on chairs and over benches to shake his hand." So what's the humiliation of a public rebuke when measured against a sensual treat like that? The humiliation was only the humiliation of the American presidency (and as any of Mr. Clinton's liege men might say, "That's old news.")

The news from China was more serious. Despite a pending vote in Congress on whether to grant permanent normal trade relations with China, the government in Beijing continues to treat the United States as if it were merely an obstreperous province.

The deputy chief of the Chinese mission in Washington, speaking as if he were the chief of the Visa Section at the American Embassy in Taipei, instructed Mr. Clinton and his government not to allow Chen Shui-bian, the new president of the Republic of China on Taiwan, to visit the United States either before or after his inauguration. Some Americans think that the United States should be the sole judge of who it allows to visit us.

Like a cowboy with a new Colt .45, the Chinese can't resist rattling their new weapons, and some of them are resurrecting the language of the Cultural Revolution, when Beijing's diplomats often announced their arrival with bombast punctuated with bombs and grenades. One Chinese army newspaper last week suggested that the United States would sacrifice "200 million Americans" if it defends Taiwan against a mainland invasion, as the United States is committed by treaty to do.

More bombast, no doubt. But is that any way to treat the best president money can buy?

from Congress Action, August 23, 1998, from http://www.velasquez.com/congress_action/ca082398.html:

APOLOGY: Now that President Clinton has gone on national television and sort-of apologized for "misleading" the public about his affair with Monica Lewinsky (but he didn't call it "lying" when he wagged his finger at us and proclaimed "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky"), we hear from his perennial apologists that all should be forgiven and forgotten. After all, his sexual dalliances are private matters, aren't they?

Hardly. Bill Clinton was hired and is paid by the public. He is our employee. His dalliance took place in his office, paid for by us. Lewinsky was also paid by the people, to work in the people's White House. Have we no right to question the moral turpitude of our senior employees, and their sexual activities with our junior employees, which takes place in our office? Clinton's secretary Betty Currie is paid by the public, and he apparently used her to obtain return of his gifts to Monica, which some are calling obstruction of justice. He put Cabinet Secretaries out in public to provide cover for his dissembling. Cabinet Secretaries are public officials, not private mouthpieces for Bill Clinton. They were used precisely because their public positions gave their opinions weight. If this were about sex, and only sex, the public would still have ample cause for concern. And consider another aspect of his "apology" which has garnered scant attention: he acknowledged "a critical lapse in judgment". That is chilling from the man who holds the power of war and peace in his hands. If the facts are as portrayed, the recent military action against terrorists was necessary and commendable, although the speed with which many Clinton supporters used it as an excuse to downplay Clinton's domestic scandals raised questions about motives. The massive briefings blitz by the president (two speeches in one day) and top officials, trying to make a few dozen long distance missile strikes seem like the second coming of D-Day ("Saving Private Ryan" rather than "Wag the Dog"?), only added to that cynicism. Yet some people still claim that the president's credibility should not be a matter of public concern. President Clinton also used Secretary of State Albright to advance and cover his falsehoods regarding his relationship with Lewinsky. After the missile strikes, Albright warned the world of U.S. resolve. How credible are her warnings, now, to foreign enemies? Or even to our friends? Bill Clinton, and nobody else, damaged her credibility, and destroyed his own.

We have also been treated to the opinions of foreign leaders and citizens, as though they somehow have the ability or the authority to judge what the "proper" reaction of the American public should be to the unfolding revelations about Clinton's relationship with Lewinsky. Although such foreign opinion may be of passing interest to some, it most certainly is not, to borrow a phrase, of any controlling legal authority regarding the Constitutional, legal, ethical, and moral responsibilities of the Chief Executive of the United States. They would be better advised to clean up their own domestic problems before trying to impose their degraded standards on us. Further, as with so much else reported by our U.S. media, the impression conveyed of virtually universal foreign support for Clinton is far from accurate. Certainly, there is much bemusement and anger at Clinton's critics in the foreign press. Most critics of the U.S. in the foreign media, however, view the situation as only about sex, accepting the White House and U.S. media disinformation. But there is much more in the foreign media, which is not being reported in our media.

According to the United States Information Agency, "...ever since the Lewinsky story broke earlier this year, foreign commentary has been dominated by marked sympathy for the president. However, in the wake of the president's `confession,' there was a drastic increase in negative assessments of the president and his admitted behavior. Derogatory terms such as `liar' and `cheat' were featured prominently in a number of articles and commentaries." A sampling:

Rome's L'Unita (before the confession): "If it is demonstrated that Clinton has violated the rules...then he has to pay for that. Democracy may not be a perfect system, but that's the way it works."

London Times: "The power of the American presidency rests not on constitutional advantage or public opinion polls but moral authority. Once lost, it is almost impossible to recapture. Mr. Clinton has exhausted his moral authority. He has brought his fate upon himself."

Germany's national TV channel one: "Cleverly acted, Mr. President, but you have now forfeited too much: Trust that does not belong to you but to your office. We do not have to be narrow-minded Puritans to demand a minimum of discipline from the most powerful man in the world, but this discipline obviously did not exist."

France's La Croix: "Humiliation for American institutions, destabilized by the meaner side of a leader."

Italy's La Republica: "From today the Gore Age begins in American politics. It will be up to him...to restore the White House domestic and international prestige since it has been dirtied by too many spots and by too many useless lies."

Russia's Segodnya: "...as long as a nation can have its president, no matter how cynical and wily, explain himself publicly on the matter of adultery, it need not be afraid for its future..."

Canada's Globe and Mail: "Bill Clinton is president of the United States, sworn to uphold its constitution and enforce its laws. His behavior, even his private behavior, is supposed to set an example for the country. That does not mean he must be saintly or perfect - merely law-abiding and reasonably honest. He has been neither."

Canada's Calgary Sun: "He's a cheat. And a liar. If Bill Clinton truly were an honorable man, he'd gracefully step down as president of the nation whose trust he has abused."

Spain's El Mundo: "...laughable legalisms, contrived explanations, and a substantial dollop of arrogance... If he lied then, how do we know he's not lying now when he says he didn't obstruct justice? Clinton's word is worthless."

Hong Kong's South China Morning Post: "It wasn't Mr. Starr who invented that `inappropriate relationship.'... Mr. Clinton's behavior, and his disregard for morality, have tarnished the presidency."

India's Hindu: "In the two years remaining of his second presidential term, Clinton can no more expect to enjoy the trust of his people or that of the world.... By his obfuscation and months of denial of the truth, Clinton has betrayed the trust that his people had reposed in him, not once but twice."

In today's therapeutic society, the apology has apparently boosted Clinton's ratings in the polls among Americans, and now we are supposed to let him get back to the work of the people: saving our children from the evils of tobacco, guns, republicans, and personal responsibility. Clinton sympathizers are claiming that his apology clears up all wrongdoing by the president, that there is nothing else that matters, and are demanding that the evil Arkansas-hating, vast right-wing conspiracy cease hounding the greatest president the nation has even seen. In one regard, President Clinton is entirely correct: if no crimes were committed - a big if - it is time to put the salacious Lewinsky diversion behind us, and get on with investigating the far more serious allegations of Constitutional violations and abuses of power. Just in case anyone has forgotten, the Lewinsky affair is just the very small tip of a very large iceberg of potentially impeachable offenses which must be investigated, which do not even include the additional vast list of what might be merely illegal:

Refusing to submit international treaties to the Senate for Constitutionally required ratification; evasion of the Constitutional requirement to obtain Senate confirmation of nominees; advocating the violation of the Constitutional requirement that the census shall be by "actual enumeration"; refusal to obey Supreme Court decisions regarding racial preferences in federal contracting; Education Department orders to school districts to violate Supreme Court rulings; non-citizens voting in U.S. elections; FBI files collected by a White House employee who was apparently never hired by anyone; where campaign money came from, and where U.S. military technology went, why, and whether national security was endangered as a result; White House database enemies list;

Travel Office employees wrongly accused of crimes; reprisals against Resolution Trust Corporation investigators for Whitewater criminal referrals; arrests of critics; frivolous lawsuits by administration officials to silence critics; release of confidential information to intimidate and discredit critics; IRS audits of political opponents; politicized Justice Department in which the political agenda overrides obedience to the law; payments to Webster Hubbell; Justice Department attempts to block Independent Counsel Smaltz's investigations; policy decisions suspiciously favorable to campaign contributors; Rose law firm files under subpoena disappearing and mysteriously reappearing; secret health care task force in violation of federal law; use of government assets and personnel to address various personal scandals; what happened to Vince Foster's and Ron Brown's files following their deaths; alleged sale of seats on Commerce Department trade missions; John Huang's activities in the Commerce Department and his contacts with his former Lippo employers and possibly the Chinese government; threats and attacks against Independent Counsel Starr; Clinton friends, associates, supporters, or members of the administration who resigned under controversial circumstances, or who pled guilty or were convicted of crimes, or who are being or have been investigated or indicted by Independent Counsels, or by the Justice Department, or by congressional committees, or by state or federal legal authorities (over 30 at last count, and growing).

Although Bill Clinton never likes to take responsibility for anything unless he can benefit from it politically, he is the head of the Executive Branch of our government, the captain of the ship, so to speak. Even those activities of Executive Branch agencies, enumerated above, which do not involve direct presidential action, are the president's responsibility. Authority and responsibility are inseparable. Spreading out the blame among swarms of bureaucrats does not lessen the responsibility at the top. Responsibility flows all the way up the line, as does authority. "Respect for character is always diminished in proportion to the number among whom the blame or praise is to be divided." - James Madison.

However, if, after all of the things we have seen over the past 6 years, we still do not think that there are sufficient grounds to even consider impeachment, then we all must simply face the fact that we must abandon the quaint designation "President of the United States". That title is properly used only in a free republic, governed by the Rule of Law under a Constitution. Perhaps more appropriate would be an alternate title which Clinton supporters apparently prefer "King Bill".

 

Kim Weissman at BEVDAV@worldnet.att.net

from Reuters, Sep 10, 1998:

LONDON (Reuters) - Europe's press read the last rites for President Clinton Thursday, doubting whether he could survive the sex-and-perjury scandal involving White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

A day after Clinton made another public apology in Florida for the affair, British newspapers painted the picture of a president desperately seeking to avoid impeachment.

``Clinton: The Last Hours,'' screamed the front page of Britain's best-selling Sun tabloid, which, scenting blood, has sent its political editor to Washington to cover the story.

``Bill Clinton's presidency was in its death throes last night as he made a grovelling public apology over the Zippergate sex scandal,'' the Sun said.

Inside, the newspaper said ``thirty-six boxes of dynamite'' had been delivered to Capitol Hill in the form of a report into the affair by special prosecutor Ken Starr. A photograph showed the van carrying the documents on ``the road to ruin.''

The French press, otherwise renowned for keeping the sex lives of its politicians strictly private, also slammed Clinton for his conduct.

The weekly Paris Match ran a front cover photograph of a somber and serious Clinton below a banner headline reading: ''Clinton -- he has lied too much.''

``This time, he has gone too far,'' the glossy magazine said.

Under a headline ``The Day of Reckoning,'' Rome daily la Repubblica wrote in an editorial: ``It will take a miracle for Billy to escape that box of shame into which he alone trapped himself.''

Britain's left-leaning Guardian said the affair had brought Clinton's presidency to ``crisis point.'' The BBC said it was ''crunch time'' for the president.

The Daily Telegraph, in a commentary written by long-standing Clinton critic Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, said his presidency had ``entered its terminal phase.''

``He has lied, cheated and defied justice for 20 years. Nothing can save him now,'' Evans-Pritchard wrote.

``It no longer matters whether the President apologises yet again, more stylishly, or has himself flogged on the steps of the U.S. Capitol. Theatrics cannot save him,'' he added.

He predicted that the House Judiciary Committee, which will examine Starr's report, would conclude that Clinton was ``a borderline sociopath who must be removed at once.''

The Daily Telegraph published a cartoon of Clinton down in the boxer's ring, with the referee counting him out, and an editorial that declared: ``He cannot save himself; he can only degrade his office further.''

The French daily Le Parisien spoke of ``Clinton's hour of truth'' and branded his conduct as ``immoral.''

The conservative Le Figaro ran a headline describing ''Clinton paralysed and demoralised'' and said watching ''torrid'' revelations unfold was ``similar to being in a x-rated cinema.''

The paper said Vice-President Al Gore was ``just a heartbeat away'' from the presidency but might have problems himself because of doubts about his role in helping finance Clinton's 1996 reelection campaign.

Turin's La Stampa daily said summer was ending and so was Clinton's presidency. With it, a period of political stability that had allowed the United States to prosper without necessarily governing was drawing to a close.

``Clinton's dignity is a memory. Now he is merely a kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar who is forced every day to say 'I'm sorry','' La Stampa said.

from The Daily Outrage of 1998-Sep-13, http://www.DailyOutrage.com:

WHO'S THE WORST?

Outraged over the Starr report and the Monica Lewinsky scandal? Of course we're outraged! In fact, we're outraged at almost everyone involved in this sordid affair.

Use our Rageback section below to cast your vote for the individual or group who has had the most disgraceful role in this whole sorry spectacle. (We've numbered the contenders, to make voting easier.)

1) Bill Clinton, Our Glorious Leader

---

The obvious choice is William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, at least for the moment. You've already heard some of the charges - lying to the American people, perjury, obstruction of justice, abuse of power- but here at the Outrage we're most offended by:

- The president's appalling choice of sexual partners. We're certainly not surprised that any man who made the unfortunate decision to marry Hillary Rodham would be unfaithful - in fact, we might be more appalled if Bill actually admitted to sleeping with his wife. But, given the fact that he's the most powerful man on the face of the earth, we'd think that Bill could do a whole lot better than Monica, Jennifer, Paula, et al. Clinton's not a bad looking man, he's got the world's most prestigious home address, he's said to be quite charming, travels in Air Force One, etc. - you'd really think the guy could find a better class of bimbo. Regardless of other offenses, we view his choice of lovers as a clearly indictable offense.

- The president of the United States has the most interesting job in the world. He literally holds the power of life and death for many people; he can pardon men or women destined for execution; as Commander and Chief he can send soldiers and sailors to their death in foreign lands. He can change people's lives with a single Executive Order. He's the sole and undisputed head of the vast US federal government. He can move markets around the world with a few well-chosen words. Billions of tax dollars are affected by his budget priorities. Yet, with all this to occupy him, he chooses to spend his time talking dirty on the phone with Monica.

- His perverse use of cigars should leave a bad taste in the mouth of every man who enjoys one of few remaining pleasures of life in modern America. "Cigar-abuse" may not be a statutory crime, but we believe nothing short of the death penalty is adequate punishment for this heinous offense.

2) Kenneth Starr, a.k.a. the Grand Inquisitor

---

Is Kenneth Starr the most worthy focus of our Outrage? After spending more than four years, and over $40 million taxpayer dollars, what do we end up with? A long and pornographic account of Clinton's sex life. Was it really worth this amount of time, money and effort to learn the gory details of Monicagate?

Having failed to nail the Big Bopper with Whitewater, Filegate, and Travelgate, Starr finally struck pay dirt with Zippergate. Is it a sign of his incompetence that the only way Starr could be effective was through gross invasions of privacy?

Conservatives who view Starr as some kind of Clinton-killing hero should pay close attention to what the Grand Inquisitor really says: "To excuse a party who lied or concealed evidence on the ground that the evidence covered only 'personal' or 'private' behavior would frustrate the goals that Congress and the courts have sought to achieve in enacting the nation's sexual harassment laws." In other words, if someone sues you for sexual harassment, even if the case turns out to be totally groundless, they have a right to full disclosure of your private life.

Starr is really acting as a warrior for sexual harassment laws; probably the most abused legal tool in modern America. It's interesting to note how his report has been received outside of America. France's Le Monde had this to say about the Starr report:

"...a monster...worthy of the reports of the Inquisition...where deviants and heretics were hunted down to the depths of their souls...By the magic of the Internet, the four corners of our universe were turned into a planetary audience and we all became Peeping Toms by the choice of the American Congress.

"After four years of investigations at a mind-boggling cost, prosecutor Starr has found nothing but the pitiful lie of a seducer," it said.

Le Monde accused Starr of trying to impose "a terrifying moral order where sex is never far from sin, where even sexual relations between consenting adults is always something terrible."

The daily described the mood in Washington as "a new McCarthyism, which has replaced the panicky fear of communism with the dread of sexuality."

3) Stand By Your Man

---

Our third candidate for most disgusting player in the Washington Circus is Hillary Clinton. It's hard to have much sympathy for a woman who blames her husband's continual philandering on a "vast right-ring conspiracy." Hillary appears to be so hungry for power that she'll put up with anything - even Bill's continual antics - to hang on to the mantle of "First Lady."

If anyone is impeached for lying it probably ought to be Hillary, who steadfastly pronounces her belief in the integrity of her husband, despite the fact that she probably knows as well as anyone the extent of his infidelities and lies. In the great Washington drama, where appearance is so much more important than reality, Hillary wins our vote for actress of the year.

4) Why aren't our dates ever this aggressive?

---

Number four on the ballot is little Miss Lewinsky herself. By all accounts a scheming sexual adventurer who plotted to gain access to Clinton and then seduced him at the first possible opportunity, Monica deserves nothing but contempt. Not only did she willingly degrade herself to amuse the President (see cigar-abuse above) but she didn't even have the sense to be discreet.

Lewinsky did the most unspeakably stupid thing possible by supplying the graphic details of her sex life to investigator Starr, who in turn made her the soft-core porn star of 1998 by publishing all those details. Like all good actresses, Lewinsky is allegedly negotiating a book deal worth $2 million, although with Ken Starr publishing all the steamy details we're not quite sure who the audience for this literary masterwork will be.

5) Authors and Lovers

---

Ballot item number five is the cast of supporting actresses, including, but not limited to, Katherine Willey, Jennifer Flowers, and last, but certainly not least, Paula Jones. Every single one of these women have attempted to financially profit from their alleged relationship with Clinton: in the case of Flowers and Willey both have sought book deals. Willey also sought to get a job from Clinton; the day that he allegedly groped her in the Oval Office she was pleading financial desperation and seeking a job. (And continued to contact Clinton in search of a job after the alleged traumatic incident took place.)

Poor Paula sought revenge, American style, by filing a sexual harassment suit. Instead of just slapping his face and getting on with life, Jones had to make a federal case, literally, of Clinton's crude attempt at seducing her. And why was Paula Jones in the governor's hotel room? She thought she might be able to get a better job - more money - by meeting the Governor. She later had delusions that she was being relegated to lower level jobs because she didn't accept Clinton's advances.

6) Spin doctors, lawyers, and other deviants

---

Next on the list of most likely to degrade the spirit of American public debate are Clinton's advisors and lawyers. Clinton's personal lawyer, David Kendall, published a 73 page rebuttal to the Starr report BEFORE he had even read the report. We guess that only the really good lawyers know how to counter charges that have not yet been made.

Kendall and Clinton's other lawyers have also insisted that Clinton's lies are not really lies, but legally the truth. We've always known that the truth and the law were not close friends, but we had no idea that the relationship was quite this strained.

And what about people like Sidney Blumenthal, also known as "Sid Vicious" in the Washington journalism community. Blumenthal is a Clinton hatchet man who tries to dig up dirt on those who attack the President. While working hard to dish it out, he doesn't take it too well - he filed a $30 million libel suit against Net gossip-monger Matt Drudge and AOL when Drudge accused Blumenthal of beating his wife. Blumenthal was the creative mind behind Hillary Clinton's "vast-right wing conspiracy" charges.

Former star spin-meister and Clinton advisor Dick Morris may deserve a vote. The Starr report reveals that Morris was one of those who Clinton had phone conversations with while being serviced by Monica. Morris had previously revealed that he talked to the president while his regular prostitute listened in. Let's see; that means America's policies are being decided by Clinton, while having sex with an intern, and Morris, while having sex with a call girl. We wonder if that's what the President meant in his most recent radio broadcast calling for Congress to "stay focused" on solving the nation's problems.

7)The hypocrites on Capitol Hill

---

The United States Congress is also a contender for "Most Outrageous" character in this sorry drama. We have a hard time controlling our laughter as congressmen and senators adopt grave manners to discuss the President's offenses. Most of the 535 people who may sit in judgement on the president could also be found guilty of misleading the American public, committing perjury, and abuse of power.

A classic example of Congressional hypocrisy is conservative Congresswomen Helen Chenoweth. She first won office by campaigning on a family values platform after her opponent was accused of having an extramarital affair. In her most recent campaign she took out ads attacking President Clinton for his infidelities, saying "I believe that personal conduct and integrity does matter." Chenoweth recently admitted that she had a long-term affair with a married man in the 1980s.

About a week ago another conservative Republican and Clinton critic, Representative Dan Burton of Indiana, admitted to fathering a child from an extramarital affair in the 80s. Representative Charles Rangel, a New York Democrat, said that during the current impeachment debate some members of Congress "are demanding a moral standard for the president that is higher than they would set for themselves." Quite true. And of course moral paragons like Ted Kennedy will be sitting in judgement on the president. Sort of like having Ted Bundy sitting on the jury for a trial of Jack the Ripper.

The congressional decision to publish the Starr report before even having read it also reeks of catering to the worst elements of public interest in the graphic details of Clinton's sex life. The Roman masses got bread and circuses. We get the Starr report. It's interesting that the same Congress that passed the Communications Decency Act, supposedly to help fight pornography on the Internet, rushed to publish the Starr report on the Net, a report that is essentially porn without pictures.

8) Which God said that?

---

Organized religion may be worthy of a vote. The Southern Baptists recently renounced Clinton, which may be their interpretation of the biblical theme of forgiveness. Or perhaps they've forgotten Jesus's close relationship with Mary Magdalene.

Meanwhile, other religious leaders attended a White House breakfast and demonstrated how gullible they really are when they actually bought into Clinton's contrition speech. (He had tears in his eyes - how very touching.) We're not sure if Jesse Jackson, America's favorite manufactured-for-the-media preacher, attended the breakfast. He may have been busy praying with Hillary and Chelsea.

9) Well, he's done so much for women

---

The women's movement certainly deserves at least an honorable mention in the Most-Outrageous-Player category. The silence of organizations like NOW has been deafening. If the President involved with Monica Lewinsky happened to be Republican, the National Organization for Women and other feminists would have had him crucified long ago.

One good reason for casting your vote in favor of the women's movement has been their unflinching support of a double standard whereby:
- Women are encouraged to have the sexual liberation and freedom society accords to men in the 20th century, but also
- If a women receives an unwelcome advance from a man, her Victorian sense of morality is supposed to be mortally wounded, and she is entitled to millions in punitive damages via sexual harassment suits.

Feminists are encouraged to chose whichever standard happens to be more convenient at the moment. Monica and Jennifer prefer the liberation route. Paula prefers the harassment suit route. Hillary prefers the...hmmm...

10) With friends like these...

---

Who needs enemies like Kenneth Starr? Linda Tripp secretly recorded her "friend" Monica's conversations, leading to the Starr investigation. And then there was Lewinsky's lawyer William Ginsberg, who seemed much more focused on appearing on as many talk shows as possible than on keeping his client out of jail.

11) The American public, what could you have been thinking?

---

That Bill Clinton was a liar, adulterer, and general sleazebag was fairly well established before he was ever elected President. His draft-dodging, his affair with Jennifer Flowers, and other moral failings were all brought up during his first campaign. Yet he was elected. And elected again. Many of those same people who voted for him twice now profess to be shocked by his admitted actions. All of the scandals that have followed Clinton's presidency could have been predicted from the very start. If we elect a dog to be president, do we really have a right to be surprised when we find that the President has fleas?

12) Al Gore, man of the people

---

The only thing more Outrageous than Clinton's lying is the prospect of Al Gore becoming president. Conservatives who hope for Clinton's downfall should note that Gore was rated the most liberal member of the US Senate before he moderated his views to become Vice President under Clinton.

Whatever you may think of Clinton, he is, at-least, a self-made man, who rose from nothing to become the world's most predatory - we mean powerful - man. Nothing could be less true of Gore. His father served in the US Congress for 30 years. Al Gore was groomed for high-political office from birth, was first elected to the US Congress at age 28, and to the US Senate at age 36. He has never worked in the real America, and has absolutely no idea what life is like for most Americans.

Gore, of course, is also involved in his own scandal. It may eventually lead to his being charged with perjury, abuse of power, lying to the American people - well, you know the list by now.

13) The US Media: This is disgusting - read all about it.

---

Any scandal is a good scandal as far as the media is concerned, and while many reporters questioned the need for graphic descriptions of Clinton's sex life, every single major media web site either republished the Starr report or provided links to it.

Cast your vote now!

---

Well, that's the leading list of those who have done the most to degrade the standard of American political debate. Use the Rageback section below to cast your vote, or to nominate your own candidate.

Cast Your Vote:
http://www.dailyoutrage.com/rageback/98-9-13.html#soundoff

Read Rageback comments on this issue:
http://www.dailyoutrage.com/rageback/98-9-13.html#rage

Our personal recommendation is that all of those above be sent to an island and forced to live together. We realize this might violate the Constitutions's mandate against cruel and unusual punishment, but desperate times require desperate measures.

---

OUTRAGEOUS QUOTE!

The basis of effective government is public confidence, and that confidence is endangered when ethical standards falter or appear to falter.

-- John F. Kennedy message to Congress, April 27, 1961

from TPDL 1998-Dec-15, from the Washington Times, from "Inside the Beltway: Political tidbits and other shenanigans from around the nation's capital" by John McCaslin:

NOW view

The Dulles area chapter of the National Organization for Women is backing impeachment for Bill Clinton, "as we continue to call for the president's resignation so that the nation be spared further turmoil."

The group, which is at odds with its national leadership, said in a statement: "It is with pride that Dulles NOW activists watched the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee defend sexual harassment legislation, the indivisibility of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the rule of law and the Constitution.

"December 11th and 12th, 1998, are now landmark days in the evolution of the American women's movement as Republican legislators, and Republicans only, sent the unmistakable message that the specific rights of women will not be mocked, abused or denied by even the most powerful officeholder of the land, without consequences."

from George Will's column of 30 mar 1998:

[...]

In Uganda, which in the 1970s was governed by Gen. Idi Amin, Mr. Clinton encouraged Africans to dwell on the foreign sources of their sufferings.

He announced that slavery was "wrong" and he essentially apologized to all Africans for all the white people who bought African slaves captured by African sellers of African slaves. He also apologized because during the Cold War, America was more apt to be friendly to African nations that were friendly to America.

[...]

Mr. Clinton insists that being volubly embarrassed by one's country's actions is a form of patriotism.

The point is that Clinton is touring the world reinforcing, and even instilling, in the psyches of foreigners the concept that the United States is the cause of their suffering. This is diametrically opposed to the interests of national security, and sets the stage for an eventual cannabalization of the United States by the other nations of the world, if not as a direct consequence, then by providing powerful bystander nations with the ostensible moral authority to do so. This cannabalization would include the dissolution of the US constitution, and the subjection of the nation to UN policy and rule.

by Cal Thomas, via Secret Squirrel on Usenet (Cal Thomas writes for the Los Angeles Times Syndicate, Times Mirror Square, Los Angeles, CA 90053):

While in Uganda, the president said: "European-Americans received the fruits of the slave trade. And we were wrong in that .... " Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, who isn't worried about currying favor with blacks in his country, called the idea of a U.S. apology for slavery "rubbish." Museveni noted that "African chiefs were the ones waging war on each other and capturing their own people and selling them. If anyone should apologize it should be the African chiefs."

from Wayne Mann's TPDL of 15 May 1998

British Media Stress Sex Rather Than the Summit
By T. R. Reid
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, May 15, 1998; Page A30

[Editors Note: The world is laughing at us! Our country has lost all respect from other country's because of this corrupt pathological liar!]

BIRMINGHAM, England, May 14-It's not uncommon for the leader of the world's richest and strongest country to draw the lion's share of the media attention at the annual Group of Eight economic summit. But the British media's attention to President Clinton as he arrived here tonight for this year's meeting has focused primarily on the president's reputed sexual appetites.

An editorial cartoon in the relatively staid Birmingham Post captures the mood. It shows a young woman in a miniskirt heading out to a party. Her father stops her and says, "You're not leaving this house, young lady, as long as that Bill Clinton is in town."

[...]

Erosion of American prestige abroad erodes national security. It's as simple as that.

from TPDL 1998-Aug-4, from "Political tidbits and other shenanigans from around the nation's capital" by John McCaslin, from the Washington Times:

Taking its toll

"Recently," writes Julianne Ryder of Annandale, Va., "I saw a bumper sticker which read: 'Impeach Clinton -- For the Children.' Not such a bad idea, considering a recent conversation with my rising second-grader.

"During a weekend car trip I instructed my 6-year-old daughter, Caitlin, to amuse her 1-year-old brother, as he was growing restless in his car seat. She quickly obliged by setting up the following role-playing exercise: 'I will be the president and Patricia [Caitlin's favorite doll] will be the vice president.'

"I pointed out that she wasn't including her brother.

"In response she announced, grudgingly: 'Jack can be my lawyer.'"