Lusting after a legacy (IV): Clinton and Carter form anti-Bush alliance
Suffice it to say, over the past two and a half years, the fifth column of the leftist media have deliberately joined forces with Bill Clinton in a feeble attempt to resuscitate his despicable legacy. Now, another equally subversive ex-presidential mole, Jimmy Carter, has been ratcheting up his own sophomoric efforts to re-script his pathetic legacy.
Traditionally, former presidents have typically shown great respect toward sitting presidents by remaining silent about any criticism they may have wanted to direct at that administration’s foreign policy, especially on issues of national security. For instance, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan and Bush, Sr., to name a few, all respected one another’s respective presidencies and even gave off-the-record advice, when asked.
Carter, on the other hand, has teamed up with Clinton in an unholy alliance to declare war on the Bush administration.
With both former presidents relentlessly Bush-bashing, legacy-spinning and re-writing their way into the history books, is it any wonder they have been hurling treasonously vitriolic rhetoric as a ruse to cover their own political failings?
The simple truth is, Carter and Clinton are cut from the same cloth.
The former, under his watch, spinelessly gave away the Panama Canal and ordered a boycott of the Olympics during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan; the latter has been condemning Bush for an impending use of force against Iraq, yet was more than willing to use it himself when he launched 450 missiles into Baghdad as an obvious deflection on the evening before his impeachment proceedings.
But the equally shameful part of their unconscionable displays of anti-American and anti-war sentiment is not just that they are former presidents who’ve broken an unwritten rule: It’s the fact that Clinton and Carter are attacking Bush on foreign soil. For example, Clinton joined Nelson Mandela in an anti-war coalition of 75 Rhode Scholars last fall; and Carter recently rallied with London’s liberal newspaper, the Daily Mirror, in its “Not in My Name” global anti-war campaign.
As more countries increasingly side with Bush and Tony Blair in an imminent war with Iraq, Clinton and Carter are being exposed for the political frauds they have always been. And although it is one of its many journalistic mandates, their liberal media cohorts have blatantly refused to uncover Clinton and Carter’s inexcusable coercion. Not ABC, CBS, NBC, and certainly not CNN, third-rate hack MSNBC or taxpayer subsidized PBS. All have consistently remained mute on any criticism of Clinton or any Democrat for that matter.
Clinton’s 1998 bogus war against terrorism
Despite his treasonous opposition to the U.S.’s looming war, Clinton’s 1998 bombing of Baghdad indeed turned out to be an obvious “Wag the Dog” ruse. In fact, it was played out in front of the entire world before he was impeached the following day for lying under oath to a federal grand jury, suborning witnesses, tampering with evidence, trying to coerce key witnesses into signing false affidavits and other numerous felonies.
But where were the anti-war protests when Clinton waged his bogus war against Iraq? And where was the vehemently public outrage and anger toward Clinton that is now being openly displayed toward Bush?
Judging from the anti-war liberal media and the Hollywood left, it’s outrageously hypocritical of them to question the Bush Administration’s use of force when there was no ire over Clinton’s war on Iraq, Bosnia and Afghanistan?
To illustrate, last Sunday, Fox News Channel’s Tony Snow asked Tinseltown left-wing nut Janeane Garofalo that very question. Garofalo nonchalantly blathered: “It wasn’t very hip”to protest Clinton’s wars. In fact, not only was it unfashionable for fellow leftists like Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins to publicly disparage Clinton; it wasn’t very hip for the Democratic media mouthpieces to protest Clinton’s bogus war either.
According to Newsmax.com, a Lexis-Nexis search of December 1998 failed to turn up a single news story that mentioned Sarandon or Robbins protesting the attacks. However, a similar search this month (February 2003) turned up a whopping 124 stories on Sarandon vehemently protesting President Bush’s Iraq policy.
Despite the leftist media embargo and formidable anti-war slant, a further look into Clinton’s use – or, more appropriately, abuse – of the military as a means to his own selfish ends might hold the key as to why he was so soft on terrorism, especially after ignoring the initial warning signs of the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.
A 2001 report from Accuracy in Media (AIM) – a media watchdog group that reports the new stories that the liberal media either screw up or boycott – cited a Washington Post story about the Sept. 11 attacks.
(It’s important to keep in mind that these terrorist attacks were being planned over a two-year period on Clinton’s watch. These terrorists were working completely undetected, while feeling totally safe from harm under the Clinton regime. But why was that? It was due mainly to decimated intelligence agencies, weakened national security operations, as well as an emasculated military that Clinton financially gutted and privately loathed during his entire presidential tenure.)
In Swiss television journalist Richard Labeviere’s book, Dollars for Terror, he suggests that “the international Islamic networks linked to bin Laden had been nurtured by elements of the U.S. intelligence community, especially during the Clinton years.”
According to the AIM report, between 1994 and 1997:
“Bill Clinton was happy to allow Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to support the Taliban, seeing them as a useful counterbalance to Iran’s influence…” In August 1998, the situation seemed to change when Bin Laden was blamed for the destruction of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
“Bin Laden was placed on the FBI’s Most Wanted List and was reported to be in Afghanistan. But Labeviere says the State Department did not exert any real pressure on the Taliban to apprehend him. It has subsequently been reported that the Clinton Administration had specific intelligence information about bin Laden’s whereabouts but opted against attacking or apprehending him. It also turns out that one of bin Laden’s alleged patrons had a lawyer connected to the Clinton administration.”
What’s more, syndicated columnist Larry Elder exposed Clinton’s abhorrent hypocrisy in forming an anti-war alliance with Carter. He compared the nearly identical statements of Clinton and Bush concerning the use of force in Iraq:
On Dec. 19, 1998, Clinton said:“Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. . . . Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. . . . Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons…
“The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm’s way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq’s military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties. . . . Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. . . . But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America’s vital interests, we will do so.”
On Jan. 28, 2003, George W. Bush said: “Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks, to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons is to dominate, intimidate or attack. With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region…
“Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a president can make. The technologies of war have changed, the risks and suffering of war have not. For the brave Americans, this nation fights reluctantly because we know the cost and we dread the days of mourning that always come. We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes, peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means, sparing, in every way we can, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military.”
As Elder observed: What a difference an administration makes. Clearly, the two faces of Bill Clinton are apparent. He only threw around his bellicose blathers as a means to an end. And like everything else he does for political gain, he did it without taking into account the ramifications of his actions – or inactions.
Carter’s equally anti-American while traveling abroad
Like new anti-war pal Clinton, Carter has been equally subversive in his condemnation of the Bush administration and U.S. foreign policy while traveling aboard.
Despite shamelessly accepting the Nobel Peace Prize a few months ago, Carter waxed self-aggrandizing when Gunnar Berge, chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee arrogantly equated the honor “as a criticism” of the Bush administration.
“Mr. Carter not only accepted the award under these circumstances; he used his speech to subtly cast doubt on the administration’s actions and intentions regarding Iraq,” said Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal’s crown jewel, the well-written, thought-provoking, conservative OpinionJournal.com.
“Mr. Carter tours Europe giving help to those who oppose the American government’s intentions; at home in Georgia, he tells a British tabloid he admires its “Not in My Name” campaign to increase world opposition to the U.S. government.”
While campaigning against possible military invention in Iraq, it’s also important to note Carter’s own failed attempt to free 66 American hostages in Iran. His inept performance in the crisis and subsequent disastrous attempt to rescue them in1979 ultimately cost him as far as being remembered for doing truly noteworthy. Although Carter helped negotiate the hostages’ release shortly before leaving office, his political fate was already sealed.
Despite Clinton and Carter leaving behind miserably culpable presidential legacies, the leftist media and Hollywood really could care less. But if Clinton or Carter would have been Republicans, the history books would have recorded something else. Instead of getting free passes by the liberal media, their heads would have been served on a platter.
The anti-war “peaceniks” and the leftist media talking heads have definitely made a clear distinction between the presidencies of Clinton and George W. Bush. Bottom line: The current administration is conservative Republican. Translation: The anti-war protests are really anti-Bush protests in disguise.
As a result, both Clinton and Carter are daily demonstrating that they are traitors in the truest sense of the word. By opposing the Bush administration and refusing to keep silent in their criticism, they only prove to further support our enemies by opposing Bush’s efforts in the war on terrorism.
Moreover, the blatant disdain that the liberal media establishment have spewed out daily toward Bush is really an assault on what he stands for as a president. In their twisted world, conservatism and capitalistic values have no place. In their view, socialism, fascism, Marxism, Communism and Stalinism reign supreme.
Democratic mouthpiece and Clinton apologist, Dan Rather, has already proven how far he will go to try to revive his low-rated 22-minute nightly editorial he tries to pass off as a newscast. Not only did Rather sell out to Saddam; he used the interview for his own selfish agenda.
Although they have a right to free speech, if the left-wing press and Hollywood quasi-pundits can’t support our president, they should do what Alec Baldwin promised to do if Bush was elected (but still has yet to do): Leave the country. By railing against Bush, they are actually supporting and showing sympathy toward our enemies. And Clinton and Carter certainly haven’t helped matters.
Bottom line: In the now-immortal words of Republican Senator John McCain, it is time for Clinton and Carter to shut up. Equally, one of the best ways the liberal media and Hollywood left can support the war on terrorism is to start by duct taping their mouths.
“Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact.”