25 September 2006

Narcissism, excuses and bile

As a police officer, the one thing about the job that I quickly got tired of enduring was the unending litany of excuses offered up by people being arrested. Whether it is as minor as a red light violation, or as severe as a Domestic Battery charge, the arrestee invariably sings a tale of woe in which the offender has rationalized every aspect of his behavior. He is now the victim. He had to do what he did because of -this-this-and-this. The litany of self-delusion is legion: "I was going to get medicine for my baby, and anyway - the light was yellow" or "I go to work everyday and pay all the bills! She knows that I want a hot dinner every night and it wasn't ready when I got home. And it's not the first time!"

The language of offenders and career criminals is rife with the abdication of responsibility. No matter how much you try to tell the person that what they did is wrong, most refuse to face up to fact and admit responsibility. A relative of mine has been arrested for multiple DUIs. The last time he was arrested was about 5 years ago. He was bowling with some friends that night and drove home through a southern suburb. The officers curbed him because he had a tail light out and that led to his arrest for DUI. To this day (and yes, he still drinks) when he's asked about it he'll sigh heavily and say,"If I'd only gotten that taillight fixed none of that would've happened."

I feel like shaking him and saying,"What about the 6 pitchers of beer you drank at bowling, you numbskull! Do you think that had anything to do with it!" But sadly he'll never understand that he's an alcoholic, that he terrorized his kids for decades with his drunken rages, that he endangered people's lives and that he is responsible for his own actions.

So now we have an offender back in the public eye, whining and simmering with hostility because the MSM caught up to his pranks and misdemeanors. Six years after leaving office, an office which he used to satisfy his own whims, fantasies and sexual excapades - Bill Clinton is still concerned about preserving his legacy and protecting his precious and fragile ego. Chris Wallace interviewed the disgraced former president and asked him some tough questions. Slick Willy rolled into his usual temper tantrum when asked to discuss things that make him look bad. Like his failures to do anything about global terrorism, the murders of Americans and his utter lack of concern about Osama bin Laden.

Sadly, this entire incident speaks volumes about how the press have given Clinton a pass for his transgressions, and, maybe more important, the danger of such negligence. When one watches this interview, it is easy to see a man that is unused to challenging questions from the media. After all, this is the first time that Clinton agreed to be on Fox News Sunday, and, as a result, he’s become so accustomed to the softballs fed to him by folks like Tim Russert and George Stephanopoulos that he feels it’s his right to not be challenged.
Just look at some of the disdain Clinton showed for his interviewer all because he was asked a question he didn’t want to answer:

You set this meeting up because you were going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers because Rupert Murdoch is going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers for supporting my work on Climate Change. And you came here under false pretenses and said that you’d spend half the time talking about…You said you’d spend half the time talking about what we did out there to raise $7 billion dollars plus over three days from 215 different commitments. And you don’t care.

Or, how about this wonderful statement by a former president

And you’ve got that little smirk on your face. It looks like you’re so clever…

Or this one:

So you did FOX’s bidding on this show. You did your nice little conservative hit job on me.



According to Byron York in National Review, Clinton never ordered Bin Laden killed, he simply tried to "convince" that it be done - not so much as "order" it. When the CIA dragged its feet at getting OBL, Clinton just gave up. All of this is documented in Richard Clarke's book Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror. Clinton wants us to read that book so that he'll be vindicated for public criticisms.

wjc_legacy

Sorry Bill. The book, which Clinton cites 11 times during the interview, does nothing to aleviate WJClinton from being the one who dropped the ball.

Examples are all over Clarke's book.

On page 223, Clarke describes a meeting, in late 2000, of the National Security Council's principals; among them, the heads of the CIA, the FBI, the Attorney General, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the secretaries of State, Defense. It was just after al Qaeda's attack on the USS Cole. But neither the FBI nor the CIA would say that al Qaeda was behind the bombing, and there was little support for a retaliatory strike. Clarke quotes Mike Sheehan, a State Department official, saying in frustration, "What's it going to take, Dick? Who the shit do they think attacked the Cole, fucking Martians? The Pentagon brass won't let Delta go get bin Laden. Hell they won't even let the Air Force carpet bomb the place. Does al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon to get their attention?"

That came later. But in October 2000, what would it have taken? A decisive presidential order which never came. ~~Byron York


You can't run away from the fact that Clinton was a disaster. A trained ape who's antics in the White House disgraced the office. He was impeached for lying under oath and let's not forget all the scandals, conspiracies and macabre deaths.

Clinton is a little boy who never grew up. The left loves him because he was a charmer who said whatever people wanted to hear. He ran his life on polling - whatever the polls said, Clinton did. He never did and will never accept responsibilty for anything that he's ever done: the rapes, the excesses or the bad decisions. They are good at blaming the rightwingers, the conservatives the neocons - but never will they take an inch of responsibility.

The underlying principles that shore up the Clintons are vapidity and rhetoric. But those can only last so long. The Clintons are a House of Cards and I hope that this glimpse into their "glaring character defects" goes a long way into keeping another person like them from becoming commander in chief.

Offenders belong in jail - not running the country.

For further reading, check out here

keywords: Clinton, Legacy, Fox News

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

I stumbled on your blog by accident and can honestly say that I wish I had not.

That said, however, I wonder when you say that the former president did naught but disgrace his office, how you can ignore that when Clinton left office the US had a budget surplus, that gas was not going up to $3+ in the summer only to inexplicably come back down in the winter months to a more reasonable price?

Have you forgotten how the Congress, conservatives and the media responded when Clinton did sign the executive order that resulted in missile attacks on two locations in the Sudan during the midst of the Lewinsky scandal? He was accused of trying to rediret attention away from the scandal by ordering the attacks, when in fact they were meant to disrupt al-Qaeda?

Where's your outrage over the Bush administration's failure to act once it was decided that al-Qaeda was behind the Cole bombing?

How do you explain the precipitous drop in American prestige since Clinton left office? Or the fact that Social Security (which had been on its way to solvency) is now fast approaching bankruptcy once again. How can you disregard tax cuts that have helped the top one percent increase their personal earnings so that it is greater that $18,001 for every $1 roughly 90% of Americans make?

How do you ignore that we are currently engaged in a conflict that costs our country $21 million a day to fight. Could not that money have been better spent addressing social inequality here in our own country? Or even used in part to get our intelligence agencies better technology that would help them capture Bin Ladin?

How is it that you can ignore reports from those same intelligence agencies that have found that the presence of US troops in Iraq have only served to exascerbate our problems with Muslim extremists rather than do anything to subdue them?

How can you overlook the things that the Bush administration has done that have circumvented or violated clearly established laws that have served the country when confronted by a multitude of threats?

Now that Bush has admitted that Iraq and Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, where is your moral outrage at the way he and his administration mislead us? Do you lump him and his advisors among those criminals who you say belong in jail?

I guess I just don't understand how people can allow Clinton's marital indiscretion overshadow the good things he did accomplish as president, all under the guise of moral outrage.

Do not mistake me. I am certainly not saying that his presidency was mistake free, but can you honestly (and unbiasly) look at the things these two presidents have done and say that we are better off now?

Rue St. Michel said...

Yes I can. You are wrong and misguided.

How did you find my blog? Is there a link to me over at DailyKos???

coldtype said...

RSM, you neglected to address any of his points. The NIE has confirmed what intelligence analyist had predicted before the Bush administration's illegal war of aggresssion in Iraq. Iraq would become a breeding ground for terrorist, thereby increasing the potential for blowback such as that which occured on 9/11.

American foreign policy is the greatest threat to peace on earth--something the dangerous ultra-nationalists in the White House have proven time and again.

Furthermore, the available evidence is overwhelming that the Bush administration completely ignored Osama prior to 9/11, it's principals being obsessed with removing Saddam--who kept Al Qaeda out of Mesopotamia.

The facts speak for themselves, the Bush administration's foreign policy has been a gift beyond Osama's wildest dreams.

Anonymous said...

Wouldn't it be more constructive to tell me how my assertions are wrong using facts rather than what I can only assumed are your clearly biased and ill-informed opinions.

And I found the blog via the Washington Post site.

Anonymous said...

qAlthough I am left-leaning most of the time, I sometimes visit your blogsite just to get another point of view. And sometimes I even agree with your opinions. But this time I think you're just being biased Rue. I'll be the first to admit Clinton was no saint. But I wouldn't want someone like that running the country anyway. Politics is a dirty bussiness. President Bush may be "born again" but he's a long way from being a saint himself. How he can sleep at night knowing that over two and a half thousand troops are dead because of his personal vendetta against Saddam Hussien speaks volumes about his integrity. And before you say it,no I'm not a pacifist. I'm a veteran who served his country proudly for six years. The war in Iraq is a farse and anyone with a ounce of logic KNOWS it. When the twin towers were hit, Bush made his case eloquently for the invasion of Afghanistan. I supported him then, Isupport our presence in Afghanistan now. What I don't support is the strategy being employed in the search for Al Ouida and Osama Bin Laden. He has never made a credible case for our presence in Iraq. His initial reasons have all turned out to be without merit. His Secretary of Defense (Rumsfeld) will go down in history as the most inept person ever to hold the office. His Secretary of State (Rice) has presided over the worst peroid of diplomatic relations with the rest of the world in our nations history. Illegals stream over the border while he remains mute over the subjects of immigration and border control. The Democrats are WORSE on this issue than the GOP. But I expected better from Bush on this. I say all this to illustrate the point that while Clinton was no Washigton or Lincoln, He was a more capable President,Statesman and Commander in Chief than Bush could ever hope to be. He may have lied about a exramarital affair,but at least he has no blood on his hands. I know you disagree with my opinion Rue,and it is just my opinion after all. But I truly beleive history will judge Bush more harshly than Clinton. I know you take exception to the Commander in Chief statement but none of the generals in the Pentagon turned on Clinton and his cabinet. I know you have no use for the UN. Neither do I. But when Hugo Chavez stood up at the UN and made the remarks about the President and all the assembly did was laugh and nod their heads spoke VOLUMES.

Rue St. Michel said...

Thanks for sharing your opinion. I appreciate hearing from the "other side" and some of what you say is right on - Chavez, UN...etc.

I think that problem with Bush is not he's everything - and less - than what the Leftists say. I think it all comes down to cynicism.

There is currently an extraordinarily high level of cynicism in our media, government and society. You look back at our history over the last 50 years and the level of lies and deceipt from the very hands that were supposed to be dealing directly with us, is unreal.

The lies are legion: the Bay of Pigs, Gulf of Tonkin, the myth of JFK and Camelot, WaterGate, IranGate ... and the list goes on.

So now we're at a crossroads where we don't trust anybody - not the president, not our politicians, not our media, not our clergy (they could be childmolesters, fer chrissakes!) and not, well, anything.

So the reason I'm not going to reply, refute, the postings above yours is that I'm not going to waste my time. Their minds are made up and the cynicism is cemented.

I stand by my words: Clinton was a disaster. Bush is straightforward and his actions match his words. Clinton was a lying scoundrel who "couldn't walk the talk" - He was the ultimate smarmy, greasy politician who thought he could do whatever he wanted. I'll bet he did rape all those women, afterall. He's a sexual addict who is in full denial. He sold our secrets to China and others and was a sincere security gap.

Just go and get "Legacy" by Rich Lowry. It'll open your eyes.

Semper fidelis!

Anonymous said...

My mind is by far not made up and I am by no means steeped in cynicism. Looks to me like you are using that as an excuse to avoid answering my legitimate questions.

So lacking in cynicism am I that I thought asking questions regarding information I understood to be factual of a person who clearly resides on the right leaning side of the political spectrum might result in an honest exchange of ideas based on the results of Clinton's presidency and what Bush has done so far.

Clearly I was overly optimistic as the only argument you can come up with is to return over and over to unsubstantiated claims about Clinton's sexual proclivities and alleged misconduct.

Why are you so obsessed with who he was boffing? I'll be frank, like it isn't my business that one of my neighbors is a kept woman, neither is it my business to judge Clinton for his conduct within the confines of his marriage.

You claim that Bush is straightfoward. How can that be when he and his administration overstated the possibility that Saddam had WMDs? And what happened to the link between Al-Qaeda and Saddam that the president went out of his way to try and establish only to retract it now that we are involved in a conflict from which we cannot easily extract ourselves?

What about the assertion that the war would not be costly, when in fact the people who's job it is to figure that stuff out say they were threatened if they did not go along with the lowball numbers the administration originally set for this conflict?

How straightforward is a man who cannot admit that he has made mistakes? Why would you want to follow someone incapable of acknowledging missteps?

What about the illegal wiretapping? Seems like he could just get a warrant? How is that through countless conflicts other president's managed to keep Americans and the Homeland safe without violating the Constituion or civil rights of U.S. citizens (with the exception of Japanese internment camps of course0?

How is it those same presidents were able to interpret the Geneva Conventions and to interrogate suspects without torture, while Bush cannot.

I was disappointed in your initial post on Clinton's interview because it seemed to ignore well-established facts put out by the bi-partisan 9/11 commission. My disappointment continues because like most of your ilk you would rather cleeve to a president who does not tell us the truth about why we are at war, why tax cuts for the top 1 percent are important. Clinton was not truthful in the Monica Lewinsky debacle, but I say again that's no one's business but his wife's.

It is possible to do credit to the job of president and have moral failings, you know. How is that you judge Clinton so harshly and continue to give Bush a pass when the state of our nation is considerably worse now than it was before Bush took office?

Sabian said...

Holy Cow!!!!!!! talk about many, many points and LONG rebuttals. I felt like I was reading a trial transcript from closing arguments.

Rue, you described the intro of the person who has a zillion excuses to absolve himself of responsibility and accountability. I agree. I am a big believer in the research of Dr.Samuel Yochelson
and Dr. Stanton Samenow. They did years of research and application on criminal behavior and criminal thinking. The "errors in thinking" they devised fit many criminals and many politicians....including WJC. The things he says and what other pols say is no different than what you hear on a daily basis Rue...and so do I. I love challenging criminals on their maladaptive thinking and tactics they use to avoid responsibility. Everyone has a choice. When one choice leads them into the system they choose to deny it and blame others or their circumstances. The teachings of Yochelson and Samenow have been very helpful to me in my job and in my politics.
And, for the first poster who stumbled over here.....lay off the tainted Kool Aid.