The Clinton’s Myth Regarding their Foreign Policy History

Poor Bill Clinton. Until Hillary lugged him into the race, mostly because of her lackluster showing, his reputation as a President was fairly good. Of course the most impressive feature of his Administration was the infamous balanced budget, which he, and now Hillary, claim was the reult of their efforts. This is but one of countless claims that aren’t true, at least not completely true. At the time Bill actually insisted the budget couldn’t be balanced, while Newt Gingrich, who had included that goal in the Contract with America, drove it through Congress. But why not take complete credit for it? After all, Bill knows only too well, Americans customarily have short-term memories regarding history.

After Iowa, the cunning twisting of facts has become routine for the Clintons, especially regarding Hillary’s "35 years of working for change." Does she count the six years (’86-’92) she sat on the board for Wal-Mart? It’s never entirely clear what she’s citing as "experience" or "change" or "experience as a changer." Now, after being aloof, she’s finally decided to take questions from the unwashed masses. Perhaps, if she gets a moment she’ll clarify her credentials more accurately and comprehensively, though her zealous followers don’t seem to care.

Fearful that Obama might bury her in New Hampshire, Bill started firing away, recklessly at times, discrediting Obama’s record. He claims that Obama’s image as an anti-war candidate is a "fairy tale." Two things, however, are clear: Obama didn’t vote for W’s preemptive War on Iraq, which Hillary did, and he didn’t vote for Kyl-Lieberman, which branded the Iranian guards terrorists. For the latter vote, Obama would have a stronger position today had he voted against it rather than not voting.

What’s exceedingly strange about Bill’s attack is his own conflicted history in foreign policy. And since Hillary’s claiming part of her experience included her eight years as First Lady, she’s also tied to that history. It’s as if they expect the unsuspecting public to not look into his/her record concerning war and other foreign matters and thus are comfortably pointing fingers. In retropsect it would’ve been smart had Bill kept his mouth shut. The Clintons are responsible for an enormous coverup of their own actions - one, figuratively equivalent to a grand myth. Anti-war "leaders"? Not on your life.

It must be said that Bill Clinton is a brilliant man - OK, a genius - mostly, however, regarding the absorption of information, the understanding of the electorate, and the ways of politics. Unfortunately, he didn’t have much of a liberal plan, as did JFK with the War on Poverty or LBJ with The Great Society. That’s one reason the Republicans took over the House with resounding success during his Administration. In fact, since Jimmy Carter’s Presidency, facilitated in part by David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission, the Democrats have been working almost on empty regarding a solid, profound platform, other than a general aim to care for the people.

Kerry’s "Reporting for duty" salute - part jest, part jingoism - typifies the Democrat’s problem. Accordingly, Bill was greatly pressured by the right wing, especially the newly formed Neocons under the auspices of the Project for the New American Century to tilt their way. Indeed, in ’98 the PNAC, with Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz signing on, sent Bill a letter, urging him to attack Iraq. See:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/i... .

It was a remarkably influential effort that, subsequently, changed the course of American foreign policy. It led directly to H.R. 4655 on Oct. 31, ’98 specifically calling for regime change. In response, Bill approved Operation Desert Fox - a bombing mission on Iraq during Dec. of ’98, aimed at undermining Saddam’s regime. That was the prelude to what would become, after 9/11, the "War on Terror."

Also, the act of bombing the Serbs in ’99 - which was not officially approved by Congress - established the precedent for the preemptive initiative taken by W against Saddam in ’03. Bill - the baby kissing, minority "loving," supposedly peacenik President - in fact capitulated to the right, since he had no alternative defense, guttedwelfare and social programs (which ultmately were transferred into corporate welfare) and laid the groundwork for the PNAC to pursue its neoimperialistic aims.

That charge doesn’t include Bill’s approach to Usama bin Laden. Arguably, bombing the innocuous pill factory was unavoidable, or not. That’s another issue. What he did do, however, was to provide the right wing a pathway for its grand desires to control as much of the world as possible and to "democratize" the Islamic nations via "The Clash of Civilizations."

These are not scurrilous charges or motivated by hatred; they are the facts, substantiated by numerous empirically supported records. As a consequence of these activities - affairs that Hillary is aligning her "35 years of change" with - it doesn’t take much extrapolation to see a connection between Hillary’s pro-"War on Terror" support and the five year legacy of PNAC that she was personally aware of as First Lady. When she witnessed those pro-war efforts, fortified by William Kristol’s Weekly Standard editorials, Norman Podhoretz’s writings, and other PNAC essays, how was it that she didn’t understand that W, given the preemptive approval she voted for, would’ve done what he did?

Of course he was going to do what he did because the Neocon crew around him had been aiming to do just that since at least ’98. And Bill and Hillary both knew it, though, you might argue, weren’t in complete agreement. Yes, Hillary’s right (in more than one way) that she’s been associated with change, but not the kind of change that has helped America. Indeed, it’s now time to change that change and get back to sanity.