Stephen L. Miller:
The country, in desperate need of a path forward, is on the verge of re-litigating the wreckage of our political past. A 68-year-old Hillary Clinton is trying to paint herself as a candidate of the future — an attempt to find stable ground in facing younger more fresh-faced Republican opponents and reset her image after 25 years of being in the public eye.
Despite the need to downplay her status as a permanent political fixture, her campaign has announced they are finally letting former president Bill Clinton off the leash, in hopes of syphoning off his media popularity. But as has happened with every other candidate in the race, the attention has turned squarely from this maneuver to Donald Trump. Trump has been playing the Ghost of Christmas Past in responding to charges from Hillary and members of her campaign that Trump is simply “sexist” for attacking her, even as tepidly as he has up to this point.
Trump, as inarticulate as he can be, has used the occasion to subtly remind Hillary and Bill of their own past indiscretions concerning treatment of women and is, as always, using free media exposure to drive home his point. A network media complex that’s been all too happy to put Trump front and center for clicks and ratings now find themselves awkwardly on the defense against their own lionizing of Bill Clinton.
Savannah Guthrie approached the subject in a Today show interview with Trump with the tried and true Bill Maher defense of President Clinton’s relationship with then-20-year-old White House intern Monica Lewinsky as merely a private and personal “extra-marital affair.” Guthrie even went so far as to call it an “alleged” affair, before conceding that Clinton had of course admitted to it.
Guthrie insinuated, as have others in media, that questions about Bill Clinton’s behavior while in office are somehow off limits, yet his record as president is something to be admired and remembered, a record Hillary Clinton this campaign season has selectively distanced herself from on many occasions.
The media apparently believe that remarking on the party-boy antics of Bill somehow makes the people in the country that elected him into unwelcome voyeurs, peering into the private life of a governing executive. But the Clintons dragged the country into the mess of their personal lives, not the other way around.
What neither defensive liberal media nor the Clinton campaign quite get is that if they want to set rules in stone for how we talk about “rape culture” and sexual harassment, then the former president and his defenders can’t complain when his actions are judged by those standards.
Lena Dunham asks us to accept at face value claims she made that she was sexually assaulted in college, then openly campaigns for the Clintons, who virtually destroyed the personal reputations of women over similar claims. Is Dunham or her fans aware of Clinton confidant James Carville’s referring to Bill Clinton accuser Paula Jones as “coming out of the trailer parks”? Or, as far as culture shapers and Hollywood are concerned, does the injunction to always believe victims depend on what side of the political aisle a woman happens to fall on?
Last year, on the heels of the explosive and discredited rape accusations against a fraternity at UVA leveled by journalist Sabrina Erdely and Rolling Stone, Zerlina Maxwell, a Washington Post contributor and progressive women’s rights activist, wrote a column with the headline, “No Matter What Jackie Said, We Should Automatically Believe Rape Claims.” (The title of the article was later stealth-edited, but the URL link contains the original title.)
Earlier that year, appearing on MSNBC in a segment featuring comments Rand Paul had made about the media giving Bill Clinton a pass, Maxwell said:
I’m very uncomfortable, mainly because one, it’s old news. I’m not condoning anything President Clinton did in the Nineties obviously, but I would say that this is being used to hit Hillary Clinton and this is not an attack on President Clinton, it’s an attack on Hillary and the underlying message there is blatant sexism. Why are we even talking about what President Clinton did in the Nineties. The only reason is because Hillary is running. And it’s not her fault, so why are we even talking about it in this moment.
Let’s navigate through that word salad and get right to Maxwell’s point: Why are we even addressing this again? It’s because the Clintons have asked us to address it.
The country is not asking Hillary Clinton to run for president (again), she is asking the country to elect her, and we have every right to know what exactly we’re getting with the Clintons (again).
Upon Hillary’s inauguration, Bill Clinton will not just be stashed away on an island off shore with a volleyball never to be heard from for four to eight years. Just this week, she said he would play an integral part in advising her on everything from economics to foreign policy.
The Democratic party hopes to bring the Clintons back to the White House after successfully tarring their Republican opponent with the “war on women” charge. The attacks on the Clintons by Rand Paul, Donald Trump, and other candidates undermine that narrative, which in the case of Gennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinsky, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick, and Paula Jones is more important to them than defending the lives and reputations of women.
This was a double mistake for Hillary.
Donald Trump can attack her on her hypocrisy because she picks and chooses which women she considers being at war FOR or at war AGAINST.
But, on top of that, Hillary has been a low energy candidate who hides more often than not.
Like Jeb Bush, Trump can now attack her for being of such low energy that she cannot even hit the campaign trail hard.
Her use of Bill Clinton will be shown as her slacking off even more.
As it is, Trump says Hillary has a campaign stop then takes three or four days off …… to rest.
He is already making a great point of her inability to be a 24-7 president.
Adding Bill to help her out on the campaign trail only makes her look even weaker!
It should never have been questioned whether or not Bill was fair game. He will, as Hillary did as First Shrew, dictate policy and promote his own agenda.
Scandal? Are you referring to the irrelevant extramarital peccadillo the GOP became so obsessively fixated on that they totally ignored Bill Clinton’s warnings about the growing threat of Osama bin Laden? The one that they insisted Clinton’s missile attack on al Qaeda targets was only an effort to distract us from? Is that the one you’re referring to?
@Bill: Don’t you just love the leftists who revise history and post their deranged thoughts here? If they had even a sliver of a rational thought, they would just shut up instead of continuing to make fools of themselves.
This is not revised history. It’s what actually happened. Clinton was accused of conducting missile strikes against al Qaeda to divert attention from the GOP’s Lewinsky circus. It was widely described as a “wag the dog” ploy.
Over the past 7 years right has attempted to defame and destroy Barack Obama the same way that they attempted to defame and destroy Bill Clinton, through a continuous campaign of disinformation and character assassination. It’s the same bullshit tactic they’ll rely on in their effort to destroy Hillary Clinton.
Meanwhile, they’ve accomplished absolutely nothing useful despite having control of both houses of Congress for a year, and have a total jackass who says little or nothing substantive as a front runner in their race for a 2016 presidential nominee. They’re a national embarrassment, but half the country can’t see it. That’s the reality.
Hillary has rode Bills back to where she is bashing and threatening every one of his victims. Rape ,sexual harrassment , and the fact that she wouldnt kick the dog to the curb for the “affairs” demonstrates how weak and stupid she really is. They left the whitehouse broke by paying off women he had molested, so she steals items on her exit and only has to return 200K worth of them. She is an ignorant harpy.
Those who revised history continue to change the subject and scream louder the lies of revision thinking that can change the truth. Facts are inconvenient. The ends justifies the means. Gather a consensus rather than find truth. These are all tactics of those who have their fingers in their ears and can only shout louder to justify their ideology.
@Greg: You really just acknowledge the bits of history that you can fit into a liberal narrative, don’t you? Actual facts, actual circumstances, actual cause and effect have no bearing on the liberal narrative, do they?
Lies, Greg. Lies. All of the Clinton’s problems have come from them lying. They lied about their investments, they lied about their political dealings and the resolution of the lies led to other lies, then others then ultimately to Bill splattered stain on Monica’s dress. Then, to impeachment.
Lies dragged out the Benghazi hearings. Lies dragged out the IRS hearings. Lies, lies, lies, Greg. Lies. That’s all liberals are about. Lies. Liberals lie and then they lie about the lies.
You have to appreciate the entire scenario, Greg, to get the picture, though I have a sneaking suspicion you are well aware. After all, you ARE a liberal.
You know it wasn’t just a pursuit of an affair. You know how we got there. You know the lowly character of Bill and of Hillary and how, together, their character does not improve but, in fact, gets lower. You know all this. What’s worse, you know WE know all this.
The lies have taken control of you, Greg. The only way to break free is to realize and openly admit that liberalism is a structure of lies built upon a foundation of lies, with lies as the furnishings and fixtures. Or, just keep lying to the people who know you are lying and that know YOU know you are lying.
As has been pointed out, When Clinton lied, nobody died.
The right should either come to terms with the Bush administration lies that led to an unnecessary war and the unnecessary loss of thousands of American soldiers’ lives—not to mention the eventual rise of ISIS—or lay the hell off their politically opportunistic persecution of a well-liked American president whose error was to try to cover up an instance of marital infidelity that wasn’t anybody else’s damn business to begin with.
Republicans might want to consider why it is that Bill Clinton remains a popular public figure and an active Democratic campaigner, while they won’t even invite his successor to their own political conventions. On some level, they’re obviously aware there’s a problem.
Well, actually they did. 2,996 died on 9/11 because Clinton was doing everything but what he was elected to do. Had Clinton not been corrupt, not lied about it, not abused women, not had affairs in the Oval Office, perhaps he would have done something himself about bin Laden instead of “warning” the next guy.
If he had all that warning to do, why didn’t Clinton have measures in place to go along with the threat you say he perceived? What was in place, Greg? What was the threat to the homeland Clinton perceived and warned, so conscientiously (you say) about that he took no steps or made no efforts to avert himself?
Now would be a good time to refer back to my post #8, Greg.
What lies, Greg? Come to terms with what, exactly? The faulty, yet ardently supported intelligence the Clinton administration left Bush? The need for “regime change” that both Bill and Hillary pushed for, in addition to every other prominent Democrat (for it before they were against it)? What lies, specifically, Greg? See #8.
Refer back to #8 again, Greg. It explains that as well. The media has lied and covered for the Clinton’s along with the fact that liberals simply do not place any value in honesty or integrity… as exhibited by their ongoing support for Hillary and Obama. Oh, there’s a problem, alright.
The 9/11 attack didn’t take place on Bill Clinton’s watch. It took place during the 9th month of George W. Bush’s presidency—nine months during which Bush and Cheney assiduously ignored the increasingly urgent warnings of George Tenet and Cofer Black that we were going to be hit by al Qaeda.
Clinton would be the guy who launched 75 Tomahawk missiles at al Qaeda training camps and leadership targets in August 1998. Rightly or wrongly, he also ordered the destruction of the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan, which intelligence had linked to personnel involved in the Iraqi nerve gas program and to Sudan’s National Islamic Front. Perhaps his focus would have been a little better if his presidency hadn’t been under constant attack by a team of full-time republican witch hunters, who apparently considered Monica Lewinsky to be a more serious threat (or greater political opportunity) than Osama bin what’s-his-name.
So it is your contention that the entire bin Laden/al Qaeda threat materialized after January 20, 2001? The Bill Clinton could have done nothing to address it during the 8 years he was President (note the original WTC attack was in 1993) but the entire responsibility is borne by Bush, who had 9 months to realize the threat (since Clinton apparently didn’t realize it… right? By your own argument here.) and defend against it, taking into account the level of defensiveness the left has for Muslims and radical Islam? Really?
I point once again to #8, Greg. Dishonest or delusional, Greg. Choose one. Those are your choices for your argument.
Obviously not, since I just pointed out that Bill Clinton launched a rather large-scale cruise missile attack against Osama bin Laden, multiple al Qaeda training camps, and a suspected Sudanese chemical weapons facility over 2 years prior to that point in time. Clinton was very much aware of bin Laden, who had attempted to have him assassinated in the Philippines 2 years earlier.
I would characterize January 20, 2001 as the point when the ball was dropped and not picked up again until 9/11, in spite of the CIA frantically waving their arms and shouting “Pick up the damn ball!” It was as if bin Laden and al Qaeda didn’t even exist. During the final 2 years of the Clinton administration, whenever Clinton said bin Laden, the republicans said Lewinsky. Their priorities were seriously screwed up. They managed to distract the entire nation. All they wanted was to nail Bill Clinton and get a republican in the White House.
@Greg: Clinton hit an abandoned camp and what may or may not have been a pharmaceutical factory. Apparently, it didn’t do much to win the war on terror, did it?
Of course you would. Of course, all liberals do. It’s what you do (back to #8). Bubba did NOTHING for 8 years, thus he perceived no threat. He passed along no dire warnings and you all want to blame Bush. Sure, it was Bush’s responsibility, but the seeds for the attack were planted during Clinton’s watch and he DID NOTHING. NOTHING. All he did was shut off communications between the FBI and CIA, making SURE there were plenty of gigantic cracks for information to fall through.
Why didn’t Clinton stop the 1993 WTC attack? Why didn’t Clinoton stop the attack on the USS Cole? Because the information was not available… same as to prevent 9/11. If it had been, either Clinton dropped the ball or ignored the threat. Take your pick, Greg, but if you wish to hold Bush accountable, you HAVE to hold Clinton equally accountable.
Perhaps if he and Hillary hadn’t been in such a hurry to sack the White House as they left, he might have been a bit more thorough.
Clinton bears the responsibility for dropping the ball… at least 4 times, when he could have gotten bin Laden. If he viewed the threat as that dire, why did he always pass on those opportunities?
You simply have to think these things through, Greg. See #8. For some, the stories have to make sense to be believable.
The right also claims that Obama “has done nothing” against ISIS, totally ignoring the fact that he’s been waging war against ISIS for 16 months. 10 high-ranking ISIS leaders were targeted and eliminated just this month.
Meanwhile, the republican-majority House has refused even to debate his request to use military force against those who have openly stated that they’re going to attack the United States and its people at every opportunity by any available means. They see supporting the President’s strategy against ISIS as a political risk. Add to that the fact that any ISIS success serves them as a political opportunity and will be quickly exploited as such. They think the only war that matters is the war for the White House.
I’ll take a Clinton or an Obama over that any day of the week. Certainly over this guy, who acts as if he’s running to be Mayor of Toontown.
@Greg: One would think that someone that enabled ISIS to grow from 700 to 30,000 by stupidly and against all advice removing all US forces from Iraq would take a more active role in dealing with the scourge that is murdering tens of thousands, but all Obama want to do is talk about what a great job he is doing… protecting the environment from our bombs exploding. While the rate has ramped up somewhat of late, you know that 75% of the sorties sent out came back without ruffling a keffiyeh.
Look at the status of ISIS over the past 16 months and tell us Obama has accomplished something.
No doubt you prefer an Obama or a Hillary. See #8 (again).
@Bill: Besides revising history another lefty dodge in addition to changing the subject is making up statistics. You notice the fact that the CIA provided Clinton the information that would have handed Bin Laden to the US during Clinton’s term is always ignored in conservations by the rabid left. (Rabid defined here as those who can only drink the Kool-Aid and not think rationally.)
@Randy: The threat of al Qaeda did not materialize just a few days or months before Bush took office. If this was such a threat with clear and present dangers as is alledged Clinton warned Bush about, why didn’t Clinton address it, other than popping off a few cruise missiles into the deserted desert? Absolutely, Randy, this is nothing but an attempt to, again, shuck off responsibility for a liberal failure and shift blame elsewhere.
Assigning blame accomplishes absolutely nothing and I never blame Clinton but in cases where some moron is heaping the full and total blame on Bush and his 9 months in office. NO ONE (as both Clinton and Bush, and also Obama prove) would have been willing to take the measures necessary to prevent attacks such as 9/11 without the benefit of clear proof that such attacks CAN and WILL happen… and Obama has the benefit of that proof.
What we know is that, in times where US security is threatened, the worst thing we can do is have a liberal in charge of the government. Nothing good can come of it and far less if the liberal is a corrupt liar that has spent her life accumulating personal wealth and power.
I suggest you find yourself an unbiased history book and read up on those who served the nation as president throughout all of the First and Second World Wars. Liberals—and that would include Woodrow Wilson, the grandfather of progressive political thinking—have successfully led the nation through the darkest days of both peacetime and wartime crisis.
Blame shifting is at the heart of the republican propaganda message. It’s how they’ve managed to convince gullible supporters that Clinton was somehow responsible for a terrorist attack that came 9 months into George W Bush’s first term; it’s how they’ve convinced them that Barack Obama was somehow responsible for an economic disaster that began over a year before he took office, for the long term consequences of an ill-advised invasion that took place 6 years earlier, and for a troop withdrawal schedule that was effectively locked in by the Bush administration on its way out the White House door.
Republicans, it would seem, are responsible for nothing, from the moment things begin going wrong. No one seems to care how many facts must be ignored or how twisted the logic must become in order to reach that conclusion.
I suggest you perfect time travel if you want to find a Democrat with the ability to lead in a crisis. However, Carter, Clinton, Obama, Hillary… all have failed to perform well in a crisis. Reagan? Bush, Sr? W? All were LEADERS.
Oh, and speaking of Wilson… how about that racism of his? Quite the legacy, right? Right up there with Roosevelt rounding up American citizens of Japanese ancestry and imprisoning them. Swell. But, typically Democrat.
Planning for those attacks began while Clinton was in office. Clinton bears his share of responsibility.
While it was liberal social engineering policies that brought about the economic disaster, who says Obama is responsible for it? Typically liberal of you to create a false argument (see #8). However, Obama’s policies have definitely prolonged the misery of the recession and made this the longest, weakest and slowest recovery in history.
Obama had an absolute victory and a stable government and country laid in his lap and, in order to generate some desperately needed complimentary headlines, he squandered it and turned it into disaster. It has been covered quite thoroughly that had Obama had the desire, he could have negotiated the prolonged presence of US troops in Iraq (as was the intention), but he wanted to “end the war” and take the credit. Well, he gets the credit… for allowing ISIS to grow and spread, out of control and unabated.
The support of that stupid and disastrous foreign policy by Kerry and Hillary confirms my statement about how liberals have no concept of true leadership and defense of US security. Sorry you find yourself on the side of idiots and incompetents, but that is exactly what you are stuck with.
@Bill: Actually Bill, Compared to todays liberals, JFK would be a right wing conservative. Since Nixon, the liberals have moved hard left to the point of radicalism. Johnson actually started the movement with his “war against poverty” that has impoverished nearly half of our population when enhances by the current liberals.