By The Content Of His Character

Here is a post guaranteed to get the blood stirring. GM from GM`s Corner has linked up a post from Right Wing Nuthouse asking the question why do so many people hate Bill Clinton? Author Rick Moran quotes a New York Times Book Review by Alan Ehrenhault, who compares Clinton hating with Bush bashing, and seems mystified by both. Moran makes some good points in his essay, but I think the answer is even simpler.

President Bill Clinton was once refered to as the first Black President. In spite of his pasty white skin, some liberal blacks saw a kindred spirit. Their reasoning was that Clinton was born poor in a southern state, he likes fatty foods and loose women, he plays the sax, and he was constantly pursued by ``the Man``. Somehow, according to these adoring sycophants, this makes Mr. Clinton black! Fine! Martin Luther King once said that he wanted all people to ``be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.`` Unless I am mistaken, Dr. King represents very mainstream thought in the black community; therefore, I intend to judge our first Black President (with pasty white skin) not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character. This standard is very damning to our albino Black Prez.



When Bill Clinton was running for President, he denied to the public that he HAD A BROTHER! He made sure Roger was tucked away so nobody would be able to show that his brother was a dopehead and drug dealer.

Numerous women had made accusations against Mr. Clinton in Arkansas, including an accusation of rape, and Clinton`s staff created a ``bimbo eruption`` squad to destroy any women who came forth.

Mr. Clinton had unwholesome ties to Don Lassiter, the Dixie Mafia Don, who was critical in putting Clinton in the Governor`s Mansion. He also had ties to the Tyson company, whose owner was convicted of smuggling drugs inserted into his chickens.

Mr. Clinton used State Police to pimp for him, sending them to pick up potential victims he could ``minister to`` with sexual favors. When the American Spectator broke the Paula Jones story, the Clinton Administration sicked the IRS on them, and had the Justice Department file racketeering charges against them.

The point is, there were seriously disturbing things about Bill Clinton-things which can be verified. That Clinton was also a monstrous liar-he shook hands with the Republicans during the government shutdown, then went to the press claiming they had rejected any effort at reproachment-and that the press refused to report anything honestly about him, was guaranteed to infuriate anybody with moral standards.

Consider the blatant denial by Mr. Bush about Monica Lewinski. He wagged his gnarly finger at America, but a little stain proved the truth of the accusation. That isn`t all there is to the affair; Linda Tripp, who first brought the accusations to light, was harassed terribly for telling the truth. Someone slashed her car tires, someone murdered her cat (the cat had disappeared, and a jogger came up next to Linda and asked ``where`s your cat?`` and jogged away), she was refered to as ugly, fat, stupid, traitorous, and foul. Yet she was the one telling the truth, and the press did everything to cover up the facts. Why was Michael Issikof`s story spiked so that Matt Drudge had to break the whole sordid affair? Clinton`s lies, and the complicity of the press, enraged conservatives.

Consider Billy Dale and the White House Travel Office. The Clinton`s wanted to reward their friends by giving them White House travel business, and so wanted Dale and his staff of career employees out. Hillary knew it would be politically difficult to simply fire them, so they fired them then charges Billy Dale with embezzlement to besmirch his name. He was acquitted unanimously after only a few minutes of deliberation, but poor Mr. Dale lost his job and had his reputation tarnished.

Consider that one of the first things President Clinton did when entering the White House was fire all of the lawyers at the Justice Department, so he could put his own people there. This was unprecedented; the DOJ lawyers are career people! Clinton clearly did that to make certain that his ethical lapses would not be pursued.

Consider that Chuck Colson, working for Richard Nixon, went to prison for illegally possessing one FBI file on a political opponent, while Mr. Clinton cleaned out the entire office, having over 900 raw files on his potential enemies. First he denied he had them, then he claimed it was a bureaucratic snafu, but didn`t give them back. As far as I`m aware, these files were never returned. Why would you have these files? Extortion is a federal crime, after all!

Consider the many other things Mr. Clinton did which were unethical; he bombed the Sudan to draw attention away from Grand Jury testimony against him on the eve of his Impeachment. Ditto Kosovo. He sold the Lincoln Bedroom for campaign contributions, he accepted campaign contributions from the Chinese in return for technological waivers or weakening of security in labs (Remember Loral Aerospace?)allowing the Chinese to steal classified technology, advancing their missile programs at our detriment. Remember his deal with North Korea to end their nuclear program? They developed Atomic weapons right under Mr. Clinton`s nose. How much money did THEY secretely contribute? Remember Clinton thrice turning down Osama Bin-Laden when offered? He wanted to avoid any political problems, so allowed the man who would murder 3000 Americans to go free. Remember how his staff trashed the White House computer room, sabotaging the computers before Bush`s team came in? Remember the last minute pardons of criminals for cash or sexual favors?

There lies the difference between Clinton hating and Bush bashing; the hatred of the left for Bush is based on his victory in the election of 2000, and the fact that he has proven to be a relevant President. Clinton haters despise the man for how he behaved.

I really don`t see how anyone can be mystified by this.