Why does the Right have such a hard-on for blaming Clinton?

[Natorgator]

Clinton must be a pretty busy guy, since all of our societal and political ills can be attributed to him. He's an evil mastermind!

After 9/11, whose fault was it? Clinton's of course...Newsmax ran an article shortly afterwards which was entitled, "CIA Officials Reveal What Went Wrong – Clinton to Blame". What about Little Leaguer who lied about his age? Clinton's fault, courtesy of Rush:

On his show Friday, the host said the fact that Danny Almonte, the Little League World Series pitching phenom from the Bronx, lied about his age was indicative of "[t]he era of Clinton ... illustrating itself in fine form."

Gary Condit's affair with his intern was also Clinton's fault. From Sean Hannity:

Look -- you know, Bob, look -- Congressman Barr, I was making the case last night this -- this is a natural consequence for having not thrown Bill Clinton out of office. We're getting the same thing -- sex with an intern, suborning -- charges of subornation of perjury and obstruction, parsing of words.

Now we don't -- not only do we not know what "is" means, "alone" means, now we don't know what "relationship" means. If you have sex with a woman for 10 months, that's not a relationship, by the way. This is a consequence of Clinton, isn't it, Congressman Barr?

Enron, Worldcom and the other related scandals were also Clinton's fault.

Well, I think if you want to look at the tone of the '90s, it started right at the top, at the White House, where the attitude was anything goes. If you get caught, spin your way out of it. The only thing they didn't resist -- they could resist everything except temptation. So it started at the top.

Guess who's fault the prisoner scandal is? That's right, Bill Clinton. From an NPR interview with Joel Himmelfarb:

Now, certainly one thing I will say is that I believe, as, as a lot of folks on the, on the political right believe, that our military has been undermanned for many years, and it's very, very difficult to fight a war like this with a, a military that basically is, is Bill Clinton's military and a military that basically was formed during the days when we were all talking about the "war is peace" dividend.

Can someone explain why EVERYTHING is Clinton's fault?

[TheDarkling]

Can someone explain why EVERYTHING is Clinton's fault?

Clinton was a moderate electable Democrat, that is a threat to the right so they despise him and must make clear how evil he was an every turn.

[Sir Sirius]

It is also their standard method of defending Bush.

• Someone: <Insert critisism directed at Bush here>
  
  Your avarige right-winger: Uh, uh, uh... but Clinton DID X, Y and Z! So there, HAHA!

[Stofsk]

Can someone explain why EVERYTHING is Clinton's fault?

Nature of the job. Seriously, when something goes wrong it's ALWAYS the last guy's fault.

[Natorgator]

Nature of the job. Seriously, when something goes wrong it's ALWAYS the last guy's fault.

I was too young at the time to follow, but did the Dems ever blame Bush Sr. in such a manner? It just seems as if the lion's share of the conservative media consists entirely of pointing fingers at Democrats/anyone liberal.

[Vympel]

The Dems didn't blame Bush Sr. for shit, because nothing went catastrophically wrong during Clinton's tenure. Because he was the man.

(takes pleasure in infuriating right wingers)

[KrauserKrauser]

I sure do love people that can get away with Perjury and use the media to convince the people that they did nothing wrong, except commit perjury. Clinton was a lying sack of shit that couldn't handle terrorism worth a damn. Luckily he did recognize that the country during his presidency was trending towards a more conservative nature and allowed himself to come more towrds the middle. If the Republicans hadn't stormed the congress and if Clinton had fought them on most of their issues I don't think his Presidency would have been so rosy.

[Tsyroc]

The Dems didn't blame Bush Sr. for shit, because nothing went catastrophically wrong during Clinton's tenure. Because he was the man.

(takes pleasure in infuriating right wingers)

Clinton did get to take credit for the econmonic upswing that had already started under Bush. Not that either of them had anything to do with the upswing


I do have some problems with Clinton getting away with lying under oath. It was ridiculous that he was even in court being asked questions like that but the Chief Executive of the US should not be getting away with perjury.

IHe should have just owned up to it. I think people would have let him off the hook for getting a blow job and I don't think it would have helped Paula Jone's case. Unfortunately, Hillary would still have been able to pull the sympathy vote and get elected in NY.

[Tsyroc]

Clinton was a moderate electable Democrat, that is a threat to the right so they despise him and must make clear how evil he was an every turn.

Which is also why so many hard corps members of the right hated McCain. He was a moderate electable Republican, instead we got the corporate/fundie a$$ kisser.

[Patrick Degan]

I sure do love people that can get away with Perjury and use the media to convince the people that they did nothing wrong, except commit perjury. Clinton was a lying sack of shit that couldn't handle terrorism worth a damn. Luckily he did recognize that the country during his presidency was trending towards a more conservative nature and allowed himself to come more towrds the middle. If the Republicans hadn't stormed the congress and if Clinton had fought them on most of their issues I don't think his Presidency would have been so rosy.

Sorry, but Clinton did not commit perjury, no matter how much Ken Starr tried to redefine and even respell the word perjury to say otherwise. The answers he gave at the deposition for the Paula Jones lawsuit and later the Grand Jury testimony both were the correct legal truth in each instance. Starr took that and attempted to construct a perjury trap out of answers given to differently-phrased questions in the two testimonies.

As for Clinton "not being able to handle terrorism", well:

Linky

Claim: The Clinton administration failed to track down the perpetrators of several terrorist attacks against Americans.

Status: False.

Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2001]


After the 1993 World Trade Centre bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000, President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five US military personnel, President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1996 al-Khobar towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 US military personnel, President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1998 bombing of US embassies in Africa, which killed 257 and injured 5,000, President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured three US sailors, President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

Maybe if Mr Clinton had kept his promise, an estimated 7,000 more people would be alive today.

Origins: In
chronological order:

* On 26 February 1993, a car loaded with 1,200 pounds of explosives blew up in a parking garage under the World Trade Center, killing six people and injuring about a thousand others. The blast did not, as its planners intended, bring down the towers — that was finally accomplished by flying two hijacked airliners into the twin towers on the morning of 11 September 2001.

Four followers of the Egyptian cleric Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman were captured, convicted of the World Trade Center bombing in March 1994, and sentenced to 240 years in prison each. The purported mastermind of the plot, Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, was captured in 1995, convicted of the bombing in November 1997, and also sentenced to 240 years in prison. One additional suspect fled the U.S. and is believed to be living in Baghdad.

* On 13 November 1995, a bomb was set off in a van parked in front of an American-run military training center in the Saudi Arabian capital of Riyadh, killing five Americans and two Indians. Saudi Arabian authorities arrested four Saudi nationals whom they claim confessed to the bombings, but U.S. officials were denied permission to see or question the suspects before they were convicted and beheaded in May 1996.

* On 25 June 1996, a booby-trapped truck loaded with 5,000 pounds of explosives was exploded outside the Khobar Towers apartment complex which housed United States military personnel in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing nineteen Americans and wounding about three hundred others. Once again, the U.S. investigation was hampered by the refusal of Saudi officials to allow the FBI to question suspects.

On 21 June 2001, just before the American statute of limitations would have expired, a federal grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, indicted thirteen Saudis and an unidentified Lebanese chemist for the Khobar Towers bombing. The suspects remain in Saudi custody, beyond the reach of the American justice system. (Saudi Arabia has no extradition treaty with the U.S.)

* On 7 August 1998, powerful car bombs exploded minutes apart outside the United States embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing 224 people and wounding about 5,000 others. Four participants with ties to Osama bin Laden were captured, convicted in U.S. federal court, and sentenced to life in prison without parole in October 2001. Fourteen other suspects indicted in the case remain at large, and three more are fighting extradition in London.

* On 12 October 2000, two suicide bombers detonated an explosives-laden skiff next to the USS Cole while it was refueling in Aden, Yemen, blasting a hole in the ship that killed 17 sailors and injured 37 others. No suspects have yet been arrested or indicted. The investigation has been hampered by the refusal of Yemini officials to allow FBI agents access to Yemeni nationals and other suspects in custody in Yemen.

(The USS Cole bombing occurred one month before the 2000 presidential election, so even under the best of circumstances it was unlikely that the investigation could have been completed before the end of President Clinton's term of office three months later.)

In August 1998, President Clinton ordered missile strikes against targets in Afghanistan in an effort to hit Osama bin Laden, who had been linked to the embassy bombings in Africa (and was later connected to the attack on the USS Cole). The missiles reportedly missed bin Laden by a few hours, and Clinton was widely criticized by many who claimed he had ordered the strikes primarily to draw attention away from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. As John F. Harris wrote in The Washington Post:

In August 1998, when [Clinton] ordered missile strikes in an effort to kill Osama bin Laden, there was widespread speculation — from such people as Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) — that he was acting precipitously to draw attention away from the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal, then at full boil. Some said he was mistaken for personalizing the terrorism struggle so much around bin Laden. And when he ordered the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House after domestic terrorism in Oklahoma City, some Republicans accused him of hysteria.

. . . the federal budget on anti-terror activities tripled during Clinton's watch, to about $6.7 billion. After the effort to kill bin Laden with missiles in August 1998 failed — he had apparently left a training camp in Afghanistan a few hours earlier — recent news reports have detailed numerous other instances, as late as December 2000, when Clinton was on the verge of unleashing the military again. In each case, the White House chose not to act because of uncertainty that intelligence was good enough to find bin Laden, and concern that a failed attack would only enhance his stature in the Arab world.

. . . people maintain Clinton should have adapted Bush's policy promising that regimes that harbor terrorism will be treated as severely as terrorists themselves, and threatening to evict the Taliban from power in Afghanistan unless leaders meet his demands to produce bin Laden and associates. But Clinton aides said such a policy — potentially involving a full-scale war in central Asia — was not plausible before politics the world over became transformed by one of history's most lethal acts of terrorism.

Clinton's former national security adviser, Samuel R. Berger . . . said there [was] little prospect . . . that Pakistan would have helped the United States wage war against bin Laden or the Taliban in 1998, even after such outrages as the bombing of U.S. embassies overseas.

Update: In January 2004 a version of the 2001 e-mail with "BUSH COVERED IT!" inserted after each entry began to be circulated on the Internet. Must be an election year.

Last updated: 27 January 2004

[Xon]

Can someone explain why EVERYTHING is Clinton's fault?

Nature of the job. Seriously, when something goes wrong it's ALWAYS the last guy's fault.

John Howard, the Australian PM, doesnt normally do this. Mainly because he has been in power for so long. 9 years!

[SirNitram]

Insofar as I can guess, it's anger that Clinton, through some combination of political skill and good luck, was in the big chair during a period of good stuff happening. Compare this to Bush, who through bad luck and flat out incompetence, has led us into a much worse state. The threat that people might look favorably upon the Clinton years scares the Right badly enough to make them engage in smear campaigns.

The fact they have no excuse for Bush's antics, of course, is the reason why they bring him up in debates.

[Ma Deuce]

Sorry, but Clinton did not commit perjury, no matter how much Ken Starr tried to redefine and even respell the word perjury to say otherwise.

Umm, I'm not taking sides here, but how is lying under oath not perjury?

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman [Monica Lewinsky]"

Wasn't he under oath when he said that?

[Iceberg]

Sorry, but Clinton did not commit perjury, no matter how much Ken Starr tried to redefine and even respell the word perjury to say otherwise.

Umm, I'm not taking sides here, but how is lying under oath not perjury?

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman [Monica Lewinsky]"

Wasn't he under oath when he said that?

Nope. He said it in a televised statement.

[Joe]

Can someone explain why EVERYTHING is Clinton's fault?

This is a fascinating phenomenon that we like to refer to as "partisanship."

[Illuminatus Primus]

Because they're all about personal responsibility...

...oh wait...

[Darth Wong]

Can someone explain why EVERYTHING is Clinton's fault?

This is a fascinating phenomenon that we like to refer to as "partisanship."

It goes beyond normal partisanship and you know it. The right-wing obsession with Clinton borders on pathological. The fact that they initiated a witch hunt to remove him from office says it all. When the president of the United States finds himself answering questions about his sex life in front of a grand jury, it's pretty clear there's something going on besides normal partisanship.

[Illuminatus Primus]

What pieces of shit like Hannity don't say is that one of FNC's own contributors and veritiable sack of shit, Gingrich, left his wife of 20 (?) years and caught up with a 20-something blonde intern himself.

Moment of weakness though, of course. Jesus will return him to the bubble of family values.

[desertjedi]

I thought Gingrich was removed from his position or "retired" because of that scandal?

[Perinquus]

Sorry, but Clinton did not commit perjury, no matter how much Ken Starr tried to redefine and even respell the word perjury to say otherwise. The answers he gave at the deposition for the Paula Jones lawsuit and later the Grand Jury testimony both were the correct legal truth in each instance. Starr took that and attempted to construct a perjury trap out of answers given to differently-phrased questions in the two testimonies.

BullSHIT he didn't commit perjury. Bill Clinton lied while under oath! That's perjury. Period. Full stop. End of story. The law is clear; lying under oath constitutes perjury, and is a felony. And Bill Clinton did, indeed, lie through his pearly white teeth while under oath. The big objection Clinton apologists have is that it was over a matter that they consider to be of relatively little significance. Well so what? The law makes no provisions as regards to either the nature of the lie, or to motive either. A lie, is a lie, is a lie. There is no 1st, 2nd, or 3rd degree perjury, it's just perjury. So any kind of "it's about sex and that's not really important" argument is out the window. If he committed perjury, it's a felony, and impeachable.

He didn’t just “evade”. He LIED! Bill Clinton testified that he never touched Lewinsky, he only received oral sex. However, Lewinsky testified that he fondled her breasts on at least seven occasions, and "manually stimulated" her twice, once to orgasm. Tell me how those events don't satisfy the definition of sexual relations as defined by the court. You can't. Now, of course you can argue that Lewinsky isn't credible, she's just saying what Starr wants to avoid prosecution. Well, in the first place, Lewinsky's immunity was "contractual immunity". That means it's only valid if she tells the truth, and it bears out as truth. So lying would have been no protection for her. And in the second place, she was able to give dates, times, and name people that Clinton was talking to while she was performing her acts, and these times and people are independently confirmed by white house phone logs and visitation logs, giving her testimony almost airtight credibility. That doesn't even go into the fact that her opponent in the testimony is a man that's been proven to be a facile liar.

Clinton was asked a question; he was required to answer it honestly, or if the answer was such as to incriminate him, he should have taken the Fifth - that's why it's there. He didn't do that. He lied. Perjury. Quod erat demostrandum.

[Natorgator]

How the hell did he end up on trial in the first place?! I can't even remember.

[Ma Deuce]

How the hell did he end up on trial in the first place?! I can't even remember.

Neither do I, but his shenanigans were well known before he was even President (i.e. Gennifer Flowers). This casts further suspicion on Starr's motives for prosecuting him in the first place...

[Galvatron]

IIRC, they were trying to get him on some sexual harrassment rap and used the Monica Lewinsky thing as evidence that he's a lecherous sex-fiend and therefore guilty of the charges.

This is why Clinton is worse than Bush.

[Mr Bean]

The other two things Clinton did that made him quite unpopluar came under the last few days of his presidenency and are alot less knonw

Pardons for one(The following is taken fromt he Jurist Website

In total, President Clinton issued 456 executive clemency orders - 395 pardons and 61 commutations - between 1993 and January 20, 2001. The vast majority were issued in the last three years of his presidency - 176 (140 pardons, 36 commutations) were issued on his last day in office.

The most controversal of all those was one of the last day pardons for Marc Rich

His final day pardon of financier Marc Rich, who had fled the country on tax evasion charges, immediately erupted in controversy. There were charges that emissaries of Rich had used personal influence and campaign contributions to win the pardon. Similar charges soon arose regarding other final day pardons, prompting calls for congressional hearings and action by federal prosecutors.

The other thing he was hated for was the donations that did not get reported via his little method of taking "gifts" given to him by everyone from former felons to heads of state and then taking them, using them once or twice(In the case of suits or other clothing) then "Donating" them to a Foundation created by himself

And has been reported(Though not corrberated or proven) that many of these items never made it to the Fund but were instead sold off and then listed as having been donated to such and so charity run by either Bill or Hilery

[Iceberg]

IIRC, they were trying to get him on some sexual harrassment rap and used the Monica Lewinsky thing as evidence that he's a lecherous sex-fiend and therefore guilty of the charges.

This is why Clinton is worse than Bush.

All it proves is that Clinton has bad taste.

"Kennedy had taste, Marilyn Monroe. Clinton showed his dick to a government clerk. There's a drop-off here." - George Carlin