It's Clinton that Won't Let Go

By GREGORY J. RUMMO
THE DAILY RECORD, JANUARY 6  2002 

ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS, after having read through a column of mine that criticized former president Bill Clinton, an editor or two has remarked, “You know, you conservatives just can’t get over Bill Clinton. He’s not president anymore. Can’t you just let go?”

 It’s not easy “letting go” of the memory of Bill Clinton. Like that pesky ring around the bathtub, or the infamous stain on that blue dress, even after a year of vigorous scrubbing and disinfecting, it just won’t go away.

One of the reasons the stain is so persistent is because Bill Clinton himself refuses to let go.

On December 21, The New York Times ran a front-page story entitled “Clinton and Aides Lay Plans To Repair a Battered Image.” The story reported that Clinton held a two-hour meeting with former aides and ex-cabinet officials to try and mend the damage that has been done to his legacy, which Clinton complained had been “pummeled.” Two sore spots with Clinton were his failure to capture Osama bin Laden and his role in the current recession.

Talk of a Clinton “legacy” is laughable.

Try this simple experiment at home to prove it to yourself. Ask anyone what is the first thing they think of when they hear the name Bill Clinton. The answer is almost always Monica Lewinsky or impeachment. It has become irrelevant that Clinton presided over a time of relative domestic tranquility and one of the greatest economic expansions of the 20^th century.

I say presided over but he had nothing to do with either.

When Clinton took office in 1993, his “economic stimulus package” consisted of raising taxes. But the economy was so hot--GDP grew a robust 5.4% during the last three months of the Bush presidency-- that productivity soared and unemployment fell in spite of Clinton’s tax increases. Lower interest rates, courtesy of Fed chairman Alan Greenspan, allowed the government to refinance its debt, further reducing outlays.

Much of the wealth effect felt by Americans during Clinton’s presidency occurred as a result of the stratospheric rise in the equities markets. This fueled good feelings, which in turn led Americans to spend more than they earned. The catalyst that brought all of this to a screeching halt was the Clinton Justice Department’s anti-trust lawsuit against Microsoft.

On top of this, Clinton had no energy policy. When OPEC decided to reduce exports of crude oil late in Clinton’s second term, Americans were forced to pay more at the gas pump, further straining an already fragile economy.

Clinton was equally inattentive towards fighting terrorism. It is no stretch to say he spent more money and made more of a concerted effort trying to eliminate Bill Gates than Osama bin Laden.

An examination of Clinton’s responses to terrorist attacks during his administration demonstrates he was all talk and no action.

After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel, Clinton promised, “We have already begun the process of determining what happened and who, if anyone, was responsible. We will devote an enormous effort to that.”

After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 400 U.S. military personnel, Clinton said, “Let me be very clear: We will not rest in our efforts to find who is responsible for this outrage, to pursue them and to punish them. Anyone who attacks one American attacks every American, and we protect and defend our own.” It wasn’t until this past June when the Bush administration indicted twelve suspects, that here was any progress towards justice.

After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000, Clinton’s Attorney General, Janet Reno said, “We're going to pursue every last murderer until justice has been done."

After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 3 U.S. sailors, Clinton threatened, “[You] will not find a safe harbor. We will find you and justice will prevail. America will not stop standing guard for peace or freedom or stability in the Middle East and around the world.”

After the September 11 attacks, George W. Bush said, “If Osama bin Laden is responsible for these attacks, he will be brought to justice, whatever the obstacles…If the Taliban regime controlling Afghanistan stands in our way, we will remove them if necessary.”

It is this stark contrast between the empty rhetoric of Bill Clinton and the resoluteness in the words—and the actions which followed—of George W. Bush that has Clinton hyperventilating over his vanishing legacy.

When pressed on the issue of bin Laden back in September, Bill Clinton’s response was that he had “missed getting him by about 30 minutes.” Clinton was referring to his bombing of an aspirin factory in the Sudan, the timing of which coincided with Monica Lewinsky’s appearance before a grand jury.

Bill Clinton did make one valiant effort to protect the American people from terrorism. On April 22, 2000—the day before Easter Sunday—Janet Reno sent 151 heavily armed federal agents into the Gonzalez home in Florida to extract a 6-year old terrorist named Elian.

Stains like these leftover from Bill Clinton’s presidency are indelible. They are in fact his legacy. No amount of spin will ever be able to remove them. And in the light of the Bush presidency, they just keep getting darker and more noticeable. n

E-mail the author at GregoryJRummo@aol.com