December 31st 2007 06:10:20 PM
I’ve often wondered where Bill Clinton’s soul is. Well I finally found it. It’s inhabiting George W. Bush’s body. I’ve been saying this since the Bush administration decided to finally “be engaged” in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict after enough pressure was put on it to do so — and all the more so when it sought out advice and assistance from Clinton-era people including Clinton. Then Bush adopted Clinton’s policy toward North Korea, that is continuing to subsidize the monstrous state without any assurances about its nuclear program in return (as if one could have actual assurances from North Korea). A Jerusalem Post article from Tuesday, aptly titled “Introducing George W. Clinton,” lays it all out:
…Firm resolve has given way to disappointing frailty, as the shape and direction of US foreign policy increasingly resembles something taken straight out of Bill Clinton’s playbook.
Across the board, on nearly every major issue of the day, from Iran to Syria to North Korea, the Bush administration is in retreat, abandoning the principled stands of yesteryear and replacing them with the unscrupulous and inexplicable policies now being pursued by the Department of State.
Take, for example, the donor conference held in Paris this week, where the nations of the world unashamedly gathered to prop up the corrupt, incompetent and ineffectual Palestinian regime headed by Mahmoud Abbas.
Leading the charge, the US pledged more than $550 million in aid to the Palestinians in 2008. But while American diplomats were busy filling out checks to Abbas, Palestinian terrorists in Gaza continued to target Israeli civilians. On Sunday, they fired a rocket which struck an Israeli home in Kibbutz Zikim and wounded a 2-year old child. Needless to say, neither the toddler nor his parents will be receiving any Western assistance.
THEN THERE is North Korea. On December 1, Bush took the unusual step of sending a personal letter to Pyongyang’s thug-in-chief Kim Jong Il, essentially pleading with him to tell the truth and to disclose all of his country’s nuclear programs by the end of the year.
In exchange, the archaic Stalinist regime can expect to receive American recognition and, of course, large infusions of aid.
He is putting his faith in Kim Jong-Il’s promises, just as Clinton did when he signed a similar deal with Pyongyang in October 1994 which later proved worthless.
And what of the regimes in Iran and Syria, which have aided and abetted insurgents in Iraq in their efforts to kill American servicemen? In both instances, the Bush administration has adopted a policy of diplomacy and talk, rather than action. Indeed, Damascus was even invited to take part in the Annapolis conference, granting further legitimacy to Syrian President Bashar Assad and his repressive regime.
The result has effectively been a quiet coup, as George W. Clinton replaces Bush. And that spells trouble, big trouble, in the War on Terror - not only for Israel, but for America too.
The article could have added the quashing of several Justice Department investigations of the Clintons. Indeed, Bush has given up on doing the right thing, and cut out early. If anyone wants to know what a Hillary presidency would be like, we’ve had a taste of it for the past year of this administration.
In Bush’s first term, before his body became possessed, he tried shunning the Palestinians, even pulling a Giuliani by not allowing Arafat near the White House for as long as the man continued to tacitly support terrorism — which ended up killing the man in 2004. Bush basically killed Arafat by telling the Palestinians, “When you stop being terrorists, then we can talk.” For this, Bush was criticized — including by dumb liberal Jews — for “disengaging”.
Under pressure to “do something,” but seeing that Palestinians have no plans to stop being terrorists anytime soon, a leader is left with only one, usual plan of action, or “engagement”: feed more Jews to the Arabs. Just so long as you’re engaged. Ah yes. When your administration is about to expire, and doing the right thing didn’t get done, you put the screws to Israel. That is, you screw the Jew. After all, you’re not going to make terrorists do something, so you have to put pressure on the side that you can force to do something.
As I’ve written before, this is also how the Clintion administration ended, leading me to believe that the chief difference between Democrats and Republicans is that it takes Republicans longer to do the wrong thing. A Republican does it with greater hestitation, he consults his conscience — because he has one to consult — before succumbing to “the way things are.” (As opposed to a conscience-less Dem, who jumps in with both feet to whatever is politically most expedient and the least resistant path.)
The closest thing I’ve heard to a scientific explanation as to how the soul enters the body came from psychic medium Sylvia Browne, who explained that the soul enters a fetus at around four months gestation, through the mother’s pituitary gland. (This accounts for that unexplained, momentary tingle of elation that many pregnant women report feeling, if they are awake when it happens, at around this point in the pregnancy.)
But in the case of the adult George W. Bush, the soul of Clinton entered through the father. The perversity of this is drawn out very astutely in this blog on Vermont Daily Briefing:
Speaking in South Carolina on his wife’s behalf, Clinton had this to say about Hillary’s first days in office:
“Well, the first thing she intends to do, because you can do this without passing a bill, the first thing she intends to do is to send me and former President Bush and a number of other people around the world to tell them that America is open for business and cooperation again,” Clinton said in response to a question from a supporter about what his wife’s “number one priority” would be as president.
[H]ow confident of Bush Senior’s cooperation must Clinton be to roll this idea out publicly, while Bush Junior is still in the White House?
The whole point of the tour in question would be to reassure the world that America is “open for business and cooperation again” after a disastrous two-term President.
A two-term President named Bush.
And that Bush — hard to believe this needs pointing out — would be the son of the “Former President” Clinton is so quick to include in his new diplomatic brief. A very strange assumption to make, and to publicize on the stump.
But what’s really notable about the quote, and this entire line of thinking, is what it reveals about Clinton’s general overall perceptions of his friendship with Bush Sr.
Clearly he views it as politically advantageous; clearly he sees no problem campaigning on it, capitalizing on it when the chips are down.
Bill Clinton has known for at least the last handful of years, conservatively speaking, that his wife would be running for President in 2008, or 2012 if circumstances dictated. He’s known all along that her largest hurdle would be making a case to the 50% of Americans who consistently tell pollsters that they would prefer gall bladder surgery to voting for Hillary Clinton.
Consider his now famously fabulous relationship with George Herbert Walker Bush in this context: outreach to moderate Republicans. Sure, Bill Clinton has always gravitated to father figures; sure, he’s always made outreach to the other side of the aisle the measure of his personal charisma.
But ex-Presidents…are extraordinarily savvy about where and when they risk their accumulated good will with the American people. Where they have their picture taken, to put it another way.
Now consider the veritable river of images that has been allowed to flow over the last five or six years, images of Bill and Poppy Bush….How many pictures have you seen of Bill and Jimmy Carter since Clinton left the White House?
But wait, you say, with W’s poll numbers so depressed, wouldn’t Clinton risk a lot by being seen with a Bush, any Bush? Not at all. Think about how the relationship is usually portrayed by the media: as a thorn in W’s side, somehow a repudiation of a son who’s strayed from the father’s will.
Does [Vermont Daily Briefing] think the entire friendship is staged? Not at all. Clinton has always needed validation from the other side of the aisle even more than from his own, and palling around with a Republican old enough to be his father is psychologically spot on.
But with Hillary’s election looming only a handful of years away, do you really believe the friendship would have been allowed to flower so very, very publicly if it didn’t actually help, in some way, shape or form?
And given that successive Presidencies have overlapping needs — like delimiting access to Presidential papers, to take just one example — that friendship could be more useful going forward.
Lots more useful.
For a change, Bush Sr. did balk somewhat, via a spokesperson, at Clinton’s comment about repairing America’s image after Bush Jr.:
[The former President] wholeheartedly supports the President of the United States, including his foreign policy. He has never discussed an ‘around-the-world-mission’ with either former President Bill Clinton or Senator Clinton, nor does he think such a mission is warranted since he is proud of the role America continues to play around the world as the beacon of hope for freedom and democracy.
The elder Bush shouldn’t be taken aback by Clinton’s statement, of course, since it’s the sort of thing that can easily happen when someone is used to you letting him defecate on your family.
I’m a fan of the Comedy Central cartoon “South Park.” The photo below reminds me of one episode in particular, in which one character explains to another the importance of voting even when neither candidate deserves your vote. The choice in any presidential election, it is explained to Stan, is between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. And here are 1992’s giant douche and turd sandwich:
From right to left: Giant Douche, and Turd Sandwich
Oh, and these two yentas meet frequently for lunch, reports Reuters: