February 8, 2001
Why It’s OK To Be Shocked by Mr. Clinton’s Recent Misbehavior
The Rich pardon wasn’t just seemingly corrupt and shameless–it was
also incompetent. That’s something we’re not used to from Bill Clinton.
It’s fair to say that the main reason people willingly suspended their judgment
about him–his saving grace–was that he seemed to be on the ball as far as
his job was concerned. When the time for a decision came, he found out
all the necessary facts, stayed up all night, and eventually made the right call
(on the economy, on taxes, on welfare, on trade). Yet here he reviewed the file,
stayed up all night, and made a terrible decision–a decision he surely now
realizes was terrible, a decision that he’d unmake today, were it possible, if
only to escape the indelibly bad PR it’s brought him.Did he make this mistake because, as some news reports have implied,
his staff wasn’t there to talk him out of it? If so, how many other boneheaded
decisions were prevented only because Clinton was surrounded, until the last few
moments, by competent aides–surrounded the way we’re supposed to now be wishing that Bush is surrounded? Far from telling us nothing, the Rich pardon casts a whole new, retrospective light on Clinton’s presidency. What if Robert Rubin,
Bruce Reed, and the others hadn’t been there? …
Even if the latest allegations about Marc Rich–that he helped broker Saddam’s oil-for-food deals–prove accurate, that won’t be the main reason Clinton’s pardon of the fugitive financier was scandalous. Saddam could presumably always get someone to broker his lucrative schemes–if not Rich, then another high-level operater. The Marc Rich pardon was scandalous mainly because it taught a generation of young Americans that you could buy your way out of punishment. … But buy with what? … Here’s an instance where the convenient case for public figure privacy in matters of sex–made most conveniently by Clinton himself, but also by Jeffrey Toobin,*** Andrew Sullivan, etc.–completely breaks down. It turns out to be fairly important whether Clinton was or wasn’t not having sexual relations with Denise Rich, Marc’s glamorous ex-wife, who lobbied for the pardon. It’s hard to explain Clinton’s gross error any other way. (Lord knows I’ve tried!) … Someday some historian will focus on this interpersonal causal chain and win a National Book Award for his provocative thesis–as Philip Weiss memorably put it, “Follow the nookie.” But if reporters had been more irresponsible in reporting on Clinton’s personal life–and less cowed by the Stephanopouloses and Carvilles–actual voters would have had this highly relevant information in real time when they made their decision in 1992. … P.S.: Do Democrats really want to elect the woman who let all this happen under her nose? Just asking! …
This is such an important story on so many levels. The corruption at the UN goes right to the top and has major implications for the United States. With each revelation, the reasons for the lack of support at the UN become clear. Half of the vaunted security council was on the take to the tune of multi-billion of dollars (or Francs if you prefer).
It also tells us so much about Bill Clinton. His critics were right. He lacked the character and integrity that the office requires. Sure he was a natural politician who could connect with people, but his weaknesses were far more consequencial than his strengths. From his feckless war on terror, to his lost second term, the story of Bill Clinton is a story of selfishness and waste. He wasted all of that charisma and potential because he had no integrity or moral boundries.
Marc Rich is a free man because Bill Clinton can be bought. Clinton did learn one thing from the Marc Rich pardon, there are a lot of people who come knocking once you let it be known that you have a price.
December 7, 2004, Bill Clinton Helps Launch Chinese Seach Engine
NEW YORK (AP)â??Former president Bill Clinton on Monday helped launch a new
Internet search company backed by the Chinese government which says its technology uses artificial intelligence to produce better results than Google
Inc.“I hope you all make lots of money,” Clinton told executives at the launch of Accoona Corp., which donated an undisclosed amount to the William J. Clinton Foundation.
Saudis, Arabs Funneled Millions to President Clinton’s Library
BY JOSH GERSTEIN – Staff Reporter of the New York Sun
LITTLE ROCK, ARK. – President Clinton’s new $165 million library here was
funded in part by gifts of $1 million or more each from the Saudi royal family and three Saudi businessmen.The governments of Dubai, Kuwait, and Qatar and the
deputy prime minister of Lebanon all also appear to have donated $1 million or
more for the archive and museum that opened last week.Democrats spent much of the presidential campaign this year accusing President Bush of improperly close ties to Saudi Arabia. The case was made in Michael Moore’s film “Fahrenheit 9/11,” in a bestselling book by Craig Unger titled “House of Bush, House of Saud,” and by the Democratic presidential candidate, Senator Kerry.”This administration delayed pressuring the Saudis,” Mr. Kerry said on October 20. “I will insist that the Saudis crack down on charities that funnel funds to terrorists… and on anti-American and anti-Israel hate speech.”The Media Fund, a Democratic group whose president is a former Clinton White House aide, Harold Ickes, spent millions airing television commercials in swing states with scripts such as, “The Saudi royal family…wealthy…powerful…corrupt. And close Bush family friends.”Perhaps as a result, the Saudi donations to the Clinton library are raising some eyebrows.
This week on Pundit Review Radio we began the show with a small tribute to David Brudnoy, Boston talk show legend and inspiration to all who welcome a thoughful exchange of ideas. We also discussed Bill Bennett’s fascinating column on the impact of blogs in this past election. He tied the blogs together with talk radio and looked at the profound influence they have on the MSM. Finally, we looked ahead to 2008 and what the Dems need to do between now and then if they ever hope to win another national election.
This weekend we interviewed one of our favorite pundits, Don Luskin. Don is the man behind the excellent blog Poor and Stupid, the author of the widely read Ahead of the Curve column on Smart Money online and the driving force behind The Krugman Truth Squad at National Review.
Don was gracious enough to spend a full half-hour with us to discuss all aspects of social security reform. If this is an issue that you care about, you do not want to miss this interview. We also discussed the outlook for tax reform, the economy and the stock market in 2005. As always, Don was fantastic and we appreciate his coming back on the program and sharing part of his weekend with Pundit Review Radio.
On Pundit Review Radio (12/4) we did our Blog Week in Review segment where we highlighted the best posts that we found in the blogsphere. Included in the discussion were Patterico’s Pontifications and Hugh Hewitt’s Weekly Standard column on the Groningen Protocol as well as baseballs steroid problem where we took a look at what was happening at some baseball blogs.
Sorry for the technical difficulties. On the last edition of Pundit Review Radio we interviewed Jeff Goldstein of Protein Wisdom. As you would expect, he was hillarious. We tried to keep up folks, we tried.
AndrewSullivan has been naming “awards” after people who write things that he finds offensive. I’ve lost track of how many there are at this point. He has more categories than the Grammy’s. Here is his latest,
THE MALKIN AWARD: Every now and again, you have to hand it to a polemicist.
Here’s one single sentence from Michelle Malkin’s latest column:Perhaps too much drug-addled ’60s nostalgia has burnt out the
bleeding-hearts pacifists’ brain cells.One sentence; four cliche-ridden,
playground insults. Can you beat it? Contestants can be nominated from
either right or left; but the sentence must be entirely devised to insult;
it should be completely devoid of originality; it must have at least two
hoary, dead-as-a-Norwegian-parrot cliches; and it must assume that readers
already agree with the writer. Arbitrary mean-spiritedness wins extra
points. Nominations for the Malkin Award are now open.
This post got me thinking about starting my own awards, The Sully’s. In order to be nominated for a Sully, you must take a once cute/humorous schtick and overuse it to the point of self-parody.
The first nominees for a Sully are….
Michael Buffer, the let’s get to rumble guy.
Ted Nugent, the wild and crazy outdoor guy.
and in the special lifetime achievement category,
The Where’s The Beef Lady from the Wendy’s ads
Nominations are always welcome at punditreview@hotmail.com or in the comments section. Thanks.
UPDATE: This seems to be catching on. (Hat Tip, Junk Yard Blog)
So much for new Democrat minority leader Harry Reid being the anti-Daschle. This weekend on MTP, he ripped on Clarence Thomas,
Russert: Why couldn’t you accept Clarence Thomas?
Reid: I think that he has been an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. I
think that his opinions are poorly written. I don’t–I just don’t think that
he’s done a good job as a Supreme Court justice.
James Taranto of OpinionJournal.com’s Best of the Web observes,
Now, we haven’t read Thomas’s entire oeuvre, but we’ve read quite a few of his opinions, and we wouldn’t describe any of them as “poorly written”–much less so poorly written as to make him “an embarrassment to the Supreme Court.” (One of our favorite opinions of recent years is Thomas’s dissent in Grutter v. Bollinger, the 2003 case upholding racial preferences in college admissions provided they’re vague enough.)
Here it is, an example of one of Clarence Thomas’ poorly written opinions,
Like (Fredrick) Douglass, I believe blacks can achieve in every avenue of
American life without the meddling of university administrators. Because I wish
to see all students succeed whatever their color, I share, in some respect, the
sympathies of those who sponsor the type of discrimination advanced by the
University of Michigan Law School (Law School). The Constitution does not,
however, tolerate institutional devotion to the status quo in admissions
policies when such devotion ripens into racial discrimination. Nor does the
Constitution countenance the unprecedented deference the Court gives to the Law
School, an approach inconsistent with the very concept of “strict
scrutiny.”No one would argue that a university could set up a lower general admission
standard and then impose heightened requirements only on black applicants.
Similarly, a university may not maintain a high admission standard and grant
exemptions to favored races. The Law School, of its own choosing, and for its
own purposes, maintains an exclusionary admissions system that it knows produces
racially disproportionate results. Racial discrimination is not a permissible
solution to the self-inflicted wounds of this elitist admissions policy.The majority upholds the Law School’s racial discrimination not by interpreting the people’s Constitution, but by responding to a faddish slogan of the cognoscenti. Nevertheless, I concur in part in the Court’s opinion. First, I agree with the Court insofar as its decision, which approves of only one racial classification, confirms that
further use of race in admissions remains unlawful. Second, I agree with the Court’s holding that racial discrimination in higher education admissions will be illegal in 25 years. See ante, at 31 (stating that racial discrimination will no longer be narrowly tailored, or “necessary to further” a compelling state interest, in 25 years). I respectfully dissent from the remainder of the Court’s opinion and the judgment, however, because I believe that the Law School’s current use of race violates the Equal Protection Clause and that the Constitution means the same thing today as it will in 300 months.Think what you will about his opinion, but it is certainly not poorly written. What does it say about Harry Reid? Taranto wonders if this opinion is because of Thomas’ color. I don’t think so. Clarence Thomas is one of these people with whom the Democrats/Left think they can say anything about without consequence. He has been demonized and has become part of the Democrat folklore of evil conservatives. He’s John Ashcroft, one generation earlier.