by Alan Colmes
When James Hormel was nominated by Bill Clinton as ambassador to Luxembourg, in October of 1997, the nomination was blocked in spite of the 16-2 vote of approval by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Senators James Inhofe of Oklahoma and Tim Hutchinson of Arkansas objected to his nomination because he advocated gay rights. Conservatives who supported this view said they didn't mind that he was gay; they minded that he was a gay activist. Does that mean it would have been all right for him to be a straight activist or a gay couch potato? Senator Inhofe went so far as to compare Hormel with former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard David Duke. At the time, Inhofe said, "I would feel the same way if it were David Duke or anybody whose agenda is more important than the country. So James Hormel wanting equal rights for gays is the same thing as David Duke saying blacks and Jews have too many rights as it is. Nice. A month after Inhofe elevated David Duke to James Hortnel's status, it was Trent Lott's turn. In an interview with Armstrong Williams, the Senate majority leader said this about homosexuality: "You should try to show them a way to deal with that problem just like alcohol or sex addiction or kleptomania." So being gay is as bad as being a thief. And it's as dangerous as alcoholism. Beware of driving while gay.
The Official Office of American Lying
It was reported in early 2002 that the Pentagon had something called the "Office of Strategic Influence." Do they have bureaucrats who get our taxpayer dollars to come up with names that mean nothing but mask insidiousness? What they wanted to do was plant false stories in the international media to help fight "The 'War' on Terror." Many of us who take American values seriously believe this disinformation campaign would undermine those values. Many in the Pentagon believed this would undermine their credibility. So when a furor erupted over this misguided effort, it was announced with great fanfare that the office would be eliminated. But was it? The secretary of Defense was asked about it on Meet the Press.
Q: So you may, in fact, eliminate it?
RUMSFELD: It wouldn't be me. It would be the people who are worrying this through. I've never even seen the charter for the office.
Q: But you are the secretary of Defense.
RUMSFELD: I am. I am, but I will certainly meet with them and talk to them about it. And I know they are considering what to do about it.
In a further clarification, Rummy proclaimed, "the Pentagon has not spread lies and would never do so in the future. President Bush pledged on Monday 'we'll tell the American people the truth.'"
But by November, our Defense secretary was singing a different tune: "And then there was the Office of Strategic Influence. You may recall that. And 'oh my goodness gracious isn't that terrible, Henny Penny the sky is going to fall.' I went down that next day and said fine, if you want to savage this thing, fine. I'll give you the corpse. There's the name. You can have the name, but I'm gonna keep doing every single thing that needs to be done and I have."
GuessWhoSaidlt
Let's play a little game. Guess who said this and when:
"The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake."
Gee, sounds like a Democrat criticizing Bush 43 's plan for war with Iraq. But, no. It's Texas Republican congressman Tom DeLay criticizing Bill Clinton's effort in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. And I'd like to thank Mr. DeLay for giving cover to those of us who many disagree with what Bush 43 is doing, but who fervently support our troops. DeLay proclaimed, "I normally, and I still do, support our military and the fine work that they are doing. But I cannot support a failed foreign policy."
When liberals say they're against the war but support the troops, they're called disingenuous. Prior to the start of Gulf War II, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle came under great fire for saying, "I'm saddened, saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to war. Saddened that we have to give up one life because this president couldn't create the kind of diplomatic effort that was so critical for our country."
Conservatives went crazy that Daschle could say such a thing "on the eve of war." Imagine how crazy they would have gone if Daschle had said that to call the war a victory or great leadership on the part of the president would be a farce. Thankfully, Daschle didn't make these comments. But Republican Tom DeLay did. When opposing a resolution commending the successful Kosovo campaign, DeLay took to the floor of the House to say, "For us to call this a victory and to commend the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief showing great leadership in Operation Allied Force is a farce." Senator Richard Lugar also weighed in with this vote of support for his commander in chief during the Bosnia campaign, saying, "This is President Clinton's war, and when he falls flat on his face, that's his problem."
Criticism of military strategy during Gulf War II met with tremendous outrage on the part of those who felt that any such words during a time of hostilities showed a lack of respect and concern for the troops. But when it was "President Clinton's war," then senator John Ashcroft said, "A lackluster air campaign has given the Serb dictator Milosevic time to achieve most of his strategic goals in Kosovo." Apparently, then, one of Milosevic's goals was not to remain in power.
Oh, and here is what the Houston Chronicle reported in April 1999 about the conduct of then candidate Bush during "Clinton's war": "Bush, in Austin, criticized President Clinton's administration for not doing enough to enunciate a goal for the Kosovo military action and indicated the bombing campaign might not be a tough enough response. 'Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is,' Bush said."
In the run-up to war with Iraq, there was great debate about how much the president should consult with Congress, the UN, and our allies. Rhetoric about the need to consult prior to the 1991 mission was a far cry from what was said in the 2002/2003 version of going after Saddam Hussein. Trent Lott, for example, had this to say prior to the first Persian Gulf War: "And I do think that whatever actions are taken or not taken should be taken after consultation with our allies, after working with the United Nations." By the time of the second Gulf War, Lott had changed his tune.
Let's play another game. What president of which political party is referred to here by what congressperson of which political party concerning an attack on Iraq? "This president is shameless in what he would do to stay in office. He will use our military and he will use our foreign policy to remain president. I do not put it past him." The quote belongs to Republican congresswoman Tillie Fowler, the president in question was Bill Clinton, and the year was 1998.
Republicans didn't want a war against Saddam Hussein when it was Bill Clinton spearheading it. But the left didn't call them "cowardly." When liberals try to find ways other than war to solve problems, that's exactly what they're called:
From: gusb
Sent: Tuesday, November 19,2002 9:32 PM
To: colmes
Subject: Alan
Alan, I already knew you were a communist now after... tonight, I now know you are a yellow bellied communist.
Trent Lott was against going into Iraq when Clinton was conducting "Operation Desert Fox" in 1998: "While I have been assured by administration officials that there is no connection with the impeachment process in the House of Representatives, I cannot support this military action in the Persian Gulf at this time." Lott added that "all Americans will fully support our troops in battle."
Can you imagine what the national dialogue would have been were it Clinton who failed to knock off Saddam Hussein during the first Persian Gulf War? But it was Bush 41 who let Saddam slide, and that was hardly mentioned in all the talk about "regime change"
coming from the Bush 43 administration. Do you think if Clinton were conducting a war that resulted in American's archenemy being allowed to rule his nation for the next dozen years that the Republican attack machine would have remained silent?
I have to admire the right's ability to build straw men and women, and to effectively convince the American public that what they've created is credible. But I'd like to believe that as easily as straw men can be erected, they can be destroyed, and that the truth ultimately wins. You may not agree politically with Tom Daschle, Bill and Hillary Clinton, or with any other Democrat, but let's at least acknowledge that most Americans, regardless of political stripe, want what's best for America, even if we don't agree on how to get there.
Although the right has done a wonderful job promulgating the idea that Reagan and the two Bushes were and are not only great political leaders but also paragons of truth and morality, and that Bill Clinton and the Democrats are exemplars of debauchery and deceit, let us agree that neither of these extreme sentiments are quite accurate. Lying, the kissing cousin of hypocrisy, should have no place among those who spend their time accusing their adversaries of using the very techniques they use to gain political advantage. I'll make a deal with those conservatives who care to misrepresent my side. My friend, and the dean of conservative talk radio, Barry Farber, uses this line: if you promise to stop lying about me, I promise to stop telling the truth about you.
SIX
Bill Clinton, Our Greatest President
Bill Clinton was the greatest American president in the second half of the twentieth century and may, through the lens of a longer history, go down as one of our greatest presidents, ever. We had unheralded prosperity, as evidenced by the rising tide of jobs, the stock market, and real estate values, and falling unemployment. He forged a peace agreement in Northern Ireland after decades of turmoil, achieved the Dayton Accords to calm the Balkans, and might have actually turned water into wine if the Republicans didn't try to steal his canteen. Okay, I'm kidding about the last one. But the Republicans did try to steal away his presidency, and since they couldn't get him on Whitewater, an old, not-very-significant land deal, they went after him on sex.
"He lied! He lied!" they bellowed. When reminded that most presidents lie at one time or another, they began to bellow, "He lied under oath! He lied under oath!" It was the Republicans, many seething with hatred for Clinton, who diverted his administration from doing the business of the country because they were consumed with trying to oust him. I don't defend his personal actions, but I do defend his professional ones, and I don't believe his personal behavior rose to the level necessary for impeaching a chief executive. When Reagan and Bush lied, as in the Iran-Contra affair, they lied about things that actually mattered to the American people, like policy issues that actually affected our lives. Clinton lied, all right, but all sense of proportionality was lost in the vicious, politically driven efforts to unseat him. My defense of Clinton's right to remain president angered my political adversaries enormously.
From: dewey
Sent: Tuesday, November 28,2000 1:43 AM
To: colmes
Subject: (no subject)
Colmes—you don't even deserve to have a Mr. or Sir put in front of your name___I know it has to be because no one could be that blindly loyal to scum bags like Bill Clinton and Al Gore. I know when you look in the mirror and your all by yourself you don't believe any of the horse crap that comes out of your mouth every night on your show. Give it up Colmes, you are terrible.
Dewey
San Antonio,TX
My fondness and respect for Clinton continues to cause hypertension in Clinton-haters. The more their bile level increases, the more I care to embrace him. I did a radio song parody once to the tune "The Greatest Love of All" and called it "The Greatest President of All." This made them positively apoplectic. I just couldn't bear to see a good man vilified for being human, for making many of the same mistakes his most vicious critics have made. The unfair and mean-spirited treatment of this man was so blinding that it often obscured his real record of accomplishment, a record that would have been even better if a group of ideological fanatics had focused on what was best for America, rather than what was best for their selfish agendas. Let's examine that record.
When he entered office in January 1993, Bill Clinton inherited a $290 billion deficit and 10 million unemployed Americans. His initial economic plan was denounced by Republicans who never apologized when their criticism turned out to be inaccurate. The creation of 22 million new jobs and thirty-year lows in the unemployment rate during his presidency were meaningless to the Clinton-haters. Women experienced the lowest unemployment rate in thirty years and Hispanics and blacks had the lowest unemployment rates ever recorded. The income of the average American family increased more than $5,000 and the number of families owning stock increased 40 percent. America went from the largest deficits to the largest surpluses in history. But many Republicans couldn't be gracious enough to give Clinton a scintilla of credit: Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi claimed, "The federal government is balancing its budget, thanks to the Republican Congress." Republican senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, joined in: "I agree that Bill and Al are responsible for the prosperity we are currently enjoying across America. That's Bill Gates and Alan Greenspan." How magnanimous!
Although his foes are still in denial, the facts show that Bill Clinton was instrumental in creating the longest-running expansion in America's history. But this wasn't an economic accomplishment, according to Bush 43. The great gains made in the stock market during the Clinton years were called a "binge": "In order for us to have the security we all want," Bush said in 2002, "America must get rid of the hangover that we now have as a result of the binge, the economic binge, we just went through. We were in a land of endless profit. There was no tomorrow when it came to the stock markets and corporate profits and now we're suffering a hangover for that binge."
Wait a minute! I thought profits were good. And if you're a Republican, corporate profits are even better. But when the profits are the result of Clintonism, it's a "binge." In fact, during the Clinton era, the average workweek for production for nonsupervisory workers declined while the average hourly earnings for these same workers grew by 37.1 percent, and construction jobs enjoyed their fastest growth in fifty years, after that sector lost 662,000 jobs in the four years leading up to the Clinton presidency. Because worker demand was so great, companies began hiring people with less education and trained them, leading incomes on the bottom fifth rung of the ladder to increase more than they had in decades. In the meantime, wage increases reflected their fastest and longest growth in more than thirty years, and inflation was lower than it had been during those three decades. By 1999, the federal economy was in the black, and by 2000 there was a $230 billion surplus. Oh, and by the way, 15 million families had their taxes cut with the earned income tax credit. But it wasn't the Republican-favored investor class that benefited, it was families with income below $27,000, and with that 4.3 million Americans were lifted out of poverty.
A few Republicans ought to order up some humble pie to go with their too-expensive decaf latte cappuccinos. Their predictions concerning the evils of the Clinton economic plan should buy them some healthy portions. Senator Phil Gramm said that with Clintonomics, we're buying "a job killer" and "a one-way ticket to a recession." House Speaker Newt Gingrich warned, "The tax increase will kill jobs and lead to a recession, and the recession will force people off of work and onto unemployment and will actually increase the deficit." John Kasich, the former Ohio congressman, who became the Republicans' most brilliant numbers cruncher, had this to say: "It's like a snakebite. The venom is going to be injected into the body of this economy; in our judgment it's going to spread throughout the body and it's going to begin to kill the jobs." And New Mexico's senator Pete Dominici predicted, "April Fools' America. This Clinton budget plan will not create jobs, will not grow the economy, and will not reduce the defi
cit." Want some ginkgo biloba with that humble pie?
While we're at it, let's not forget that while the Clinton health care plan failed, it resulted in passage of less sweeping but still significant reforms, like the Family and Medical Leave Act, which enabled workers to leave or change jobs without worrying about losing benefits. It also became more difficult for insurance companies to penalize us for preexisting conditions. And this was no thanks to Bush 41, who vetoed this bill, which helped 35 million Americans after Clinton signed it. Another result of Clinton's focus on health care was the Children Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, providing insurance for 4.6 million children who are not poor enough for Medicare, but whose parents can't afford health insurance. And not since it was created in 1965 was Medicare expanded to help more Americans than it was during the Clinton years.
The COPS program put a hundred thousand more police officers on the street. Crime rates fell for eight consecutive years, and reached twenty-five-year lows. And what a coincidence! This was happening against the backdrop of the Republican-opposed Brady Bill which, since 1994, has resulted in the denial of almost a million gun purchase applications. This was another initiative vetoed by Bush 43. Oh, and by the way, violent crime dropped 27 percent during the Clinton presidency. Also during this time, twenty-nine thousand teachers were hired and classes got smaller, and tax credits made at least some college available to anyone who wanted to go.