DECEMBER 17, 2001
Foot-in-mouth sophistry
© 2001

Perception and reality are not often consistent.

In the wake of 9-11 some posit (or vainly hope) that a sea change is afoot. America has suffered a devastatingly cruel reality check and the result was epiphany. God is back. Men are back. The politically correct cancer has been eradicated. Would that that were true.

Some wags have been pontificating that, post 9-11, the liberal left socialists and politically correct indoctrinated masses are at a loss on how to continue proselytizing PCism. The reality is sycophants never did require reason or rationality. According to them, they are right, and anyone who dares to disagree with "the gospel according to them" must be marginalized, vilified and/or ignored.

However, overwhelmingly (at least for the time being) the national consensus has turned a deaf ear to the few leftist wannabe controllers who just can't help but revert to type and cannot keep their mouths shut.

In his 1997 book, "The Secret Life of Bill Clinton," Ambrose Evans-Pritchard wrote, "The ordinary citizens, thank goodness, still adhere to absolutes. A lie is an abomination. A vow is sacred. Injustice cannot be excused. It is they who have saved the republic from creeping degradation while their 'betters' were derelict."

One of the unintended consequences of America's rejection of mandated political correctness is that legends crumble.

The classic case is that of Bill Clinton. The conventional wisdom has been (even from his critics) that notwithstanding policy and philosophy disagreements Bill Clinton was/is a smart, charming, even brilliant man.

The reality that is becoming increasingly clear to those willing to see is that "The President Clinton Package" and his team of advisers, managers, and spin doctors, were smart, charming and at times brilliant. However, left to his own devices and without the support, advice, counsel and coercive powers of office, Bill is (for the second time in two months) emphatically demonstrating he ain't all that smart.

At a time when no doubt advisers would counsel the Senator's husband to keep his mouth shut and write something scholarly, Bill just can't help mouthing off on his own.

According to a recent story entitled "Wealthy nations must spread the benefits," the former national embarrassment claims that fighting terrorism is the responsibility of the wealthy and prosperous nations.

Clinton may know "booty," but he doesn't know "Jack" about this terrorist threat. He spoke about "The struggle for the soul of the 21st century" during a BBC lecture (this from a guy who apparently sold his soul to the devil).

He stressed, "I am absolutely confident that we have the knowledge and the means to make the 21st century the most peaceful, prosperous and interesting time in our history." But this, he said, was providing "we have the wisdom and the will" to achieve it. Pure sophistry held together with bullcrap.

He claimed that poverty provided the breeding ground for terrorism but ignored the cultural disconnect which has proven the tragic flaw of our diplomatic efforts for decades.

Terrorists, and nations that support terrorists directly or indirectly are "different" from the American intelligentsia, elite and John Q. Public. You cannot and should not attempt to engage this enemy in debate, negotiation, or appeasement. There is evil in the world and the only way to deal with evil is to destroy it. Strength through superior firepower.

Arguably Clinton cannot see or recognize the futility of confronting axiomatic evil because he is one of its disciples.

Clinton claims, "The responsibility now falls primarily upon the wealthy nations to spread the benefits and to spread the burdens." Is that what he had in mind when he personally orchestrated giving Communist Red China (inevitably, by it own admission, a future enemy) a 10-year boost in military technology? Did or does he really think that "to spread the benefits" (by giving China our patents, satellite technology, newest and best computers and opening doors so it could steal what it wasn't gifted) would mollify China and arrest its goal of hegemon?

To emphasize a John Stossel line, "Give me a bleeping break?"

Monday, Nov. 12, I wrote, "Oh, shut up!" It was largely a rant. However, in addition to, "Bill Clinton is a small dollop of pond scum masquerading as a man." I included a litany of how "President Clinton" dealt with the terrorist threat and specifically the multiple atrocities of Osama bin Dirtbag.

When I wrote, "I have often (too often) observed that there are consequences to what we do and don't do in life. This axiom is inevitable. Unfortunately, in the case of Bill Clinton the consequences of his action and inaction are borne by others while he luxuriates in a state of narcissistic denial." I should have added a link to my webpage defining narcissism.

"We need to reach out and engage the Muslim world in a debate," he said. Debate?! The bad guys don't want to "debate." Can you say "Denial"? Epic, monumental, inimitable denial!

I end my daily radio program by saying, "Knowledge is power -- if you take that knowledge and do something with it. Then you can become part of the solution instead of part of the apathetic problem. If you do that, then you can become a champion."

Bill Clinton is a tragically flawed man. Although he may still be striving for some whole cloth fiction of "a legacy" he exacerbates his myriad flaws by picking at scabs and remains his own worst enemy.

Meanwhile, America has real enemies to destroy -- and destroy them we must.