The Clintons – One Lie Too Many?
by Paul R. Hollrah

At the very end of the Democrat presidential debate in South Carolina in May 2007, Hillary Clinton was asked about Wal-Mart… was it a good thing or a bad thing for America?

In her long rambling response, in which she tried to wrap herself around all sides of the issue, she took aim at the Bush Administration, saying, “they don’t see middle class Americans…” She went on to say that, to George Bush and other Republicans, middle class Americans are “invisible.”

It was a desperate lie, of course, and she knew it. But that’s just one of the things that separate people like Bill and Hillary Clinton from decent people… those who always try to be truthful and who never put into words those things which they cannot support.

As I heard her speak those words I couldn’t help but think back to something that Hollywood mogul David Geffen said in an interview with New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd. He said, “Everybody in politics lies, but [the Clintons] do it with such ease, it’s troubling.”

The Clintons exhibit all of the characteristics of pathological liars. If they are caught in a lie and backed into a corner, they become defensive (“I never had sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky!”), but they may eventually respond with, “So what's the difference? You're making a big deal out of nothing!” (“Yes, I lied, but it was only about sex.”) They can also be expected to attempt to refocus the conversation to your perceived wrongdoing instead of theirs. (“Why are you doing this to us? This is all part of a vast right wing conspiracy.”)

But now comes what one reporter has dubbed the “mother of all lies.” Speaking at a Democrat rally in Muscatine, Iowa on Tuesday evening, November 27, and attempting to make the point that the wealthy should be asked to pay a larger share of the tax burden during time of war, Bill Clinton said, "Even though I approved of Afghanistan and opposed Iraq from the beginning (emphasis added), I still resent that I was not asked or given the opportunity to support those soldiers."

Could this be the same Bill Clinton who said in his January 1998 State of the Union address, “On the eve of a new century, we have the power and the duty to build a new era of peace and security… We must combat an unholy axis of new threats from terrorists, international criminals, and drug traffickers. These 21st century predators feed on technology and the free flow of information. And they will be all the more lethal if weapons of mass destruction fall into their hands.

“… Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And, mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.”
Could this possibly be the same Bill Clinton who said in an Oval Office address to the nation on December 16, 1998, “Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons… Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq… Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

“The Iraqi leader was given a final warning six weeks ago when Baghdad promised to cooperate with U.N. inspectors at the last minute, just as U.S. warplanes were headed its way. Along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy, or warning.

“The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government – a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.”

Yes, the senator from New York sent her husband to Iowa to improve her chances of winning the 2008 Democrat presidential nomination, but this lie, this “mother of all lies,” may spell the beginning of the end of her quest. From now and through the rest of the primary season it will be like a diseased cell eating away at the heart of her support. It cannot be undone and it will not be forgotten. It may be just one lie too many… even for the Democrat faithful.

Permission to republished granted by Paul Hollrah.

Mr. Hollrah is a native of St. Charles, Missouri. He holds a B.S. degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Missouri and is a member of the Civil Engineering Academy of Distinguished Alumni. From 1962-70 he served as a Senior Project Engineer for Cities Service Oil Company (Citgo) and the Sun Oil Company (Sunoco) in New York and Tulsa, Oklahoma.

He is a founder and former director of the State Governmental Affairs Council, a former member of the General Committee on State Relations of the American Petroleum Institute.

Mr. Hollrah took early retirement from the Sun Company in 1984. Since retiring, he has worked as an independent consultant both in the U.S. and in Russia, seeking to bring Russia’s unique technological developments to the U.S. and working on humanitarian aid projects in Moscow and Siberia. From June 1999 to January 2002 he served as U.S. Coordinator for the US-Russian Mayor-To-Mayor Program, and in November 2000 he was appointed to the Board of Trustees of the Congress of Small Cities of Russia.

In 1998 he founded a publishing company, Patria Publishing, and has published a frontier history (1765-1885) of St. Charles County, Missouri, the jumping-off point for the Lewis & Clark Expedition. He currently writes a weekly political column for an eastern Oklahoma newspaper and for the Lincoln Heritage Institute, an Internet site for conservative political expression.