- Text smaller
- Text bigger
Is it possible that the ’60s flower children are finally reaping what
they have sown? What they are most known for is their idealism, love-ins
and nation-shaking protests of the Vietnam War. What they ought to be
known for is their self-indulgent narcissism that eschewed guilt and
rejected traditional moral standards or anything else that got in their
way of having a good time.
The hedonistic culture of the ’60s operated under the lofty moral
principles that “if it feels good, do it,” and “I’m OK, you’re OK.”
Translation: Ego gratification is the noblest of pursuits, and unbridled
tolerance the highest good.
The problem with this countercultural psychobabble is that it is all
based on a number of lies, such as: There are no moral absolutes, and
the consequences of one’s actions aren’t as important as one’s
Bill Clinton is the model flower child, the quintessential protester.
What a cruel irony that he became president of the nation he resents and
commander in chief of the military he loathes.
He has finally carried ’60s self-indulgence to its logical extreme.
It was one thing for him to have had sex in the Oval Office with an
intern, lie about it, persuade others to lie about it under oath and
otherwise obstruct justice. Those actions besmirched this nation and
degraded the office of the presidency.
But Clinton reached a new level of perniciousness when he put his own
political self-interests above our national security, above the very
safety of our children. Looking at the China nuclear scandal in a light
most favorable to the president, he was so obsessed with his own
election that he was willing to compromise the future of this nation in
the process. Looking at it in less favorable light, he. … Let’s not go
When are at least a majority of the people going to wake up and
demand Clinton’s accountability for betraying this nation’s interests?
Probably not until 1) his accomplices in the major media begin to
subordinate their own ideological allegiances to the best interests of
the nation, and 2) Democratic leaders finally subordinate the interests
of their party to the best interests of the nation.
So long as the major media and the Democrats continue to protect
Clinton, they are operating under the same corrupt ’60s ethic that he
is. Which is to say, a reverse of the golden rule: do unto others
whatever is necessary so long as your own self-interests are gratified.
If Clinton were innocent of wrongdoing in the China matter, would he
be spending all of his energy preparing a rebuttal to the Cox report,
systematically leaking the bad news for numbing effect and launching a
counteroffensive whose purpose is to shift blame to past Republican
administrations? No, he would be focusing on getting to the bottom of
It’s always the same m.o.: he denies any culpability and proceeds to
defame the character of his predecessors to lower the common moral
denominator sufficiently to qualify him for the office.
Whether it is Jefferson’s affair with a slave or incidents of nuclear
theft under Reagan’s watch, all past presidents were equally flawed. But
when you think about it, at least Clinton is being consistent. He is
staying true to his ’60s principles of trashing America, its finest
traditions and its great historic leaders.
It is time for Bill Clinton to grow up, quit lying and accept
responsibility for his actions. The truth is that as much as he tries to
dumb down this nation’s moral heritage and its great leaders, he shares
no moral equivalence with them.
Regardless of the fact that some breaches occurred during the Reagan
and Bush administrations, it is clear that:
- Neither Reagan nor Bush were ever made aware of any nuclear thefts
while in office.
- Almost all of our nuclear secrets were stolen during Clinton’s watch.
- Clinton was told about these infractions at least a few years ago,
lied about being so briefed and took no action to plug the leaks or that
might otherwise upset his Red Chinese contributors.
Notice to major media and leading Democrats: You better quit
protecting the indefensible actions of this reprehensible man (your
words, not mine). While he will probably continue to escape
accountability, you will not. As you and Al Gore are about to learn the
hard way, only his culpability — not his slickness — will attach.