King Clinton the sociopath

President Clinton’s run-in with Investor’s Business Daily reporter
Paul Sperry gives us yet another insight into the twisted personality
currently leading the executive branch of the federal government.

It also illustrates the institutional flaws in the establishment
press.

To recap, Sperry was attending a White House gathering for much of
the press corps. As Clinton walked by him, he casually asked when the
president might be holding his next press conference. At first Clinton
brushed off the question as he has brushed off the idea that there is
any reason for him to hold press conferences or Cabinet meetings or
perform any other traditional presidential function of accountability or
management.

But, unlike most members of the Beltway press, Sperry didn’t just
drop the matter. He’s one of a handful of reporters in Washington who
understand the watchdog role of the news media. He persisted.

So, Clinton begrudgingly ambled over to the reporter to see what was
on his mind.

“Who are you with?” he wondered. This was an unusual species, and
Clinton was curious.

Sperry answered him and repeated his simple, straightforward,
reasonable and unthreatening question about the press conference.

Clinton asked why he should hold a press conference, and Sperry
answered that the American people had many questions about the growing
China scandal involving his administration and an FBI investigation.

Now Clinton was getting irritated. According to Sperry and other
witnesses, he contorted his face, got testy and challenged the reporter.

Clinton sputtered that the only reason the FBI was focusing attention
on the China scandal was to divert attention from its role in the Waco
scandal.

Did you catch that? Clinton, the expert on using one scandal to
divert attention from another, accused the FBI — his FBI — of doing
precisely that. Clinton appointed the FBI director. He appointed the
attorney general who supervises the FBI. Yet, here he was passing the
buck, again, suggesting that his FBI was victimizing him.

Well, I guess if I believed my mother victimized me, my grandmother
victimized me and that I, as one of the most powerful people in the
world, was still little more than a helpless victim of circumstances,
then it would be natural for me to feel persecuted by anyone and
everyone with whom I had disagreements.

But this was clearly an enlightening exchange.

As a result, Clinton’s White House banned Sperry from the White
House. Banned him. Which raises the question, again, of just whose house
this president thinks he lives in and works in. It’s not his. The people
of the United States graciously provide the president this office space
and these living quarters while he serves.

It’s not a compound. It’s not his personal playground. It’s not his
bunker. It’s not his dirty tricks headquarters. It’s not an office from
which it is legal or appropriate to conduct political campaigns. It’s
not a place in which it is legal or appropriate to spy on the American
people, maintain dossiers and target enemies. But Clinton obviously
thinks it is all of those things.

People have often asked me during the last seven years if I actually
believed Clinton was capable of terrible and dastardly behavior.

Yes, I do. And this exchange and its aftermath should illustrate to
everyone just how insecure this man is — just how volatile he is, just
how arrogant he is, just how truly sociopathic he is.

Clinton lost it with Sperry — over nothing, an innocent question, a
good question, a legitimate question, a not-particularly-tough question.

Maybe it’s time he got some tough questions. Are there any you would
like to ask? There sure are a number I would like to pose — even though
he is a known liar, buck-passer and obfuscator.

The nice thing about tough questions is that, in and of themselves,
they tend to be revealing. One of the reasons the American people remain
so shockingly ill-informed about the state of affairs of American
government is because there have been too few tough questions asked. The
U.S. press establishment has been more of a lapdog for government than
watchdog.

But all that’s about to change. You know, one of the reasons people
are talking about the Clinton-Sperry confrontation is because of the
attention it got right here — on the Internet. In fact, more people
read Sperry’s account of this incident through a link on WorldNetDaily
last week than subscribe to Investor’s Business Daily.

The New Media are making a difference. And you can help us continue
that revolutionary process.

WorldNetDaily has had a long-standing feature called “Mr.
President!” In
it, we ask readers to frame questions they would like to ask Clinton at
his next press conference — assuming he has another one, some time.

We have found the best of the questions actually wind up getting
asked occasionally — even by some establishment press types. Sometimes
the sheer volume of questions prevents us from compiling them and
presenting them in the form of news stories. But, nevertheless, the
interactive feature has taken on a life of its own and is one of many
examples of the way the New Media are reshaping the relationship between
the people, the press and government.

So, fire away.