Clinton’s new interventionism

Bill Clinton is back on the campaign trail.

His agenda: A new era of unabashed American interventionism.

His personal goal: Maybe global emperor?

Earlier this week, Clinton gave
a speech at Georgetown University
in which he largely plagiarized
an earlier address by his National Security Adviser Samuel R. Berger to the Bilderberg Steering
Committee.

Clinton liked Berger’s Bilderberg talk so much the White House posted it
on the official presidential website. Very unusual, given the secretive
nature of the Bilderberger meetings.
This particular meeting was announced in advance by only one news agency in the world — this
one.

What did Clinton say? For one thing, somewhat ironically, he pointed
to the foreign policy leadership of President Reagan in challenging the
Soviet Union as the Evil Empire as an inspiration for future U.S.
interventionism around the world. Imagine that. I never realized Clinton
was a Reaganite. I never realized the man who protested the Vietnam War
on foreign soil was a rabid anti-communist at heart.

Also somewhat ironically, Clinton listed as the first of three
principal foreign policy challenges “building the right kind of
partnership with Russia — a Russia that is stable, democratic and
cooperatively engaged with the West. … Russia’s transformation has
just begun. It is incomplete. It is awkward. Sometimes it is not
pretty.”

That’s for sure. And the U.S. relationship with Russia was made
considerably more awkward thanks to Clinton’s war on Serbia earlier this
year. In fact, it set back relations about 15 years, nearly provoking a
military clash.

The second major foreign policy challenge, according to Clinton, is
to bring stability to the Balkans, so that “bitter ethnic problems can
no longer be exploited by dictators and Americans do not have to cross
the Atlantic again to fight another war.” I’ve got news for you, Bill.
We didn’t have to cross the Atlantic to fight your war there. In fact,
you and your friends in NATO lied to the public in this country and in
Europe when you told us war was necessary to stop “genocide.” It turns
out, there was no genocide to stop. So, who was it that was exploiting
ethnic tensions? It was you, Bill.

The final challenge, Clinton said, is a decision to “maintain the
tradition of American leadership and engagement in the world that played
such a critical role in winning the Cold War and in helping us to win
the peace over this last decade.”

Funny, I don’t remember Ronald Reagan selling or giving away nuclear
and other military technology to the Soviet Union to win the Cold War.
That’s been a big part of the Clinton strategy of engagement. I don’t
recall Ronald Reagan taking campaign cash from Moscow. I don’t recall
him unilaterally disarming. I don’t recall him giving legitimacy to
totalitarian dictators.

It’s clear, based on the mirror speeches by Clinton and Berger, that
the Democratic Party strategy for the year 2000 is not to run against
Republicans — who, all too often, have gone along with the
interventionist agenda prescribed by the president, the Council on
Foreign Relations, the Bilderbergers, the World Bank, the International
Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, NATO, the United Nations
and a host of other globalist busybodies. The Democrats are running
against Pat Buchanan and what they call, inaccurately, “the new
isolationism.”

Berger, in his outspoken defense of “internationalism,” states that
the abdication of U.S. sovereignty in favor of international treaties
and organizations is a step in the direction of freedom and democracy.
It’s hard to understand how delegating power to unaccountable,
unelected, globalist agencies and bureaucrats could possibly be a step
in the direction of freedom or democracy.

What Clinton and Berger really want, when you cut through all of the
flowery double-talk, is more U.S. taxpayer money going abroad — going
into foreign bank accounts, padding the retirement funds of the
most-favored despots, buying friends and influencing people, subsidizing
inefficiency around the world as the federal government does here in the
United States.

No thanks. It’s bad enough Washington has illegitimately usurped the
sovereign powers of states and individuals. Americans cannot and should
not tolerate the final vestiges of their rights and freedoms being the
latest U.S. commodity dumped on foreign markets.