Corrupt? or Incompetent?
I imagine everyone reading this knows that Sandy Berger (former National Security Advisor for Bill Clinton) illegally removed top secret government documents by stuffing them in his clothing and brief case. Despite the obvious conclusion that he had committed a crime, he and his defenders have tried to claim that the removal was "inadvertent". Bill Clinton, when asked about it, laughed and claimed that Berger had always been a joke when it came to security procedures.
I wonder how many people realize that this is actually a long standing tradition for Clinton and his aides -- when faced with evidence of blatant crime or corruption, claim incompetence. We saw this over the illegal access to 900+ FBI files, the Health Care Task Force, Whitewater, cattle-futures trading, the search of Vince Foster's office, campaign fund-raising, the travel office scandal, the obstruction of justice in the Commerce Department FOIA cases and Hillary's billing record dissapearance (to name only a few). And note, we aren't talking about a little negligence. The Clintons and their aides have regularly confessed to mind-blowing incompetence.
In Berger's case, it isn't just that there is no possible way that a competent security advisor could do what he did. President Clinton has, in essence, admitted that he kept Berger in his position in charge of national security despite knowing that Berger's incompetence handling security was a well-known source of humor in the administration. That is simply extraordinary incompetence by a president.
For those inclined to point out that the Clinton's weren't really that incompetent -- that they were simply lying to protect themselves from charges of criminality or corruption -- I agree. My point is that they have had to admit to extraordinary levels of incompetence to an extent that no other administration ever has.
Why hasn't the MSM covered these frequent admissions of incompetence? That takes us back to this same question. Are they corrupt? or incompetent?
I wonder how many people realize that this is actually a long standing tradition for Clinton and his aides -- when faced with evidence of blatant crime or corruption, claim incompetence. We saw this over the illegal access to 900+ FBI files, the Health Care Task Force, Whitewater, cattle-futures trading, the search of Vince Foster's office, campaign fund-raising, the travel office scandal, the obstruction of justice in the Commerce Department FOIA cases and Hillary's billing record dissapearance (to name only a few). And note, we aren't talking about a little negligence. The Clintons and their aides have regularly confessed to mind-blowing incompetence.
In Berger's case, it isn't just that there is no possible way that a competent security advisor could do what he did. President Clinton has, in essence, admitted that he kept Berger in his position in charge of national security despite knowing that Berger's incompetence handling security was a well-known source of humor in the administration. That is simply extraordinary incompetence by a president.
For those inclined to point out that the Clinton's weren't really that incompetent -- that they were simply lying to protect themselves from charges of criminality or corruption -- I agree. My point is that they have had to admit to extraordinary levels of incompetence to an extent that no other administration ever has.
Why hasn't the MSM covered these frequent admissions of incompetence? That takes us back to this same question. Are they corrupt? or incompetent?
posted by Stan at 3:31 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home