Firstly, my slow disaffection with him in the late 90's as I realized he lacked character, is now revealed as a huge blind spot on my part throughout the decade. That I didn't sooner see what a congenital liar he is humbles me.

Secondly, listening to him is like listening to old radio shows from the 1930s, a fantasy world, or a lost civilization gone with the wind. A 9/10 world that lacks seriousness.

What is even more disturbing is that 9/11 affected his world view and policy preferences not a whit more than court fines, disbarment and impeachment drove him to repentance. Neither had any effect on him.

I have been saying for two years that I do not believe he would survive a Hillary presidential campaign due to the stress of the resurrection of the relevancy of his legacy of corruption and skeletons in the Lott impeachment trial closet. I see a very spiritually sick man. Haggard and weakened by public shame that he can never erase from history, loss of youth that he worshipped, a legacy that includes not just Monica, but also 911, and a stubborn refusal to turn to God due to pride and the need for approval from the leftist atheist crowd that will pay him to speak.

Until recently, the only times we saw him show real passion and anger was when Ken Starr's name was raised like a cross to a vampire. He wasn't moved by 911, North Korea's bombs he paid for, or China's missiles that can reach Maine he paid for.

Much like Dorian Gray wasn't moved by the consequences of his deal with the devil born debauchery...

"Talking in Basil's garden, Dorian meets Lord Henry Wotton, a friend of Basil's, and becomes enthralled by Lord Henry's world view. Espousing a new kind of hedonism, Lord Henry suggests that the only thing worth pursuing in life is beauty, and the fulfillment of the senses. Realising that one day his beauty will fade, Dorian cries out, wishing that the portrait Basil has painted of him would age rather than himself. Dorian's wish is fulfilled, subsequently plunging him into a sequence of debauched acts. The portrait serves as a reminder of the effect each act has upon his soul, each sin being displayed as a new sign of ageing on the portrait."

as these consequences affect others, but, beginning with his public "thou doest protest too much" Shakespearean fit over the movie, "The Path to 911", and continuing with his tirade in response to a non-accusatory question from Chris Wallace to be aired on this weekend's Fox News Sunday, when the subject looks at the effect of his deeds on himself and the views of others, he is moved to anger.

Its all about him.

Since 911, Clinton has been schizophrenic, alternating between support for Bush and the war and criticisms on foreign soil. Compared to other democrats, he looks good. That isn't saying much.

To hear him, like he did on Greta;'s Fox News Channel Show last night, and other venues of late and over the past 5 years:

1-give Bush advice to talk to terrorist states like Iran;
2-oppose tough interrogation;
3-question the legality of eavesdropping surveillance;
4-obsess on Abu Ghraib and Gitmo;
5-oppose unilateral action in Iraq without UN approval; and
6-criticize Israel's disproportionate response killing civilians the Hezbos hid behind as human shields

I become more enraged than listening to that other dem failure Jimmy Carter give advice. Who seeks out a .200 batter for advice on hitting?

This is the same Bill Clinton that:

1-let North Korea talk him into paying for their nuclear program and talked so much to Arafat that he saw the internal coward In him and started anew war;
2-authorized rendition of terrorists to middle eastern states;
3-set up the Echelon program that bugged every phone call made in the US;
4-bombed Kosovo for months without UN approval, which
5-killed lots of civilians.

Did I mention that Kosovo, nor for that matter, Haiti or Bosnia attached the US on 9-11 or any other date.

This is also the man that warned that we would have to one day remove Saddam due to his wmd and his relationship with terrorists.

Now, for the coupe de grace. Post 9-11. It would be bad enough if it was pre-911.

First, a taste from May 2005, and then the whole enchilada (see link after excerpts)

WHO SHOULD APOLOGIZE TO WHOM?
by Amir Taheri
Arab News
March 5, 2005

"Where is the country that Bill Clinton, a former president of the United States, feels ideologically most at home?

Before you answer, here is the condition that such a country must fulfill: It must hold several consecutive elections that produce 70 percent majorities for "liberals and progressives."

Well, if you thought of one of the Scandinavian countries or, perhaps, New Zealand or Canada, you are wrong.

Believe it or not, the country Bill Clinton so admires is the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Here is what Clinton said at a meeting on the margins of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, just a few weeks ago: "Iran today is, in a sense, the only country where progressive ideas enjoy a vast constituency. It is there that the ideas that I subscribe to are defended by a majority."

And here is what Clinton had to say in a recent television interview with Charlie Rose:

"Iran is the only country in the world that has now had six elections since the first election of President Khatami (in 1997). (It is) the only one with elections, including the United States, including Israel, including you name it, where the liberals, or the progressives, have won two-thirds to 70 percent of the vote in six elections: Two for president; two for the Parliament, the Majlis; two for the mayoralties. In every single election, the guys I identify with got two-thirds to 70 percent of the vote. There is no other country in the world I can say that about, certainly not my own."

So, while millions of Iranians, especially the young, look to the United States as a mode of progress and democracy, a former president of the US looks to the Islamic Republic as his ideological homeland."

.....

"Clinton told his audience in Davos, as well as Charlie Rose, that during his presidency he had "formally apologized on behalf of the United States" for what he termed "American crimes against Iran."

But what were those "crimes"? Clinton summed them thus: "It's a sad story that really began in the 1950s when the United States deposed Mr. Mossadegh, who was an elected parliamentary democrat, and brought the Shah back and then he was overturned by the Ayatollah Khomeini, driving us into the arms of one Saddam Hussein. We got rid of the parliamentary democracy {there} back in the ‘50s; at least, that is my belief."

Duped by a myth spread by the Blame-America-First coalition, Clinton appears to have done little homework on Iran. The truth is that Iran in the 1950s was not a parliamentary democracy but a constitutional monarchy in which the Shah appointed, and dismissed, the prime minister. Mossadegh was named prime minister twice by the Shah and twice dismissed. In what way that meant that the US "got rid of parliamentary democracy" that did not exist is not clear.

There are at least two things that Clinton does not know about Iran and Iranians....

Read the whole thing

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/12677

Now get on your knees and thank God we survived the 90's as a nation and that he can't run again.

cross-posted at

http://www.redstate.com/blogs/gamecock/2006/sep/22/the_picture_of_dorian_gray_and_bill_clinton

Gamecock, a civil/criminal trial lawyer for two decades in federal and state courts throughout the South and presently Vice-President of a multi-state real estate investment firm headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., is Mike DeVine.

also a contributor at www.race42008.com