Peggy Noonan, author and columnist for The Wall Street Journal, relates a question that came up during the week at a political panel.
The question was: “Why don’t people like Hillary Clinton? Why do they always believe the worst? Why, when some supposed scandal breaks and someone says she’s hiding something, do people, including many of her supporters, assume it’s true?”
The answer, according to Noonan, is to be found in Hillary’s track record — various segments of which people of all age groups, respectively, are well aware of.
The scandals involving Hillary Clinton stretch back all the way to her beginnings as a national figure in 1993. And so, too, do the revelations of her malevolent and deceitful nature.
It started with “the first significant scandal of Bill Clinton’s presidency.”
It was early 1993. The Clintons had just entered the White House after a solid win that broke the Republicans’ 12-year hold. He was a young and dashing New Democrat. She too was something new, a professional woman with modern attitudes and pronounced policy interests. They had captured the national imagination and were in a strong position.
Then she — not he — messed it up. It was the first big case in which she showed poor judgment, a cool willingness to mislead, and a level of political aggression that gave even those around her pause. It was after this mess that her critics said she’d revealed the soul of an East German border guard.
The soul of an East German border guard? That’s a hell of a thing to say about someone, considering the ruthless brutality of those trigger-happy guards on the East German side of the wall before it was torn down in November, 1989.
But then again, just look at what Hillary did to justify the comparison with those nasty individuals:
On May 19, 1993, less than four months into the administration, the seven men who had long worked in the White House travel office were suddenly and brutally fired. The seven nonpartisan government workers, who helped arrange presidential trips, served at the pleasure of the president. But each new president had kept them on because they were good at their jobs.
A veteran civil servant named Billy Dale had worked in the office 30 years and headed it the last 10. He and his colleagues were ordered to clear out their desks and were escorted from the White House, which quickly announced they were the subject of a criminal investigation by the FBI.
They were in shock. So were members of the press, who knew Mr. Dale and his colleagues as honest and professional. A firestorm ensued.
Under criticism the White House changed its story. They said that they were just trying to cut unneeded staff and save money. Then they said they were trying to impose a competitive bidding process. They tried a new explanation — the travel office shake-up was connected to Vice President Al Gore’s National Performance Review. (Almost immediately Mr. Gore said that was not true.) The White House then said it was connected to a campaign pledge to cut the White House staff by 25%. Finally they claimed the workers hadn’t been fired at all but placed on indefinite “administrative leave.”
Why so many stories? Because the real one wasn’t pretty.
It emerged in contemporaneous notes of a high White House staffer that the travel-office workers were removed because Mrs. Clinton wanted to give their jobs — their “slots,” as she put it, according to the notes of director of administration David Watkins — to political operatives who’d worked for Mr. Clinton’s campaign.
Of course, as per the modus operandi that has since become the main hallmark of her personality, Hillary Clinton simply kept repeating the lie that she had nothing whatsoever to do with thefiring and framing ofthose conscientious and loyal employees.
So, yes indeed, the soul of an East German border guard does seem a fitting description.