Grabbing His Rifle


James Fitzpatrick's new novel, The Dead Sea Conspiracy: Teilhard de Chardin and the New American Church, can be ordered directly from Winepress Publishers — 1-877-421-READ (7323); $12.95, plus S&H. You can email Mr. Fitzpatrick at jkfitz42@aol.com.

(This article originally appeared in The Wanderer and is reprinted with permission. To subscribe call 651-224-5733.)


Accounts of the speech tell of Clinton staring dramatically at the crowd and proclaiming, “If Iraq came across the Jordan River, I would grab a rifle and get in the trench and fight and die!”

I’m not kidding. He said it.

As I write these lines, the initial reaction to the speech are hitting the airwaves and the newsstands. Rush Limbaugh is having a grand time with his Clinton parodies. Other commentators are punching hard too, pointing out that when the time came for Clinton to grab a rifle to fight for his own country, he used every trick in the book to escape military service.

Supporters of Clinton may call this jab a cheap shot that fails to take into account Clinton’s ideological and moral opposition to the war in Vietnam, arguing that Clinton would have been willing to serve in the military during that conflict if the cause had been just – as he would be willing to defend what he sees as the just cause of the Israeli people. Arnold Ahlert, a writer for the New York Post, points out the flaws in that logic in his August 5th column: “Mr. Clinton, already famous for his military ‘prowess’ might want to reflect on the fact that another country he’s somewhat familiar with has already been attacked by the militant forces of Islam. And it wasn’t the Jordan river that was crossed, it was the Hudson and the Potomac.

“Ah, but no matter. If Bill wants to ‘fight the good fight,’ it’s very likely he would be more effective with an M-16 and a couple of clips than he was commanding the most lethal fighting force in the history of the planet. Chances are good that he would hit something more threatening than an aspirin factory.

“Sign him up, I say. Put him through basic, where he can shed a couple of those Big-Macs, and send him wherever he wants to go. An Army of one, barreling across the desert full of spitfire and determination.

“Just watch your daughters when he’s home on leave. You know how some girls can’t resist a man in uniform.”

Perfect, Mr. Ahlert.

Do I ever worry about harboring too much contempt for Clinton? I do. Jesus taught us to love our enemies and do good to those who hate us. We also know that it is a mistake to assume that those who oppose us politically are evil men and women. The political platform of the Republican Party should not be assumed to represent the Catholic position on the issues of the day, especially now that the Republicans seem to be soft-pedaling their stand on abortion.

Yet to this day, the sight of Clinton on television evokes a visceral reaction in me — literally. In one of my columns a few years back, I called it “Billimia.” At the time, several readers commented that they experience the same phenomenon. No other politician summons up the same reaction in me — not Ted Kennedy, not Mario Cuomo, not Bob Torricelli. No one. I submit that there is a moral dimension to Clinton’s manipulation of the electorate that needs to be discussed. Pointing out his demagoguery is not just partisan politics.

What is the source of my intense reaction to the man? I suggest that Clinton’s words about picking up his rifle to fight and die for Israel offer a clue to the source. I don’t know if they excuse the way I feel about him, but they explain it. What they reveal is the calculated phoniness that is at the heart of the man’s dealings with the American people, his willingness to say anything and do anything to curry favor with those he thinks can advance his career. Maybe all politicians do the same thing, but Clinton carries the insincerity to unparalleled heights. Or maybe he is just better at it. In fact, maybe that is what galls me: the fact that he fooled — and continues to fool — enough people to get away with it.

The state motto of North Carolina is “Esse Quam Videri.” — “to be rather than to seem.” Clinton lives as if the key to life is the reverse spin. Where to begin to make the point? No doubt my reactions are idiosyncratic. Probably most of you can come up with five or six other examples that are more poignant for you. But the following are my favorites.

Number one on my list is the shot of Clinton at Ron Brown’s funeral. The cameras caught him joking in a frat-house-style with reporters before he entered the room to make his public appearance and express his condolences to the Brown family, joking and back-slapping and leering in that naughty-boy look of his. But when he saw the camera, he changed in an instant. His shoulders sloped, his demeanor became despondent and morose. In an instant. It became clear: He could become whatever man he wanted to be to sell himself to the crowd.

It was the same chameleon-like quality revealed in his denial of his sexual involvement with Monica Lewinsky, his famous finger-pointing insistence that he “did not have sexual relations with that woman — Miss Lewinsky.” He was as forceful in his denial of his sexual encounters with Lewinsky as he was contrite in his later admission that he did behave “improperly” with her once the DNA on the stained dress made it impossible for him to continue the lie.

But there are other moments equally indicative of what makes the man tick. Take your choice: walking into church from the presidential limo, carrying a Bible in a highly visible manner; strutting for the cameras around military bases in leather bomber jackets; stooping to make a cross with stones on the beach at Normandy, just when the cameras happened to be ready to record the moment.

What is the word for it all? Shameless, I guess. Of course, the man lives in a world where this ability to con the rubes is looked up to. Come on: you know what I mean. You can picture James Carville and Paul Begala chuckling at the way all these faked moments of sincerity worked to pump up Clinton in the polls.

Is that a sign of jealousy? I don’t think that is the right word. I compare it to the stomach-turning resentment we all experience when we know that someone is succeeding through deception and posturing rather than sincerity and hard work. I think it is a justifiable anger. I make no apologies for it, especially after hearing the man pronounce with a straight face that he is ready to jump into the foxhole to fight for Israel.

Want to bet he got a standing ovation when he spoke the words?

Subscribe to CE
(It's free)

Go to Catholic Exchange homepage

MENU