The Triangulations of William Jefferson Clinton - No One Left to Lie To

Christopher Hitchens is dead, Hillary is retiring, and we have seen the arrival of two presidents who are certainly Clinton's intellectual inferiors. While they may be moral in matters of the bedroom, their politics seem almost as smarmy as the Clintons'. This year's field of Republican candidates does not seem as tainted by scandal as Clinton, but they are likewise untainted by much promise of talent.

Read this for historical interest, and the beauty of Hitchens' writing.

Actually, this book arrived just today and I haven't had an opportunity to even open it. I'd really like to rate this book in a week or so. However, recently I've come across a number of books by Christopher Hitchens and have enjoyed them. I gave this product five stars just because of Hitchens which is really not what you nice people were looking for. There was no place to say give me more time and I'd get back to you. Anyway, now you know I haven't read the book so don't give this rating much weight. Thanks.

Obviously I am nowhere near as smart as the great Mr Hitchens, though this is a very tough read, which means I found it hard to follow, which made it hard to really find a smoking gun in all of this...

Christopher Hitchens's work is devastating because he truly understands "where Clinton is coming from," politically, culturally and personally. He is courageous in taking on a leading political figure representing his part of the political spectrum, as well as his "baby boom" generational cohort. His writing style is spare, elegant, precise and lethal. Attempts to dismiss his work as that of someone who is somehow envious of Clinton, going back to Oxford, are ludicrous from anyone and far past presumptuous from those who should know better. Hitchens'work reminds all of us of the power of sustained argument, even in this time of sound bite political debate and Clinton-style propoganda exercises from our national government, backed by the financial and cultural power of Hollywood and New York City elites. One hopes that Hitchens receives moral support from people he respects in what must be a rather lonely venture, as he is the object of mendacious attacks from Clinton's propoganda apparatchiks, most notably Sidney Blumenthal (aptly considered an American Goebbels, limited not by his ambition but in having less to work with.)

This shows only the bad of the Clinton Family, obviously President Clinton did much good and this book only portrays his bad side, but that is what drove the man, gettin out of messes, this book is for the true right wingers who hate clinton, but if you are like me and belive President Clinton is a decent guy then dont buy this book.

What with Hillary being the frontrunner for the 2016 election and Jeb Bush looking every day more like he might be the Republican candidate, my friends have taken to teasing me. When I protest that there's no way in Hell she'd get my vote they chuckle and, depending on how well they know me, they bring up one or more of the following points:

1. Jeb's brother took Osama Bin Laden's bait hook, line and sinker and got us into two wars we were guaranteed to lose
2. Jeb's brother has made all of us accomplices to torture, giving justification to the sundry Kalashnikov-wielding (and firing) maniacs currently in the news
3. Jeb's brother enacted all the legislation that favors passive income, which is one of the foundations of today's inequality
4. Jeb's brother looked Putin in the eyes and did not see KGB, perhaps because...
5. Jeb's dad used to run the freakin' CIA
6. My (pathetic) voting record stands as Dukakis '88, Obama '08

My old friend and current business partner Bernard goads me pretty much every day. "Your candidate" he yells when Hillary's on the TV screen. He drove me so far up the wall the other day that I spent a half hour on Wikipedia listing what it is I dislike about Bill Clinton and totting it up on a (not so) quick email. To wit:

First and foremost, he was the political godfather of irrational exuberance: he not only presided over the biggest post-war bubble in history (hello NASDAQ) but he actually helped cause it by leaving the economy to Greenspan, Rubin and a still very green (if academically brilliant) Larry Summers.

And of course his policies seeded the next housing bubble.

An anthology of relevant laws from his time reads as follows:
* 1994 Repeal of the Interstate banking restrictions (the precursor to "Too Big to Fail," and my fellow Greek Charles Calomiris can say what he wants)
* 1999 Repeal of the Glass Steagall Act (that turned Citi, BofA, WaMu, Wachovia and Countrywide into investment banks ---and caused them to race each other toward insolvency)
* 2000 Commodity Futures and Modernization Act (that freed all OTC derivatives from regulation and created the quadrillion dollar monster that will eventually swallow us)

Lots of people also say he strong-armed the agencies into lending to minorities who could never hope to pay back, but opinions differ. History of course records that he balanced the budget, but if you can't do so in the middle of the biggest bubble ever then there's a problem.

Second, and for all his posturing about civil rights, Clinton had exactly zero regard for human rights or human life. Not only did he give us the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (the precursor to the monster revealed by the Snowden revelations), but he timed his various international bombings, "Wag the Dog" stylie, to coincide with his own political battles in Washington (such as the Lewinski hearings) and of course he emptied our entire arsenal of depleted uranium-238 ammunition on Serbia. Hell, we actually ran out of Tomahawk missiles and had to order new ones. Look up "teratogenesis" on the Net. And of course, the "first black President" (funny how we don't hear that so much these days) brought us the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act that forced single mothers out of the home and into "workfare" with disastrous repercussions on their offspring we are only now starting to fully understand.

Third, Clinton wrote the book in terms of selling out to Corporate America. This is a true "where do I start" thing. Leaving banking and finance aside, he TOTALLY sold out to Big Pharma (for example, check out the 1999 FDA rule change that allowed Direct-to-Consumer advertising of prescription medicine -no other civilized country allows this) and indeed Hillary convinced Obama to get the Pharmaceuticals on side for Obamacare some 13 years later; he let corporate America run roughshod over the Sherman Act, allowing Microsoft to bury Netscape, Intel to destroy AMD, you name it, and all this of course could only fuel the bubble even further.

Fourth, Al Qaeda happened under Clinton. Nobody talks about it, but it's entirely true. While he was busy putting together the crappy Oslo deal that contained the seeds of the Intifada, failing to put together a potentially better Camp David deal and buddying up with Jerry Adams (OK, I'm being unfair, peace in Ireland was a major achievement and he was part of it), he totally took his eyes off THE BIG ONE, even though the first WTC bombings happened three years into his Presidency.

Also, he redefined the term "sleazy" (starting with the campaign he led against my compatriot Paul Tsongas for the nomination), makes Bill Cosby look like a good husband and a pillar of society, can't say no to free money (e.g. letting Refco give up good trades to his wife, charging a quarter million to speak, or charging out Chelsea on 80k if he can't make it himself), used the presidential pardon to absolve Marc freaking Rich, the man just can't help himself. I died laughing the other day when I saw his paws all over that supermarket heiress who'd just divorced Nixon's grandson. You know who I'm talking about, the one with the massive you-know-whats.

That said, the points I lay out above are mere detail.

My main problem with William Jefferson Clinton is the following: Politics is a game of see-saw. The essence of a stable society is that the government must alternate between the left and the right. When one party stays in charge for too long, it gets entrenched and forces the entire society toward an accommodation that proves to be disastrous. You get dead ends such as we find in Italy / Mexico / Japan and with denouements such as we are currently observing in Venezuela. BY DINT OF BEING A RIGHT-WINGER IN ALL BY RHETORIC, CLINTON BEQUEATHED US 28 YEARS IN A ROW OF SO CALLED "FREE-MARKET" / DEREGULATORY POLICY which coincided with the "second machine age" heralded by the general adoption of the personal computer as well as the "End of History" Zeitgeist that followed the fall of the Soviet Union and may have caused permanent damage to the fabric of American society and American democracy. That is, I believe, Clinton's disastrous legacy.

Bernard was unmoved by my arguments. He still thinks I'll vote for Hillary. Hell, if she's running against Romney rather than Jeb I even might. (I really hope Bernard does not read my reviews, or that he only reads the first and last paragraph like most sane people do!)

So I sought out help in the shape of Christopher Hitchens' classic anti-Clinton polemic, which I hadn't read before, presumably because at the time I did not have that big a beef against Clinton.

The main premise of the book is captured in the following quote (p.60):

"In the critical days of his impeachment struggle, Mr Clinton was often said to be worried sick about this place in history. That place, however is already secure. He will be remembered as the man who used the rhetoric of the New Democrat to undo the New Deal." He adds further down in the book that "In power he has completed the Reagan counter-revolution and made the state into a perennial friend of those who are already rich and secure." (p. 94)

The actual aim of the book, however, is more ambitious. It is to prove that "Personal crookery on the one hand and the cowardice and conservatism on the other are indissolubly related," (p. xxiii) in other words that the outcome was the result of a Faustian pact "Clinton the crook" had to make to stay in power. In Hitchens' words, again, "the traditional handling of the relation between populism and elitism involves achieving a point of balance between those who support you and those whom you support." (p.6)

Exhibit 1 is Robert Reich's take on welfare reform under Clinton. In the words of his Labor Secretary "The original idea had been to smooth the passage from welfare to work with guaranteed health care, child care, job training and a job paying enough to live on. The 1996 legislation contained none of these supports. In effect, what was dubbed welfare reform merely ended the promise of help to the indigent and their children that Franklin D Roosevelt had initiated more than sixty years before. In short, being tough on welfare was more important than being correct about welfare." (p.9) A quote from Hillary leaves no doubt that looking tough was paramount to the Clintons: "Our liberal friends are just going to understand that we have to go for welfare reform - for eliminating the welfare entitlement. They are just going to have to get used to it. I am not going to listen to them or be sympathetic to them." (p. 160)

Exhibit 2 is Hillarycare. Here Hitchens alleges that the main beneficiaries would have been Aetna, Prudential, MetLife, Cigna and Travelers at the expense of the myriads of smaller, independent health insurers, the ones who fought tooth and nail against the reforms through the famous "Harry and Louise" ads. He quotes Robert Dreyfus of the Physicians for a National Health Program saying "The Clintons are getting away with murder by portraying themselves as opponents of the insurance industry. It's only the small fry that oppose their plan. Under any managed competition scheme the small ones will be pushed out of the market very quickly." I must confess I had no idea about this until I read the book. But I believe it. Hillary was at it most recently when she lined up the Pharma industry to stand behind Obamacare.

From there we move to spinelessness. There's a chapter on Clinton's hypocrisy when it comes to his support of black people. Hitchens lists three Clinton allies who were left high and dry when it was no longer convenient to support them. I thought that was actually rather poorly argued. I don't think Clinton dropped these guys because they're black, he basically was the first president in a long line of presidents who will drop a strong candidate for a job if they can't get him through easily. Obama is certainly a lot worse than Clinton that way...

By far the strongest chapter is entitled "Clinton's War Crimes." Hitchens focuses on three such "war crimes," starting with the bombing of the pharmaceutical plant in Sudan during the Lewinsky hearings. He shows that all three claims made by Clinton to justify the bombing were false: it most certainly produced vital medicines, it most certainly did not produce building blocks for VX gas and it had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden. Moreover, the bombing destroyed the rapport local American agents had worked hard to build with the Sudanese government. Similarly, the Afghanistan bombings of the same vintage were totally unjustified and ineffective. As for the Baghdad bombings, Hitchens not only calls into question the purpose and effectiveness of the strike, but reveals that "a much less questionable airstrike was cancelled because at that time Clinton needed to keep an "option" in his breast pocket." (p. 117)

Another chapter is dedicated to proving that "we have a rapist in the White House" and I must say it is rather convincing.

With all that said, and while the book has given me tons of reasons to reinforce my feelings against the Clintons, I don't see how the sleaze and lack of morals are one and the same as the "Triangulation" of "making promises to the Left while delivering to the Right." From more recent history, Dominique Strauss Kahn is quite clearly not a man with terribly much respect for women, but he was a very principled politician. Kennedy and FDR spring to mind too, though they were less forceful about their conquests.

Basically, the book failed to convince me that "Personal crookery on the one hand and the cowardice and conservatism on the other are indissolubly related." But it was a fun read nonetheless. And on p. 148 it has this awesome little gem of a put-down for the 2016 Democratic frontrunner:

"Speaking of where things lie, she can in a close contest keep up with her husband for mendacity. Like him, she is not just a liar, but a lie."

Ouch!

I feel as though I have been taken advantage of. I was looking for enlightenment about Clinton's personality. It is not to be found in this book. Rather Hitchin's uses one's curiosity to demonstrate his brilliant style. Hitchins is first and formost a stylist. I suppose there are some who are delighed by his style. I found it tedious, affected and artificial.

Hitchens' work is probably the first I would give someone asking "why should I be concerned about another Clinton presidency?" or someone who espouses Clinton as one of our greatest Presidents. Presidents always see approval ratings rise after they leave office and the cognitive dissonance is amazing. Hitchens writes his book not as part of the "vast, right-wing conspiracy" but an aggrieved liberal living in Washington, D.C. and being friends with many connected to the Administration, with the added perspective of being a naturalized citizen and having traveled the world. Hitchens does not hide his friends, being critical of people like Sydney Blumenthal for being in the tank.

Hitchens' razor wit and ability to cut through the Clinton spin and get to the facts is amazing. As an atheist, it's not clear to me what basis he makes his moral judgments and outrage about the Clintons. If there is no ultimate authority of right or wrong, who is he to decide that their behavior is, in fact, unethical, and not just in his own opinion? I suppose one could say that he is writing given the laws we have on the books; those should therefore be enforced. To avoid confusion, I will therefore leave his atheism aside.

His commentary on the current political campaign is sorely missed. In 1999, Hitchens wrote that Hillary was a "a tyrant, a bully, and a lie." Judging from this Slate piece on Hillary Clinton's first presidential campaign, Hitchens would be alarmed at how quickly HRC is able to either deflect or rewrite history and would be voting for Bernie Sanders. Hitch wrote this for Slate in 2008:

"Indifferent to truth, willing to use police-state tactics and vulgar libels against inconvenient witnesses, hopeless on health care, and flippant and fast and loose with national security: The case against Hillary Clinton for president is open-and-shut. Of course, against all these considerations you might prefer the newly fashionable and more media-weighty notion that if you don't show her enough appreciation, and after all she's done for us, she may cry."

Hitchens is critical of the media's inability of unwillingness to call HRC's lies for what they are. The media was slow to fact-check Hillary's claim to have being named after Sir Edmund Hillary, who was likely actually unknown to her mother as it was years before he had climbed Mt. Everest. But HRC's claim was, years later, still being used by the Clinton campaign to create a narrative about her character formation. Revelations of Pakistanis and others contributing to Hillary's US Senate campaign were also coming to light as Hitchen's book went to press.

Not long ago, I finished Clinton, Inc. and Clinton Cash both of which were published recently. I would rate Clinton, inc. a little lower after reading Hitchens' work as it mainly expands on the weaknesses and shenanigans that Hitchens describes. While the book has been ignored as right-wing screed, Hitch is much more critical of Bill Clinton than anything Fox News would dare to air. Clinton Cash would have Hitchens' approval for following the money and influence of the Clintons post-White House, and I recommend it as a follow-up to Hitch's work. He would surely be critical of both works as not going far enough.

Hitchens is most critical of Bill Clinton as a champion of liberal (ie: left) ideals but in reality a traitor to them. Hitchens fact-checks the Clinton campaign's claims of being champions of civil rights in Arkansas, noting that some of Clintons' claims about standing up to bigots as a child were highly unlikely. Arkansas was the only state left without a civil rights statute after Clinton left office, something he never proposed. It's well-remembered that Clinton got the Democratic nomination even after skipping New Hampshire, but less-remembered why. He had fallen in the polls after the Gennifer Flowers revelations and flew back to Arkansas to sign off on the execution of Ricky Ray Rector, an African-American convict who was brain-damaged due to a self-inflicted gunshot wound. Hitchens notes that while Clinton is remembered by some as the "first black President," he "played the race card both ways" in his "Southern strategy" to win the Democratic nomination, appealing to the conservative Dixiecrat voting block.

The author has a strong criticism of Clintonian welfare reform, for which Hitchens predicts a disastrous result of throwing large amounts of minorities off of public assistance from his 1999 standpoint that did not actually happen. Hitchens cites Dick Morris' quotes of Hillary's dismissal of "our little friends" the White House was willing to sacrifice in their process of "triangulation" to develop centrist policies that actually favored Republicans. Interestingly, future Bush speechwriter and conservative columnist David Frum is quoted at the time as noting that Clinton was garnering great popularity by championing and then co-opting Republican strategies such as welfare reform and financial deregulation. Hitch painfully notes that the Democratic establishment was far too eager to go along with Clinton, who after all was elected along with a Democratic Congress and Senate through which he could have passed a number of liberal policies but chose not to.

Hitchens reminds us that insurance companies helped craft the Clinton healthcare plan, while Hillary sold the plan as being opposed by the insurers. Republicans today would likely rather have the Clinton plan than the Affordable Care Act, but both moves created easy targets of government overreach even as they incorporated Republican ideas. "The era of big government is over" was patently false as Hitchens notes the draft-dodging President went against his Joint Chiefs in enlarging NATO and signing off on billions of pork barrel defense contracts. Mandatory sentencing, expanded police laws (which Clinton now regrets), roving wiretaps, CIA expansion, are all Republican domains that Clinton expanded.

The biggest enemy in the Clinton camp is Dick Morris, who existed for a long time via codename and not as an official adviser. Hitchens relies heavily on quotes from Morris himself as well as George Stephanopolous who claimed that "For a while, Dick Morris was the real President." It's Morris' triangulation that causes Hitchens so much angst. But liberal intellectuals who fend for Clinton, like Gore Vidal and Arthur Miller, also earn Hitchens' ire.

The most damning evidence against the Clintons was the Wag the Dog of bombing Iraq and the bogus bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shifa_pharmaceutical_factory#Criticism
As the NY Times reported: "the evidence that prompted President Clinton to order the missile strike on the Shifa plant was not as solid as first portrayed. Indeed, officials later said that there was no proof that the plant had been manufacturing or storing nerve gas, as initially suspected by the Americans, or had been linked to Osama bin Laden, who was a resident of Khartoum in the 1980s."
Hitchens and others' investigation of the Al-Shifa pharmacy bombing was that it never contained chemical munitions, and had no connections to terrorism. Hence, its owner sued the US government for damages. Hitchens writes that the Joint Chiefs and FBI Director Louis Freeh (who had agents in the region doing real terrorism investigations) were kept in the dark on the raid, and the CIA opposed it. Clinton had permission from the UN Security Council to strike Iraq but canceled the operation until months later when impeachment proceedings began. Hitchens bemoans both Clinton's eagerness to kill to save his own face as well as his wanton obstruction of justice. (All the evidence is laid out in the book, I'm just summarizing here.)

Like Clinton, Inc. Hitchens documents the history of retribution against people like Kathleen Willey who made accusations against Clinton. Hitchens writes that he is one of the few in the media who did not suffer attack dogs, despite giving a deposition in the Starr investigation. Hitchens uncovers the story of an anonymous woman who claimed to be raped by a younger Clinton, whose story was known to a few friends and corroborates with the stories of others like Juanita Broaddrick. The chapter "Is there a rapist in the White House?" is quite an uncomfortable read. Hitchens blasts Al Gore as being spineless in calling Clinton out for his character.

I give this book 4.5 stars out of 5 for its rapier wit, succinctness, and appeal to truth and reason. Read it and be the judge yourself.

This soft cover edition ISBN 1859842844 is the one Hitchens specifically recommended ("you want to read the pink one") because of the new and splendid Chapter Seven “The Shadow of the Con Man: Rodham's Last Hurrah” which is a masterful closing 'Hitch-slap'. It helps to explain Hitchens' caveat, in his much treasured Letters to A Young Contrarian: "Avoid identity politics!" Go google the phrase and be amused.

The hyper-educated Hichens was not just a voice in the wilderness but a lion's roar. He was fearless! He prevailed in every debate. Reading him today one is reminded: No wonder his enemies trembled. He is greatly missed. Fortunately he was prolific, he played at 110%. He did more good work in on day than most of his smug critics did in a decade. They will fade into oblivion but "the Devil's advocate pro bono" has achieved a certain immortality. His oeuvre is a legacy that will inspire free thinkers for generations. He is, deservedly, everybody's favorite contrarian. Ever ready to pull the bedsheets off of any bigot few journalists have exhibited his intolerance of bull**it or his passion to tell truth on charlatans of Chaucerian dimension. No wonder his enemies trembled.

There are a number of questions raised by other reviewers that support the value this book contributes to political assessment of the Clintons. Mr Hitchens was not sued because he made sure to verify sources and he presents his material in a way which allows the reader to make their own judgement of the events and personalities described. What ever the hatchet job aspects of the Starr Commission Mr Hitchens reminds us Bill Clinton delivered an agenda more suited to the Republicans than his own constituency. The analysis of triangulation is breath taking and sets the scene for why so many people around the world currently appear to have little faith in populist politicians. The second intriguing strand in Mr Hitchens book is the focus on the morality of Bill Clinton and by association Hillary. He reminds us these were, before being politicians, lawyers. He reminds us of the strands that led to impeachment-as well as Monica Lewinsky, involved grubby money. He reminds us of the sordid demonization of Gennifer Flowers who was demonised by political and media spin. Christopher Hitchens more importantly reminds us what is the role of a journalist. To uncover a story layer by layer and look at what the pieces of a story reveal. After reading this, I shudder to think that following Barrack Obama, Hillary Clinton may be the next Democrat presidential hopeful. This is almost a scalpel sharp dissection of Bill and as a subtext, Hillary. Almost is the apposite word here. It sent me towards my copy of Hunter S's articles from the same period of American history. Always rely on Mr Thompson to fill out the unsaid and he did not disappoint.

-and a Christopher Hitchens to strip him of every last shred of "liberal" deceit covering his mass-murdering &*$. Not since Kenneth Anderson's masterful demolition of Hillary Clinton's evasive blueprint for socialized child-rearing, IT TAKES A VILLAGE (published in The Times Literary Supplement of London), has there appeared a broadside so powerfully revelatory of the bankruptcy of the American "progressive" community, represented in this case by the Pied Piper from Hope, Ark., and all his pathetic, NPR-addled supporters. Clinton's unceasing lying betrayals of his supporters, in both the public and private spheres, and his use of the Federal government to destroy both liberty and those who disagree with him, traits turned murderous at Waco, and now in Serbia, are all of a sickening piece - the convenient "liberal" canard of private cad/public exemplar, stands unmasked, thanks to Hitchens's relentless demonstrations, as a sucker's distinction without a difference. His description of the First Frauds is priceless: "What we have here is Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, tricked out and retooled for liberal mainstream saps." After enjoying the work of Christopher Hitchens for more than fifteen years, I'm glad to see his fierce intellect and devastating wit come at last to the bestseller stage, but I am left with one nagging question - why, in this green land of plenty, did no American journalist have the balls to take on the Clintonoids with such ferocity?

Christopher Hitchens takes dead aim at the Clintons and hits his target - Clinton and his partner Hillary have damaged the presidency and our country far and beyond the understanding of most people. While Hitchens' left-wing diatribe makes for a good laugh (it is disturbing that such an informed and educated person accepts and preaches the tyrannical notion that government exists to take care of people), he accurately exposes the Clintons for who they are - power hungry egomaniacs who will do anything for themselves, even if that means firing cruise missiles to destroy medicine factories and kill innocent Arabs. Hitchens writes with power in explaining Clinton's trigger-happy tendencies, not just during the height of the Lewinsky scandal and impeachment proceedings, but also during his 1992 presidential campaign, when he ordered Rickey Ray Rector's execution. According to Hitchens, Rector's execution number conveniently coincided with the drop in poll numbers that Clinton suffered during the Gennifer Flowers fiasco. "What?!" cries Clinton, upon hearing that Rector is still alive after a short delay in the execution. Hitchens' detailed description of these and other events left me shaking my head, not only at the Clintons, but also at the American people. However, in our media/entertainment saturated society, the misdoings of the Clintons make no evident mark on the American people. Most Americans view modern politics through a distorted lens, as if it actually were entertainment or some sort of game. Thus, Hitchens' title "No One Left to Lie to" implies that you can't lie to someone who doesn't care. This is the legacy of Bill and Hillary Clinton, and Hitchens captures it with an eloquent and articulate writing style worthy of praise.

Conservatives will be shamed by leftist Chris Hitchens's ability to heap scorn on Bill Clinton. Few have been this effective in exposing Bill Clinton. Hitchens uses a clever and biting wit, elegant prose, and insightful analysis to lift the rock on the debauched Clinton presidency. Hitchens has a remarkable ability to dissect even the most innocuous Clinton statement or event and to show how it is illustrative of a grander tawdriness in Clinton's personal and political composition. The result is a well-reasoned, thoughtful and intelligent book which illuminates like a spotlight the dishonor of Clinton's reign of lies. One word of warning to conservative readers. Hitchens peppers his text with a fair amount of hard core liberal thinking that often seems highly self-righteous. This is especially true when it comes to the subject of welfare reform, for which Hitchens gives way too much credit to Clinton, or as Hitchens would see it, blame, for what was essentially a GOP initiative. Hitchens refuses to allow a role for personal responsibility among welfare recipients. He even expresses offense and indignation at the idea that single mothers who receive welfare should have to reveal the name of the father of their child that he might be made to relieve the taxpayers of some of the burden of raising his child. These diggressions aside, Hitchens's artful use of language and remarkable anayltical thinking weaves a stunning tapestry of indecency wrought by this president. Hitchen's adds richness to the portrait by delving into little explored territory such as the true benefactors and motives driving the failed Clinton health care takeover. More shocking still is Hitchens's exposure of Clinton's craven use of military strikes in 1998 to distract from key moments in the unfolding of Clinton's crimes of obstruction of justice and perjury. Hitchens makes clear that these strikes had little value other than to prop up in the polls a threatened Bill Clinton. This last chapter on Clinton's "Wag the Dog" strategy literally left me numb as I was given a clearer understanding of just what depth's Clinton is willing to lower to protect his political hide. I can't imagine that another book will come along that will as effectively, insightfully or concisely describe the grand indecency that has been the Clinton presidency.

And you thought Quine's indeterminancy of translation was meaningless? Well, in the context of this book by Christopher Hitchens, it is. You might as well snack on Martha Stewart's hors d'oeuvres (the psychedelic scallion dip is tasty): did you expect Hobbes or Jefferson or even William Leuchtenberg writing here? Come off it. Hitchins proves this: H. Vincent Macgruders "Poems for an Unyear" (1977) remains the most inscrutable book on the origin of our cosmos and the china that Bill Clinton eats off of at every state dinner. Would I recommend this book? Maybe to a William Burroughs junkie looking for a fix in some dark alley. But to the ordinary American citizen? Nah, stick with reading John Searle's "Mind, Language, and Society": there's more humor and it's better written. Hitchins does make one important point though on pay 47, second paragraph, except that you have to hold the book up to a mirror to decipher it. Good luck. And make sure you've had your daily dose of Haldol.

Hitchens' has been appearing on radio programs of late to promote this book, and I caught one such program this morning. To be frank, even thought I agree with some of what he has to say, his tone was so full of hatred, anger, and know-it-all superiority that I was completely repelled. I kept hearing a line from "Broadcast News" over and over in my head as Hitchens continued to spray his invective and vitriol: "It must be nice to always know better, to know that you're the smartest person in the room."
If you are looking for a well-balanced, dispassionate, factual discussion of the pros and cons of Clinton and Clinton policies, look elsewhere. If you are after hate-filled invective, this is the book for you. Personally, that much hatred and anger repulses me, but your milage may vary. (And when I say "hate-filled," I am not employing hyperbole. Hitchens himself, in his interviews, says that he hates Clinton, and invites others to do so as well.)

Hitchens' new book won't provide any surprises to those who read his columns. A dedicated Clinton-loather when it was anathema to be one, Hitchens bellows his vitrolic attack against the way the President's rank opportunism has motivated all facets of his political decisions - from appointments, to legislation, to foreign policy. When he gets rolling, Hitchens constructs an impressive argument showing how Clinton sold out welfare, health care, and all the traditional positions of Leftism to co-opt (or triangulate in today's more obscure term) the Repbulican political agenda. Most unsettling is Hitchens' dead-on assertion that Clinton "uses death to draw attention away from sex" as in the execution of Ricky Ray Rector or the "coincedental" bombings of Sudan, Afghanistan, and Iraq at key points in the impeachment crisis. Contrary to many reviewers' obtuse assertions that Hitchens' is a Lefty covering his arse by backpedaling on Clinton, and thus deserves no credibility whatsoever, Hitchens shows that his long-term mistrust of the President has been (sadly) justified.
Yet, Hitchens' apparent "I-told-you-so" glee - and the book is written with a sort of venomous joy - is rather unsettling in its own right. He doesn't really demonstrate much interest in the victims of Clinton's policies as he does in tarnishing the President. Moreover, his final chapter serves as a lame justification for his own unsavory treatment of Cliton Aide Sidney Blumenthal when he betrayed him to Starr's investigators. His comment that "Clintonism poisions everything it touches" including himself doesn't let him off the hook. He sounds almost far right when he claims to be serving a higher purpose while turning in his (ex-)friend to the Grand Inquisitor. His willful myopia about Ken Starr's political connections (Hitchens incredulously believes that Starr acted as a true non-partisan independent throughout) suggests that he has gotten so fed up with the Left that he's trying out the other team for a while. Moreover, Hitchens has a tendency to paint his characters either "black" or "white" - either you're a hero or a villain. And by casting Bill Clinton has the SOB in this scenario, he fails to show enough nuance to admit that the Republicans maybe weren't acting out of the highest motives either. Some Republicans were indeed acting out of principles (I suspect some Dems were too) but even if we grant Ken Starr that much, it's absurd to ignore his aggressive and bullying flaunting of defendants' rights as he showed with Monica Lewinsky and Susan McDougal. Is Hitchens's hatred of Clintonism so marked that he's blind to the many, many depredations of the other side? Either he is and he's let his hatred warp his argument or he isn't, in which case the author of "No One Left To Lie To" is just as cynical as his subject. Cynical because in ignoring the complexity of motivations in this whole sorry affair makes it much easier for him to justify his own questionable actions. "No One Left To Let To" comes dangerously close to being Hitchens' "Apologia Pro Finka Sua" and a particularly dubious one at that: it says that Clinton is such a thorough bastard that Chris was morally obliged to play into Starr's hands. Clinton is so rotten that anything done to anyone to bring him down is justifiable. Clintonism does indeed poison everything it touches.
Hitchens may have lost some face for his role in the Monica Mess and his justifications are unsavory, but it's silly to say that his argument is invalid or that he's too uncredible a writer to pay attention to. "No One Left To Lie To" is a damnedably invigorating and intelligent read and, what with the recent revelations of Clinton selling out U.S. high-tech and military secrets to the Chinese, is a timely and important one. A compromised Hitchens still speaks with more ferocious wit and more persuavisely than almost anybody else. To those who still maintain that the President was a flawed but basically decent "victim" "No One Left To Lie To" will be a swift smack in the face.

I highly recommend this as the best introduction to the Clintons and the current DNC. Warning: reading this may lead to the shattering of partisan delusions (both R&D strains!), but that's a good thing.

What an odd thing: an honest left-winger! It must be his English background. After reading David Horowitz, I never expected to see a left-winger present anything but excuse and coverup for the current occupant of the White House. Hitchens tests that assumption by going over the history of the Clinton administration and showing in short order what a monster we have as President. Zola couldn't have done better. Beyond that, there's the sheer brilliance of the language. Hitchens' writing is informed by his education and his concern for humanity. It's inflamed by Clinton's betrayal of all Hitchens holds dear. The result is spare, impassioned, sublime prose. His treatment by Clinton's propaganda buzz-saw: "a pelting calumny." Janet Reno: "a biddable mediocrity." Brevity truly is the soul of wit, and Hitchens has wit to spare.

The great thing about Hitchens is that he's always on the front foot, always attacking. While this might occasionally lead him into overstatement, it's pleasing to see someone of the left unafraid to make an aggressive case against Clinton. His sobering -- but witty -- exposure of the President as a mendacious, hypocritical, and bigoted creep should be required reading for anyone interested in politics (which in a perfect world would be everyone). Despite what other reviewers say, Hitchens's ire is aroused not by the President's predilection for shady bedroom antics, but by his canting, offensive attacks on others when they engage in similar -- albeit less predatory -- activites. Although the book does display traces of having been composed a mite hastily, it's generally refreshingly vigorous, and always irreverent. Even those who disagree with Hitchens will be made to question their opinions about Bill.

This is a brilliant book. Hitchens doesn't overlook ( as so many liberals do) in this that Clinton was going to 1) smear Monica Lewinsky slanderously, until the stained dress came to light 2) Bombed that Somalia factory as a distraction from the Lewinsky affair, when there was no evidence that there was any chemical warfare production going on there (Ken Starr spend $30 million? How much money was spent bombing that pharmaceutical company?) And there's a lot more in this book, too. Anyone who thinks Clinton's reputation will be a good one in the long run, should consider that President Warren Harding's supporters accused his detractors of being a "conspiracy." Historians NOW unanimously agree that in fact there was no conspiracy against Harding. That, in fact, the Harding adminstration was a corrupt one. That will ultimately be Clinton's legacy, too. Hitchens just has a brain enough to realized it NOW. I hope Hitchens writes a lot more books!

Even before this book, Hitchens would appear on news panels representing the far left on PBS when Mc Neil was still on hand to present balance. I always enjoyed his comments as they combined left wing ideology, sarcasm, wit and humor. A sense of humor is sadly missing on the left. I have never seen a time when good people could be forced to drink the kool-aid for party over county.
I guess this is why Hitchens is a good lefty, but a really bad democrat. He probably voted green. Hitchens was not alone as a lefty who did not like the Clintons. The final straw must have been when Clinton bombed an aspirin factory 3 days after learning it was not a WMD plant, for the sole reason that he needed a distraction from the latest scandal.
The case is made here that all was politics for the Clintons and the word of Bill or Hillary meant nothing. The only abiding rule was, what will keep Bill in office and get Hillary elected after him.
This is not the best of the Clinton expose books, but it is a small contribution in our understanding of what has happened to the political party that I, now a recovering democrat, supported for 20 years.

I wanted to read this, because of Mr. Hitchens sharp wit. I do not disagree with Mr. Hitchens in his appraisal of the Clintonoids, including, and especially, the two main characters. In the continued debasement of our great Republic, his dead-on vision of the conservative capitulation to "the liberal line" on how to proceed with the impeachment issue, as well as any other issue, is a great observation. This valuable little book should be read by anyone who is interested in seeing the epitome of "zero-worship". I would also recommend to your attention, the book "The Ominous Parallels:The End of Freedom In America" by Leonard Peikoff as a way to reverse the cultural trend toward dictatorship, especially with Czar Hillary at its head.

Here's something novel- a particularly harsh and condemning judgment of CLinton form the old left. Hetchins judges Clinton with a degree of vitriol that would do credit to Clinton's most strident foes on the right.
Hetchins' primary attack is on what he sees as failings in Clinton's character as expressed in Clinton's betrayal of the traditional left wing of the Democratic party. In Hetchins' view, the most distinguishing feature of the Clinton years has been what Hetchins calls "triangularization". CLinton makes promises to the left while at the same time making deals with the right, all the while using and betraying the people in his administration. To this end he has surrounded himself with people Hetchins sees as weak and accomodating (Janet Reno) or easily used and betrayed (Leon Panetta).
While Hetchins disagrees with those to his right as to the exact nature of many of Clinton's sins- the right would see Clinton's support of NAFTA as evidence of his intelligence and understanding of globalization- both would agree on the underlying character of the man, and both would agree on the characterization of Clinton as a manipulative sexual predator.
Hetchins does fall prey to many of the same faults critics have found in the writings of the right- he is prone to accept accusations as fact based on his impression of Clinton's character, and and he judges Clinton's character based on the acts he accuses him of.
Nonetheless it's an interesting perspective, and one of interest to critics of the Clinton years on both left and right.

Chris Hitchens is not only a brilliant writer he is an incredibly honest one. You might disagree with his premise (The Missionary Position) or you might think he doesn't have enough evidence to support his final conclusion (The Trial of Henry Kissinger) but no honest reader can state that he does not come to these conclusions honestly and based on facts and his conclusions from them.
This book was his first step away from the left but as he would say in it, the left stepped away from its principles by supporting Clinton who used and abused those values which Hitchens believes in.
Reading this book years after all the hullabaloo has died down gives a great insight into the operation of the Clintons now and the position of Hitchens now. His basic theme is that Clinton husband and wife were both giving lip service to the left while giving actions to the right based on their own advancement.
He asks the question out loud stating bluntly why does the right hate Clinton so since he advanced so much of the agenda. I think it is precisely for the same reason why he did. He correctly points out that those in power on the right lets many things go due to either political fear or advantage, it is quite similar to the California situation today.
As always the book is short and interesting. Don't read it at bedtime. It is not long enough to convince you to put it down till tomorrow yet too full to finish quickly and absorb it all.
Read it before you read the other defenses and attacks on the Clintons. It is the straightest one of the batch.

Christopher Hitchens is a writer for "The Nation." For those of you who are not political junkies, this magazine is just barely to the right of Karl Marx in it's convictions. This makes it all the more interesting that Mr. Hitchens takes the Clinton Administration to task for all of the scandal issues America has endured over the last 7 ½ years.
He goes through campaign lies, Right Wing Conspiracy lies, Travelgate lies, as well as the sexual scandal issues. He does not concentrate heavily on the sexual issues however; as he states "It's not the lipstick traces, it's the Revlon connection traces."
His writing is very witty, sharp and cutting. It is very clear; his arguments don't embellish or stretch, they are dead on and accurate. The positive thing for conservatives reading this book is that it isn't on Regency Press; there can be no finger pointing of what do you expect him or her to say. The distressing this is that the biggest complaints coming from Mr. Hitchens are that Clinton bailed on the liberal policies and used "triangulation" to get re-elected. It left me wondering if he would have been so sharply upset by Bill Clinton'' morality issues had he stayed the true left course?
With the indignation the book is written with, I believe he would have.

As a classical liberal I have vast political differences with Mr Hitchens, yet no one should doubt his courage to cite his facts honestly even when they conflict with his political vision. Mr Hitchens was a bit player in Clintonian Washington. Though, when his time arrived on the public stage he acted with honor. Events of the last several years have illustrated that honor is a rare commodity in Washington's Four Estates. No One Left To Lie To will serve future historians well in their evaluation of the Clinton epoch. (This may be the most important effect of the book's publication.) For a better insight into William Jefferson Clinton read (or re-read) Shakespeare's Richard III who is undoubtedly the fictional alter ego of President Clinton. (Remember "I'll have her but I will not keep her long." or speculate "My cruise missle, my cruise missle, my Presidency for a crusie missle.") I especially urge Clinton political operatives and enablers to read Richard III to glimpse what awaits them. (The last act of the American Richard III has yet to be played out.) Readers will not be disappointed with Mr Hitchens' writing skills - he is a master craftsman.

There's something pitiful about the elation of many on the Right over the fact that Christopher Hitchens has made common cause with
conservatives on several issues over the last few years. Conservatives only
diminish themselves when they sing hossanas to any Leftist who switches sides (like Norman Podhoretz in an earlier time), making it
seem that in order to take themselves seriously they need a patina of approval from intellectual elites. On the other hand, Mr. Hitchens
is pretty much the poster child for the old saying : you'd rather have him in the tent whizzing out, than outside whizzing in. Mr.
Hitchens argues so forcefully and is published so widely (who else could possibly place essays in The Nation, The Guardian, National
Review, and The Wall Street Journal), that there must be something comforting for any politico who finds himself, however
temporarily, agreeing with Mr. Hitchens instead of opposing him.
Pity poor Bill Clinton then, who had the misfortune to play Emperor to Mr. Hitchens little boy, leading to an eight year gavotte in which
Mr. Clinton hid behind a bevy of liberal flacks, willing to engage in misdirection, lying, and character assassination for him, while Mr.
Hitchens, nearly alone on the Left, used every venue at his disposal to alert the world to the Emperor's lack of clothes. All the
President's men had little trouble portraying conservative critics as partisans, but Mr. Hitchens's attacks are not so easily dismissed. Nor
is the Hitchens thesis a terribly welcome one for the Right. For what Mr. Hitchens argues, always vociferously and often compellingly,
is that not only was Bill Clinton personally corrupt, he also governed as a Republican. To Mr. Hitchens this is just one more reason to
loathe him, but for many conservatives the thought is just too awful to contemplate.
The basic case that Mr. Hitchens builds on the legislative front includes the Clinton Administration's acquiescence in such Republican
policies as Welfare Reform, balanced budgets, don't ask-don't tell, killing Health Care reform, etc. He relates a story about writing an
essay for Dissent in 1996 that referred to Clinton as the lesser of two evils (presumably less evil than Bob Dole), which led to the
following exchange with the magazine's editor :
...Michael Walzer inquired plaintively : 'Why is it that some people on the Left seem to hate Bill Clinton!' I thought then, and I
think even more now, that they mystery lies elsewhere. Why do so many people on the Right hate Bill Clinton?
Setting aside the fact, which Mr. Hitchens may genuinely not comprehend, that conservatives actually take character seriously, he does
have a point as regards Mr. Clinton's general surrender on the core provisions of the Contract with America. And assuming, as the
media and the Democrats were so fond of telling us, that the Republican class of '94 was the most rabidly Right-wing gang of vandals
ever to stride the halls of Congress, then the degree to which the President accepted their platform would tend to suggest that he should
be viewed as a conservative figure himself.
At any rate, that's Mr. Hitchen's take on things, and freed of any political stake in Mr. Clinton's presidency and legacy, the author lays
into him with obvious relish, mincing no words about the long record of sexual assaults and subsequent intimidation of the victims that
trailed the President from Arkansas to the Oval Office.
The whole mess is ripe for attack (what the Pentagon would call a target rich environment) and Mr. Hitchens wades in with the zeal of a
true believer and the gusto of a gifted polemicist. The book is rather underwritten and contains some glaring errors (like reducing Jackie
Robinson's career to three years), but there's genius in the way he's framed his argument, in that it requires those who defend Bill
Clinton to face the way in which his lack of moral character, as evinced in his criminal behavior and duplicity, parallels his lack of
public character, enabling him to shuck off liberal campaign promises (and, theoretically, beliefs) and embrace conservative programs,
so long as they furthered his own career. The "Triangulation" of the subtitle is, of course, the strategy that Dick Morris came up with,
whereby Mr. Clinton treated both Democrats and Republicans as partisan goons, with himself as the reasonable, caring, selfless servant
of the public, stuck in the middle. Mr. Hitchens is, rightly, appalled that the American Left, of which he is a leading member, allowed
itself to be used in such a self-serving manner by Bill Clinton. Of course, for us Right-wingers, it's just fun watching the internecine
bloodshed.
GRADE : B

A necessary book for understanding the Clinton years, as well as the Clintons themselves. Incredibly well-informed, and never lacking for a reference, a quote, or a dry bon mot, Hitchens is also blessed with the shrewdest of insight--an absolute necessity in piercing Clinton's endless deceits and obfuscations to expose the rotten core of all his actions. As Hitchens himself says in speaking of Hillary and Bill: "Like him, she is not just a liar but a lie; a phoney construct of shreds and patches and hysterical, self-pitying, demgogic improvisations." But hold. If you already hate Clinton, you're eating this up. But the people who really need to read this book are those on the Left, whether you're his most die-hard apologist or only grudgingly accepted him. Hitchens himself is a prominent left-wing commentator, and much of his outrage stems from the way he's seen the Left abused, manipulated, and betrayed by Clinton time and time again.
This book has only two faults. First, Hitchens is an outstanding prose stylist, and usually this fact makes reading him all the more invigorating and enjoyable. But sometimes he allows himself to get somewhat carried away, and style obscures substance. Second, Hitchens sometimes assumes too much of the reader; it would often have helped had he added some more background to his statements.
But this should not obscure the fact that this is an extremely important book. Chapter 5 alone, "Clinton's War Crimes," ought to be read by every citizen with the slightest concern for public affairs. Is there any greater testament to the success of the Clinton PR machine, than the fact that an airtight case for war crimes and the most cynical abuse of power can be built against him--and it doesn't mean a thing!

......Finally, REAL CLARITY lifts the Clouds of Confusion off my shoulders thrown at us over the last year-plus by POTUS (President of the United States). Mr. CLARITY, Christopher Hitchens, is bringing us back to the "JUST THE FACTS, MA'AM" Journalism of the Edward R. Morrow days of the 1950's. Days that we haven't seen since, with a Press that is more interested in confusing us, than informing us. Only problem is a 'Free Press' that does not fulfill its responsiblity to inform will soon lose its Right to do so! And this is where Mr. CLARITY comes in. His Eye/Heart has been onto POTUS since 1992. It is that precise perspective he brings to this Diamond of a Read. HOW CAN I EXPRESS HOW GREAT IT FEELS TO FINALLY HAVE THE WEIGHT OF ALL POTUS's LIES put in proper perspective....freeing me to understand what I see on TV, or not, daily? The Clintons' M.O. has always been "It's the TV, Stupid!" Uninformed people believe what they see on TV and do not believe what is not on TV. With this book you now "See thru the Glass Clearly" a POTUS who "Sees thru the Glass Darkly!".... Q: Why does everyone on ABC-TV's Politically Incorrect & PBS-TV's Charlie Rose Show try to keep Guest Mr. CLARITY from getting his message across to we the TV Audience by their screaming at or talking over him? Why do they fear his Truth? Don't these TV people we 'trust'...trust us enough with the Truth to swallow it and become whole? Why is this one man such a threat to the most powerful man on Earth...POTUS? Is it because the Truth shall set us free with this book and there are criminal people out there who can't handle that?.......Again, to know the Crime you must first know the Criminal. Mr.Hitchens hands him to us on a Silver Platter. THANK YOU FOR PROTECTING US and MAKING US THE HOME OF THE BRAVE, Christopher!

For those who wonder what Bill Clinton's legacy will be, search no further. Hitchens' slashing attack on the President's phony leftism and moral depravity will be the final word on Bubba. Hitchens is no right wing sorehead, he's a bitter disaffected leftist, and his assault is all the more vicious because of it. The book is a page-turner, a short, fast read, you won't be able to put it down. Hitchens' cutting wit and careful attention to detail are addictive. Right wingers may be offended by Hitchens' notion that the Government is not the fountain of all evil, but they will be pleased to find he thinks Clinton is. Highly recommended.

I must admit that I'm very biased against President Clinton. I did not like him from the first time I really knew who he was. So, in light of this, I want to say that what I'm about to write is affected by my bias. What I like about Hitchen's book is that he's the type of person that you would expect to defend the President.
Clinton's legacy will go down as one of hypocracy. Although historians may not site Hitchens and their prime source of information I am inclined to believe that their comments will be similar to those of Mr. Hitchens.
Hitchens tries put Clinton on par with the Republicans in his portrayal of the President. He accuses the president of stealing the Republican agenda and passing it off as his own. I think the main thing that Hitchens illustrates here is that Clinton does whatever is popular and does not follow his convictions, because he has none. If Clinton has any conviction it would most likely be to do whatever seems to be the popular thing to do or what is most likely to get him elected or re-elected.
This book kept me interested and I could not put it down. I have read some reviews to the contrary. I think that anyone that gets bored with this book is either illiterate or cannot accept their hero being critisized.
When I think back on the Clinton legacy, I will think primarily of the things that Christopher Hitchens wrote in this book and not of the comments Rush Limbaugh has made about him.
Clinton and Nixon will go down in history on the same page as being crooks, liars, and obstuctors of justice. I hope Clinton gets disbarred. This guy has gotten away with murder. In order for America to heal from his legacy Clinton should suffer some of our pain for having to put up with his scandals.

Many conservative commentators trashed Hitchens in the years before he wrote this book, but I always liked him. He seemed to be coming from a very common-sense place, and he didn't let ideology get in the way of truth. My high opinion was confirmed when he came up with this great piece of work. Hitchens is virtually the only left-of-center political writer to be so clear-eyed about the Clintons. For this he desrves a medal (possibly something cast in the image of George Orwell, another British lefty who could spot lies.) New chapters for this second edition include thoughts on the alleged rape of an Arkansas woman by then Attorney-General Clinton; and the disingenuous Senate campaign by Hillary. Must reading, if you care about the future of democracy in the USA.

Hitchens' main concern in this book is to demonstrate that the Left has lost its intellectual honesty. If, in fact, the Left was willing to aid and abet a charismatic self-serving demagogue, then what else could they stoop to?
While Hitchens did, in fact, work at the Nation, they sacked him because he was constantly trying to hold the Nation to an intellectual standard that they blatantly discarded going into the buildup for the last DNC sweep of the Whitehouse and Congress.

To understand the modern DNC, you need to read Hitchens. Once you see how it went under Clinton, then you suddenly understand why the current administration shielded Fanny Mae and Big Pharma rather than pursue real economic and healthcare reform.

Clinton was a corporatist. The parallels to the current administration are more than just coincidence. It's the modern DNC political blueprint.

By the way, corporate socialism is, by definition, Fascism. And a devout Communist like Hitchens knows it for what it is.

I think Christopher Hitchens has applied the spanking President Clinton has long needed. I'm a registered Independent who tends to vote for Democrats so this is not a partisan issue. I simply believe Hitchens has exposed this President for what he is, some who doesn't belong in the White House. When Republicans act in the same fashion, I would hope that writers of good will on the other side would expose them as well. Though short, this book packs a good deal of information that one might have to search long and hard elsewhere to find.

Since there are about as many reviews here as there are pages in the book, I will be brief. Suffice to say, this book is a strong counterpoint to the Clinton that the Left believes so religously in. Hitchens pilories Clinton, calling him (among many other things) a thug. The prose is classic Hitchens, fiercely intellectual while unafraid to crack a joke now and then. The two major themes of this short volume are that Clinton was a Republican that infiltrated the Democratic party, and that everything Clinton did, including foreign policy, was nothing less than a personal power grab. Hitchens details how Clinton abused his power to (again, among many other things) strip the New Deal of any positive effect on Poor America, to lie to even his closest friends, and his "wagging the dog" of bombings of Sudan, Afghanistan and Iraq. It's a chilling tale of how the Left was seduced by a man who spoke their language, but acted instead like the people they despise.

You may have heard a Democrat member of Congress describe Clinton as an 'unusually good liar'. In '92, Spy Magazine documented 100 lies within the first 100 days of Clinton's first term. PBS aired a documentary on the 1992 election with behind the scences footage of both Clinton and Bush, showing Clinton promising the Florida Cubans that he was going to, 'drop the hammer on Castro.' The show revealed that for the first time since Kennedy, the Cuban population in FL voted primarily for a Democrat, due to Clinton's numerous promises to them (and an earlier Bush mis-step).
That Clinton was a liar should have been obvious to every citizen by '94, but amazingly, the media and many citizens continued to rabidly defend him against charges of lying. Of course, they jumped on charges that seemed easy to disprove, and ignored the others, unless they could short-circuit the proveable charges by attacking the accuser (i.e., Flowers, Jones, Tripp, and Starr).
The bias was and is excruciatingly irritating, but did liberals decry the pro-Clinton bias in the media? Of course not. He was 'their' man. His despotism and fascism has been almost completely ignored by liberals until Hitchens. A corollary to Acton's dictum is that "Moderate power, with no accountability, corrupts absolutely." Of course Clinton was pretty corrupt to begin with. (Few Americans realize the degree to which Clinton has perverted the Constitutional division of powers by issuing Presidential Orders and from the Oval office, under a flimsy claim of America being in a current State of Emergency. In fact, we are currently under about 13 states of emergency, including one declaring that the current unrest in Haiti is a danger to Peace and Welfare of the American People. The upshot is that law is created by the executive office with no input from the legislative branch. "Stroke of the pen, law of the land, kinda neat." -- Paul Begala)
Before I read this book, I knew Clinton was an empty suit, that he had no core values, that he would say whatever it took to get two different groups to vote for him, even if he was saying the opposite thing to each group. This is what Hitchens calls 'triangulation'. So one day he's promising Gays the World (and reaping excellent monetary support), the next he's careful to be seen going to church with the biggest black Bible he could hand-carry. One day he's preaching that Old-Time-Socialism to the liberal elites, and the next he's practically telling Cubans that Castro, who's the Left's last Living God, won't know what hit him when Clinton gets into office.
Most people cannot hope to succede at triangulation. They either have too much of a conscience or they just aren't a good actor. It also takes some finesse and a media that will help cover for your constant lying. No conservative or moderate can use triangulation with the predominately leftist media. George Bush is still painted in the media with the 'read my lips' brush, despite the palpable superiority of Bush's character over Clinton's.
It's not just Clinton's lies to the Left, but his turns to the Right that causes Hitchens to vomit his erudite wrath upon Clinton's nauseating, stomach-turning character. After encountering some of the lunatic leftist ideology that occaisionally oozes from Hitchens' essay, I realized that it may be the particular method of triangulation that Clinton employed that has provoked Hitchens' ire. Clinton tends to promise the World to the Left, but then fails to deliver and ends up governing to the Right in order to gain popular support.
Despite what Hitchens' severest critics may say, he says nothing about Clinton that has been proven untrue. Even the charge of rape against Clinton has yet to be denied by Clinton personally. This is a credible enough charge that at least one chapter of the National Organization of Women has finally broken their silence and officially asked Clinton to resign, and still Clinton remains silent!
Hitchens' harsh and relentless criticism of Clinton is frankly deserved and long overdue. But it provides his critics with an opening to attack. Lacking the ability to disprove Hitchens' accusations against their hero, critics resort to the tried and true: ad hominen assaults. They worked pretty well on Flowers and Jones for a while, why not try them again? And of course, the accusation of 'hate' is also useful in marginalizing the undesirable truths contained in Hitchens' essay.
Let's get something straight. Hate is not automatically bad. Supposedly it is a good thing to hate racists. Hitchens has a particulary virulent hate of racists, unable to use the word without matching it with 'sick' or 'despicable'. It's healthy to hate Hitler, right? It's apparently socially acceptable, or at least politically correct for Gays to hate Christians. Churches are vandalized and harrassed by gays, but nothing much is said about these hate crimes. As far as the media is concerned, I don't think they care who hates Christians.
And if a person can't at least be understood if not applauded for hating a liar, adulterer, rapist, felony purgurer, and Wag-the-Dog-and-bomb-some-factory-worker-for-poll-numbers-murderer, then who can ya' hate, huh? No, the fact is that Clinton deserves every bit of vitriol Hitchens dishes out and probably a lot more, if China-gate is pursued at all.

As Hitchens puts it, the Left gets words, the Right gets deeds. Why a President with the worst civil-liberties record since Nixon gets such a free ride from the Left is beyond me -- or it was until I read this book. Now it just disgusts me.
Hitchens is brilliant and dead-on. Clinton has left the American Left -- like everything else he has touched -- a hollowed-out husk. The book explains how, and makes what's ultimately tragic amusing, at least until he reminds you what it actually means.

In this book Hitchens reports on a conversation heard by Monica Lewinsky between Clinton and someone called "Fanuli" and supposes this might have been a conversation with one of the Fanjul brothers, sugar producers in South Florida.
Given the recent pardon mess, maybe it was actually a conversation with or about Carlos Vignali, the notorious cocaine smuggler recently pardoned by Clinton.
If so, this would mean that at least one cocaine smuggler had direct access to the President of the United States.
All those rumors about Mena are starting to look more and more true.
Thank you, Christopher Hitchens, for revealing what a truly monstrous creature has recently been removed from the White House.

Great expose by The Hitch on another sleazy American president. His avoidance of impeachment and the capitulation of Congress in allowing him to get away with it is staggering. Hitchens eloquence and dry cutting humor in eviscerating Bill (and Hiliary) is a literary delight, other than being shockingly good investigative journalism. Bravo...

Bill Clinton is an extremely intelligent man, with a surfeit of charisma, and remarkable political acumen.

He's also a pathological liar, woman-abuser, and war criminal...a sex-crazed sociopathic thug.

Journalist Christopher Hitchens emphasizes the latter, not-so-flattering characteristics of our 42nd Chief Executive in this brief, angry polemic, which really should not be described as a book. (Hitchens recycles some of his past work on the subject in order to pad things out a bit.)

It is, as one would expect per Hitchens, well-written, funny, profane, incisive, informative, and unsparing. Clinton-lovers won't like having their man lacerated with such thoroughness, and Clinton-haters will have their distaste reinforced. (Apolitical types won't care one way or the other, if they even bother to pick up the book.)

Hitchens wittily summarizes Clinton's failings, he shows how this President survived by accepting conservative policies while mouthing the gospel of political correctness. In this, as in other ways, Clinton is the Democrat's answer to Nixon, who governed as a liberal while exploiting the prejudices of the right. Hitchens sees this connection, and, even more clearly, sees how morally and intellectually bankrupt the "left" has become.

As someone who voted for Clinton twice and lived to regret it, I found this book perfect vindication for my recent decision to leave what remains of the Democratic Party. Clinton is a liar, a criminal and a traitor, but above all a political hypocrite and fraud of the highest order. This articulate, biting dismemberment of the Clinton Administration is long overdue and must reading for those who still struggle to preserve the New Deal safety net put in place 60 years ago by FDR; a safety net that has been gutted by the Clinton Administration in return for political contributions from corporate America. This book tells the story of how this happened and continues to happen. Must reading for Democrats and liberals who want to know the truth about this Administration. Must reading for anyone naive enough to even consider entrusting what remains of America's entitlement programs to someone like Al Gore. If you already hate Clinton for ideological and/or political reasons, you will likely find this a delightful, if brief, buffet for the soul.

A marvelously fun screed from that most poisonous of poison pens. Hitchens skewers the hypocritical left for defending a man who in truth is it's great betrayer. Hitchens' point is beyond the mischaracterized moralistic fulmination of a crypto-Victorian. Rather, he attacks the insidious dishonesty of the nation's chief executive and his concomitant traducement of anyone who stands against him armed with the truth. Throughout his mendacious escapade, Clinton managed to sully all three branches of government and was prepared to viciously smear a misguided young woman lest she reveal the truth. Only a DNA trail stopped the later. The former will be his true legacy.
As for the charge of misogyny, of the author and his subject only one has been publicly accused of indecent exposure (Paula Jones), uninvited groping (Kathleen Willey), and flat-out rape (Juanita Broderick).

Typically the books we've seen attacking President Clinton have been written by conservatives like Ann Coulter but Christopher Hitchens is a liberal attacking Clinton's record. His attacks on Clinton are definetly valid such as Clinton's treatment of issues like health care and welfare. Hitchens does a good job of detailing possible war crimes like the bombing a pharmacitucal plant in Sudan and campaign finance violations and Clinton's acceptance of large amounts of soft money.
Overall, it's a good liberal attack on the Clinton presidency.

Christopher Hitchens's work is devastating because he truly understands "where Clinton is coming from," politically, culturally and personally. He is courageous in taking on a leading political figure representing his part of the political spectrum, as well as his "baby boom" generational cohort. His writing style is spare, elegant, precise and lethal. Attempts to dismiss his work as that of someone who is somehow envious of Clinton, going back to Oxford, are ludicrous from anyone and far past presumptuous from those who should know better. Hitchens'work reminds all of us of the power of sustained argument, even in this time of sound bite political debate and Clinton-style propoganda exercises from our national government, backed by the financial and cultural power of Hollywood and New York City elites. One hopes that Hitchens receives moral support from people he respects in what must be a rather lonely venture, as he is the object of mendacious attacks from Clinton's propoganda apparatchiks, most notably Sidney Blumenthal (aptly considered an American Goebbels, limited not by his ambition but in having less to work with.)

I sent this book to my moderate/conservative father as a birthday gift. His reaction initially was as expected: "nice gift. Shame it's something that will stay on the shelf." Then he began to read... and a world of honesty and straight-forward writing enveloped him. Here is a liberal -- a REAL one -- willing to honestly comment on the presidency of shame and abandonment. This is a classic writing. Any conservative will respect the integrity of Mr. Hitchens. He is usually wrong, from my point of view . . . but from now on I'll know that he is genuine, honest, and a man of his principles. That is something quite refreshing in the age of W. J. Clinton.

How the libral lost? The real reason libral lost in america is that: The right was very much aggressive (with the big $$ in their back yard).The right, killed JFK, RFK, MLK, MX,.. Scandells on G. Hart. So, give Clinton a credit, for slowing down the right wing Mr. Hitchens.

Like many people I liked Bill Clinton, because he had a good onscreen presence, was personable and seemed to be a good president. I have never met the man so it will take more than Hitchens' book to sway me. Irregardless the book makes me take things into consideration I had dismissed previously. When a political pundit like Rush Limbaugh, whom I mention only because he made a career out of Clinton, rails against his chosen nemesis and our president, it carries little weight. Rush commands about as much respect in this department as David Duke would have of accusing Jesse Jackson of embezzlement.
Christopher Hitchens on the other hand has data to back up his reports and seems to deal more in fact than opinion. I wish that there were more journalist like Christopher Hitchens and fewer political pundits as Limbaugh, Coulter, Beck the list goes on. I think Hitchens has maintained one constant in that he cannot be pigeonholed and is an ever evolving author and personality. He takes risks and has the intellegence the back up his opinions.

Christopher Hitchens book on the Clinton presidency should be compulsory reading for anyone interested in modern politics. Hitchens gives a searing critique of the Clintons and the way they have practised the art of politics from their days in the governor's mansion in Arkansas up to Hilary's senate campaign in 2000. This book gets three stars because while Hitchens does make a credible case for Clinton being not only the liar we now know that he is, but also a rapist, he shows an unrelenting hostility to the Clintons that seems to me to go beyond reasonable judgement and amounts to a prejudice (although not without reasonable foundation). This is not a balanced and fair account of Bill Clinton's time in the White House that should be considered definitive (as Edward Said has said), but rather a more or less reliable account of the worst that can be said of this chapter in American history. There is more that can be said in Clinton's favour (at least as a president, if not a human being) than is said here, and this should always be kept in mind by anybody who reads this book, whatever their own political affiliation. Hitchens style is sharp and erudite, and it is a good read, but one feels that it is not the whole story.

Liberals who still support Bill Clinton, read this book and find out why. Hitchens explains you to you. He also zings Conservatives for their over-reaching to find bigger and better Clinton scandals. As Hitchens explained, at his Atlanta booksigning on the 18th of May, Clinton is a liar, a rapist, a traitor, and a war criminal, and "no one has contradicted me." Order this book, read it, and no matter how you feel about Bill Clinton, you will know you have gotten the facts from an honest man.

all the facts are here but my criticism of hitchens' style of writing is that the reader has to be very familiar with his subject matter already otherwise the authour overwhelms you with so much scathing information about his subject matter. Christopher is an important journalist but after a while youy dont hear him anymore because he is so vengeful. I wish he could incorporate a more emotional style of writing so that I could 'feel' what he 'feels'.

Hitchens provides a well put and valid argument of the Triangulation of Bill Clinton. I was never a big fan of Clinton, because he always seemed a little too good to be true. This book put facts to my suspensions, and reveals a narcissistic misogynist that would do anything to keep in power.

The book is filled with erros by omission. For example, Hitchens argues that the raids on the Sudan and Afghanistan were intended to distract from Clinton's impeachment problems. But he never addresses the most important part of Clinton's rationale: the believed meeting of the terrorists. Hitchens never denies that the CIA told Clinton that this was his best opportunity to get Bin Laden's organization. If that really was the intelligence, the timing of the raids cannot be faulted. Hitchens hides the problems with his arguments through the use of rhetorical flourishes and witty wordplay.

In "No One Left To Lie To", Christopher Hitchens dissects Bill Clinton psychologically, laying his inner nature bare like an anatomist displays the internal organs of a prepared cadaver. Mr Hitchens provides an invaluable historical reference of magazine-style contemporary news essays. He deserves the highest praise for compiling his perceptive thoughts into a literate and coherent selection of meaningful essays.
Note, to left-leaning Americans: This book does not argue that Clinton "destroyed the country" from some sort of socially-conservative (i.e., Republican) point of view at all. These are not essays from the pages of The Wall Street Journal by any means. On the contrary, Hitchens testifies that Clinton destroyed American LIBERALISM, from the point of view of a committed socialist, which Hitchens most solidly is. At one point, Hitchens asks why, given the effect he had on both parties, Republicans hate Clinton at all. It is for this reason that this book is an unusual and highly recommendable perspective for anyone who has the slightest interest in the subject, as well as those who have the greatest revulsion.
Hitchens examines Clinton's record of war, his accusations of sexual abuse, his relationship with Dick Morris, his skill at "triangulation", and his relationship with his wife, Hillary. These are not new topics, they have been discussed at great length and in excruciating detail for the last ten years, but Hitchens handles them all with such skill and wit that his compendium deserves reading by even the most jaded partisan or news-weary person.
In a surprisingly brief volume, but one dense with information, Hitchens portrays in precise detail a man beholden to corporate interests, upper-class elitism, and big money influence-peddling. He accuses Clinton of adherence to an agenda which dismantled welfare, cut government regulation, increased the lot of America's wealthy, and did everything an American liberal is purportedly against. Hitchens even uses the Clintons' own words against them in making his case. Most interestingly, be believes Clinton won votes from Republicans because he gave them legislation they wanted, and from Democrats because he gave them the empty symbolism of the White House.
If you are a right-leaning American, you will either delight, or take horror, in the myriad sordid tales, page after page, of a man corrupt to the bone. On the other hand, if you are a left-leaning American, you truly owe it to yourself to read these essays, and ask yourself how the Democrat Party endorsed this man, and how they came to such abuse by him. I have the feeling that if more Democrats read this book, they would be more angry than the thousands of Republicans who already have.
Mr Hitchens has created an unimpeachable journalistic reference, objectively fair, and incisively harsh. Despite partisan arguments of the many who have read it (as well as many who have not!), nothing in his book can be denied, nothing can be disproven, and nothing can be dismissed. There is a true story on every page, confirmed by a glance in any modern source of news information. Even if someone were to accuse Mr Hitchens of subjectivity in some of his stories, or an impure agenda by collecting them all in one place, the simple fact is, there are so many stories inhabiting these pages, it is so thick with them, and Clinton's life is so comprised of them, the matter is out of Hitchens's hands. It comes with the territory. Clinton did, after all, commit the acts Hitchens describes. In any event, the net effect of Hitchens's brief is profound indeed.
As far as the writing itself, Hitchens is highly literate, clearly well-educated, and charmingly erudite, even when pejorating or cursing. He displays an impressive command of the English language, in both vocabulary and idiom, though never unreadably so. This book is a delight to read from cover to cover. Anyone interested in American politics, whether liberal, conservative, or moderate, will find it informative. Most readers will find it equally hilarious and horrific, but all will find it thought-provoking and entertaining.

Christopher Hitchens' dislike of William Clinton seems due to his assumption of a "Liberal Democrat" for what is really a very successful chameleon of a politician. He wrote a book on Kissinger, but doesn't mention if Clinton is another flunky of the Rockefellers. What else can explain his rise from a virtual log cabin to the White House?
Pages 18-19 tell of an attempt to induce campaign contributions from the Cheyenne-Arapaho peoples of Oklahoma. We only heard of this nasty deal because it was rejected. Hitches doesn't mention if they ever did get their swindled land back; what happened since then? Hitchens' bias is shown by calling Bobby Kennedy and Edwin Meese "sordid underlings" (p.19-20). He doesn't give any facts to support this allegation. Surely its not due to any political decisions? He also call "Clintonoid propaganda" the phrase "vast right-wing conspiracy". Surely there was a "right-wing conspiracy" against Clinton, like some other Presidents. And it did come close to success.
People talked about Monica's mother, who lived in the apartment next to Sen. Bob Dole (Viagara Spokesman!). Surely this implies something? Monica's step-father donated money to get Monica a job close to President Bill; his advertising agency's biggest customer was Big Tobacco, which was not a Friend of Bill. Was there a plot to use Monica's habit? Was any foreign intelligence involved here? The resulting scandal appears to me as a failed blackmail attempt. Was Clinton the first of last politician to enjoy "female companionship" as a tax-free perquisite of office? Remember Wilbur Mills?
Page 32 mentions a telephone call from a Florida sugar-grower. Didn't FDR also develop policies for Cuban sugar at the request of New York financial circles? He also mentions how this family supports both major political parties; is this something new or unique to Florida? Pages 34-35 tell about polling, and how it is used to fool the people. "The Quiet Canadian" told how this then military secret was developed during WW II to control thinking. Orwell's "1948" was a fictionalized version of 1948 England and the world. Perhaps this would be a better subject for his next book.
Chapter Three reminds us that the four largest insurance companies helped finance and design the Clinton's health-care plan. A "Canadian-style" system would provide comprehensive coverage, and the most cost-effective effort. I guess that's why Hillary became Senator after JFK Jr. was removed as a potential candidate (see 'Flying' magazine from October 2000).
Pages 71-72 tell of the resurrected 1969 draft board letter. Could it really have been so far-sighted? Or could it be a pre-dated composition of political engineering? Was the elected Clinton "supporting exorbitant weapons-building projects" a pay-off for this act (p.74). Clinton is a younger version of Ronald Reagan: a smiley-faced governor who can win elections, and collects on that skill.

Christopher Hitchens' new book is a sterling example of the Left's tendency to attack those who are closest to them in ideology, rather than using their energy to fight their real enemies. Hitchens attackes Clinton for a host of behaviors, but few of Hitchens' attacks have to do with Clinton's actions in his official capacity. Instead, Hitchens focuses on sex - blithely ignoring the far-worse transgressions of Clinton's Republican foes on this issue.

Even though I pretty much knew what direction this book was going in, it was weird and at the same time refreshing knowing a guy like Hitchens wrote it. Fantastic nonetheless. Clinton should be ashamed books like this are so easy to write about him and his "legacy".

Fascinating how an admitted socialist (Hitchens) can see through a potential bias toward Liberals and print what is so clear to anyone that is paying attention.
This is a quick read and a must read. Not so much for the Conservatives who hate Clinton's guts, but for the Liberals who want desperately that Clinton is a victim of the right wing.
Another fascinating and brutally honest book by an extroadinary writer, as was his take on Kissinger.

I share Hitchens' disillusionment with Clinton's right-leaning policies, and I sympathise with his feelings of anger and betrayal at Clinton's venal embrace of the conservative agenda. Had Hitchens confined his outrage to these credible issues, this book could have been an admirable indictment of the Democratic Party's cowardly auctioning of principle, despite the disturbing venom displayed.
Instead I find myself throughly disillusioned by Hitchens too - for letting his bitterness over Clinton's political betrayals lure him into adopting the comprehensively discredited, lurid sexual smears of the rabid right. Brilliantly written, wickedly funny in parts - yet fatally flawed by the apparent need to twist a slightly sordid story of a brilliant, compassionate, yet somewhat dishonest and self-serving politician into a melodramatic Victorian horror story - to turn a complex Dr. Jekyll into a one-dimensional, monstrous Mr. Hyde.
The absurdly disproportionate, wildly exagerated term "the worst family" pretty much sums up what is wrong with this book (especially given the competition from Nixon, Reagan and Bush for that pejorative). It would appear that (albeit out of revenge rather than political expediency) Hitchens, like Clinton, has sold his soul to the Right.