Moral Moron: The Case of Bill Clinton
Juan Cole in this piece at Informed Comment characterized Bill Clinton as cognitively bright but “morally stupid.” I would use slightly stronger language: Clinton is a moral moron. This is the guy who justified his dalliance with a White House intern by claiming “She came on to me.” The same guy who had to wait until 800,000 Rwandans had been slaughtered in that infamous genocide before deciding maybe it was time to intervene. And, oh yeah, he’s also the President who negotiated a trade deal, NAFTA, that sold out hundreds of thousands of manufacturing workers and forced them out of the middle class into the low-paying service economy.
Juan Cole quotes recent comments by this so-called elder statesman:
“I understand why young Palestinian and Arab Americans in Michigan think too many people have died, I get that.”
“But if you lived in one of those kibbutzim in Israel, right next to Gaza, where the people there were the most pro-friendship with Palestine, most pro-two state solution of any of the Israeli communities … and Hamas butchered them.”
Where shall I begin? Note the manipulation of language—flipping from passive voice to active voice—typical of mainstream commentary: Palestinians “have died” while Hamas “butchered” Israelis. Shorn of rhetorical subterfuge, these are the plain facts: Hamas fighters murdered a few hundred Israelis, and Israel has massacred at least 44,000 in retaliation.
Cole continues: “He (Clinton) said he’d been asked,
“Yeah but look how many people you’ve killed in retaliation, so how many people is enough to kill to punish them for the terrible things they did?” Well, you’ll have to forgive me, I’m not keeping score that way. It isn’t how many we’ve had to kill.”
Really? Is this a game, Bill? What would be an appropriate way of keeping score? At least by his careless dropping of the pronoun ‘we’ve,’ Clinton inadvertently admits American complicity in the genocide.
“Because Hamas makes sure that they’re shielded by civilians, they’ll force you to kill civilians if you want to defend yourself.”
Wow! Let me get this right. Hamas fighters tie up Palestinian civilians, including babies and children, or hold them at gunpoint, and hide behind them to protect themselves from Israeli fighters aiming guns at them at point-blank range? Perhaps they hide under the civilians to protect against Israeli air attacks.
Clinton might respond, “Don’t be ridiculous. I mean that Hamas fighters set up command centers in close proximity to Palestinian civilians—in hospitals, residential buildings, schools, etc. They have snipers in buildings where people live. Israeli soldiers and bombers have no choice but to destroy those facilities in order to kill the Hamas fighters.”
Never mind the paucity of evidence for those claims. It’s urban warfare, Bill, in one of the most densely populated regions in the world. Where else could Hamas possibly carry out self-defense operations against the Israeli invaders except near to civilians?
After 43,000 human shields killed and presumably most of the Hamas fighters hiding behind them as well, one would think Hamas would give up the human shields strategy. In fact, one would think the war would be over. At the beginning, the Hamas brigades were estimated at only about 18,000-24,000 fighters, all dead now by Clinton’s logic. And yet Hamas fights on.
No choice but to kill thousands of civilians, Bill? Hamas forces Israel to do that? Consider this analogy: a US bank has been occupied by a gang of robbers. All the workers inside are hostages. The chief of police orders the bank to be destroyed by a massive air strike. “Had to do it,” says the chief, “Hated to kill all the workers, but they were being used as human shields. So, you see, the robbers forced me to do it.” Would you buy that excuse, Bill?
Integral’s theory of multiple intelligences explains how a smart man like Bill Clinton can be a moral moron. The graph below shows how Clinton’s development in his cognitive line far exceeds his moral development. Sadly, profiles like this are not used to determine a person’s suitability for high office or entitlement to the status of Influencer for Life.
Anyone whose psychograph looks like this deserves to be called a moral moron.