I know that I'm a little behind the curve here, having been traveling, but I can't let this article from Down Under pass without comment.

Speaking at the 2002 World Congress on the Peaceful Reunification of China and World Peace in Sydney, Mr Clinton said this "brief moment in history" when the US had pre-eminent military, economic and political power, would not last.

"This is just a period, a few decades this will last, and I think that all of us who are Americans should think about this and ask ourselves how do we wish this moment to be judged 50 years from now," he said.

Well, Bill, you certainly did everything that you could to make it end sooner, rather than later.

But even assuming that he's correct, just what is his point here? That because some other country might (he says that it's foreordained, but it's in actuality entirely up to us and our policies, and whether or not we elect any more Bill Clintons) become more economically, militarily, culturally powerful than us sometime in the future, that we should now grovel before those who despise and terrorize us?

The former president said he did not want to be critical of the current US Administration.

Of course, he didn't want to let bin Laden get away, or take campaign donations from the PRC, or get hummers from Monica, either. The man just can't help himself.

"I certainly have no illusions about the North Korean Government," he said.

A statement that is contradicted by his very next sentence, vis:

". . . But the fact is they ended their nuclear program in 94, in 98 they ended testing of long-range missiles and in 2000 we had the elements of an agreement with them to end their entire missile program."

Look out whenever the guy who reinvented the word "is" says "the fact is." The fact is Bill Clinton has no clue as to whether or not North Korea ended its nuclear program, its missile program, or any other program in those, or any years.

[Update at 5:04 PM PST]

Reader John Thacker points out this editorial in the Taipei Times commenting on this speech. The Taiwanese aren't very happy with Mr. Clinton either. I didn't address this point, but as John points out, the "World Congress on the Peaceful Reunification of China and World Peace" is an organization that accepts as a premise that Taiwan will be reunified with the mainland, and the "Peaceful" part is just a euphemism for "by whatever means necessary." So Mr. Bill didn't just sell us out for Chinese money, he's continuing to do the same to Taiwan.

Oh, these comments are bad enough. But it's this
part that ticks me off. "Committee on the Peaceful Reunification" indeed! It's a well-known mouthpiece of Beijing based in Australia. That's exactly the phrase they use all the time. That he took several hundred thousands of dollars from those scumbags is annoying.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/news/2002/02/24/story/0000125209

There's the article I wanted to post. Oh well, seems the comments thing doesn't support anchor tags.

Some questions this raises (I don't know the answers, but they might be interesting):

1. Did the money Clinton receive come, directly or indirectly, from the government of the Peoples Republic of China (PRC)?

2. If so, is it appropriate (legal?) for a former president to receive money from a foreign government?

3. Under New York State marital property law, is half of the money received by Bill Clinton considered to be the property of Sen. Hillary Clinton? If so, is it appropriate (legal?) for the senator to receive such a sum from such a source?

1. Yes. It's a front group for the government.
2. I'm not aware of any law against it, but IANAL.
3. Who cares? The First Felons are never going to be called to account for anything.

Such defeatism! Remember the mills of the gods: they grind slowly, yet they grind exceeding small. The couple in question is not immune from their operation.

I do believe that they will suffer their just rewards eventually, and in fact are starting to do so now. The Big He's precioussss "legacy" is already a shambles, and there's nothing he can do about it. Her political prospects are probably wrecked as well.

But even if all of the truth comes out about what happened, I doubt that they'll ever have any legal consequences. Every potential prosecutor will remember what happened with Susan McDougal. They'll never be able to get a jury without at least one or two die-hard defenders.