Ann Coulter
Well on his way to becoming Wayne Newton, impeached former president Bill Clinton recently instructed his advisers to "devise ways to remind the public of his accomplishments and defend his legacy" -- as was dutifully reported by Clinton's image-makers at The New York Times. Liberals are now on notice: It's time to start getting prolix at Manhattan cocktail parties on the issue of Clinton's legacy.

So far, the best the Times has been able to cough up in the way of material for the Clinton Legacy Project was a sad little op-ed titled "Winning With the Military Clinton Left Behind." Written by a fellow with the Clinton-loving Brookings Institution, the thrust of the column was that though he tried, Clinton did not succeed in wrecking the military. Way to go, Bill!

Admittedly, Clinton's first (and last) major initiative in office was to put gays in the military. Moreover -- as Jesse Helms had the foresight to point out -- the Vietnam-protesting, pot-smoking draft-dodger would have needed a bodyguard if he dared show his fat, oleaginous mug at any military base. And further still, the Reagan and Bush buildups had bequeathed Clinton a strong military.

But, as the Clinton flack cheerfully observed -- and this is where the jerk we impeached comes in -- "Clinton did not squander their legacy."

That's it.

For eight years, Clinton caused America to retreat in the face of terrorism. He used the best fighting force on the globe to build urinals in Bosnia. Eventually, he lobbed a few cruise missiles in the general vicinity of Islamic terrorists -- but only in a desperate attempt to distract from his impeachment.

Members of the Clinton Legacy Project at The Washington Post and New York Times are trying to blame Clinton-haters (normal people) for Clinton's appalling negligence. But if it weren't for us, he never would have bombed anything. Also, we didn't make him meet with Monica Lewinsky more often than he met with his first CIA director. (Wayne Newton is probably a perfectly nice fellow. I take it back.)

At least our Northern Alliance allies understand that the point of the Pentagon is not to build urinals in the Third World. In several heart-warming accounts of their surrender negotiations with al-Qaida factions, our Afghan buddies have been overheard informing al-Qaida:

  • "(If you resist), we will call the Pentagon, and you will be no more"; and

  • "You should surrender because we are Muslims. If not, we will call to the Pentagon to continue the bombing."

    This turns out to be an even better negotiating ploy than "otherwise, the terrorists will win." I'm using it constantly. "Get off the Stairmaster or I'm calling the Pentagon."

    The Afghan "negotiation phase" immediately precedes the traditional Afghan "surrender phase." This entails the following: The defeated party surrenders and then comes out shooting. This is repeated several times. Finally, the vanquished party runs out of ammunition and is forced to surrender -- but seriously this time -- at which point the victors kill the foreigners and hug their fellow Afghans like long-lost brothers.

    Afghans are big on ending wars this way so they can get back to the serious business of cockfighting.

    A few weeks ago, The New York Times printed one of its nauseating prose poems to the peace-loving Afghans. Without shame, without irony, the Times reported that the Afghan people were patiently waiting for warring Westerners to leave, so they can return to their serene lives beneath the orange trees.

    As one Afghan explained: "Not only the Russians but now the Americans have been involved in our poverty and destruction. ... My demand is that both countries give us assistance -- not just this village, but all the Afghan nation, because our country is destroyed."

    Lamenting the rapacious brutality Westerners had foisted upon them, the prose poem also quoted indigenous people on the calm and harmony that reigned in Afghanistan before the Westerners arrived: "They were peaceful. They were very beautiful. There was no crying, there was no blood, there was no death."

    But now Afghanistan had once again been set upon by "invading foreign forces."

    As impish fate would have it, right below this ode to the gentle Afghans was a photo of a half-dozen ghoulish, grizzled old men trying to force two little birds to fight. The caption read: "Men gather at a Kabul market to watch a quail fight, which along with other more intense blood sports had long been banned by the Taliban. Betting on quail or gamecocks is again the rage in the capital and organized dogfights are planned by spring."

    Also back in a big way is "the ancient Afghan sport of buzkashi," as The Associated Press nonjudgmentally described it. Buzkashi is similar to polo, but instead of a ball, it is played with the carcass of a headless goat. The ASPCA should threaten to call the Pentagon. We just need to liberate our troops stuck building urinals in Bosnia -- Clinton's legacy.