Hillary Clinton's Hollow Call to "Clean Up" the White House

It's hard to believe Hillary Clinton has in sarcasm talked about the need to do a "clean sweep" of the White House following the end of the Bush administration. She used to imagery of grabbing mops and buckets (like we really believe she would ever do so) to clean up the mess in the White House.

This line of attack is hard to believe for two reasons.
1. The list of scandals and personally filthy behavior engaged in by the Clintons and their cronies is too long to list here. But just to remind you in case you forgot the "good 'ol days": Travelgate, Chinagate, letting out the Lincoln bedroom to the highest donor, the Mark Rich pardon, and of course -- Monica Lewinsky and impeachment, just to name a few.

2. The trashing of the White House as the Clintons departed in January 2001. The irony is beyond belief. Hillary Clinton is talking about the need to clean up the White House when they showed their utter disrespect for both the Presidency and the White House by, at the least, neglectfully allowing the vandalism and trashing of the White House just before the Bush family moved in.

Now I know the left-wing will immediately say, "that is a myth -- it never happened." Well, it did happen. If you don't believe me, just download the Government Accounting Office (GAO) Report entitled, "THE WHITE HOUSE: Allegations of Damage During the 2001 Presidential Transition" issued in June of 2002 which details the fact that vandalism did occur, vandalism that had to be done intentionally. I have posted their conclusion found on p. 19 of the report below:

Damage, theft, vandalism, and pranks occurred in the White House
complex during the 2001 presidential transition. Incidents such as the
removal of keys from computer keyboards; the theft of various items; the leaving of certain voice mail messages, signs, and written messages; and the placing of glue on desk drawers clearly were intentional acts. However, it was unknown whether other observations, such as broken furniture, were the result of intentional acts, when and how they occurred, or who may have been responsible for them.

Further, with regard to stolen items, such as the presidential seal, because no one witnessed the thefts and many people were in the White House complex during the transition, it was not known who was responsible for taking them. Moreover, regarding other items reported missing, such as doorknobs, cellular telephones, and television remote controls, it was unknown whether all of them were thefts, and if they were, who was responsible for taking those items and when they were taken.

On page six of the report, the GAO also made the following statement:

Incidents such as the removal of keys from computer keyboards; the theft of various items; the leaving of certain voice mail messages, signs, and written messages; and the placing of glue on desk drawers, clearly were done intentionally. Any intentional damage at the White House complex, which is a national treasure, is both inappropriate and a serious matter. The theft of or willful damage to government property would constitute a criminal act in violation of federal law. Although it is clear that some of the reported incidents were intentional, such as the removal and damaging of keys on computer keyboards, it was unclear whether, in all cases, the reported incidents occurred, when they occurred, how many occurred, and who was responsible for them. In addition, regarding the items reported missing, it was not known whether all of them were thefts, and if they were, who was responsible for them.

Now, obviously, the investigation could not directly link the Clintons to having committed or ordered the acts of vandalism. But clearly, the tone set by the Clintons during their eight years in the White House did nothing to instill in their employees a sense of honor, respect, and reverence for the place in which they worked. Had that been the tone they set by their own attitudes and actions, and had they clearly told their staff, after it was clear George W. Bush would be President following the Supreme Court decision on December 13, 2000, that they must do everything possible to work for a dignified and orderly transition to the new President, it is difficult to imagine that these acts would have happened.

This was an interesting part of the report (p. 44), concerning a missing bust of Abraham Lincoln and where it turned up:

Regarding a Lincoln bust that two EOP staff told us was missing, but was
subsequently returned, a former employee who also worked the former
vice president’s transition office provided us with a copy of a July 6, 2001, letter that he received from the counsel to Vice President Cheney asking about the missing item. The former employee said that, after receiving the letter, he located the bust at former Vice President Gore’s personal residence and that he returned it to the White House on July 11, 2001. The former employee also provided us with a July 11, 2001, letter to the counsel to the vice president, in which he wrote that “it appears that the bust was inadvertently packed with the personal effects of Vice President Gore.” The former counsel to the former vice president told us that Mr. Gore did not pack his own items in his office at the end of the administration.

So, this is why I find it to be so ironic and in poor taste for Hillary Clinton to be talking about the need to "clean up the White House". Even if it does need a "clean sweep", the people who allowed the Presidency and the White House to be disrespected in this manner, on their watch, should never be allowed to set foot in "the People's House" again. Instead, we need someone like Fred Thompson, who has a history of fighting for smaller, fairer, and cleaner government, and who daily demostrates his love and respect for America. Remember that saying, "A NEW broom sweeps clean."