We have our spinner in chief's word for it:

"We are a more secure country . . . ."

"We are more secure and we're more free because of our leadership in the world for peace, freedom and prosperity . . . bringing the Middle East closer than ever to a comprehensive peace."

"We're working with Russia to destroy nuclear weapons and materials. We're fighting head-on the new threats and injustices of the global age: terrorism, narco-trafficking, biological and chemical warfare . . ."

"Now, the American military is the best-trained, best-equipped, most effective fighting force in the world. I can tell you that their strength, their spirit, their courage and their commitment to freedom have never been greater."

"And we have an even better chance this time than we did then, with . . . no great external threat."

Each of these six excerpts come from a single speech — a speech given not very long ago. A speech given in fact in mid-August at the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles. The speaker was none other than the leader of the free world — Bill Clinton.

Given the recent tragic events in the Middle East, all of these excerpts stand out in bold relief as glaring Clintonisms. In other words they can be taken at 180 degrees opposite their face value. But the reality is even worse than that.

For nearly eight years the American people have been told by the liberal news media and members of both political parties that the world is a safer place now that the Cold War is over. The events of last week should serve as a wake up call to us all: America must always be prepared, there are most assuredly evil people in the world that would do us harm.

An analysis of each of the six passages in Bill Clinton's speech leads to the unmistakable conclusion that America is weaker today than it was eight years ago and we are less secure:

"America is more hopeful, more secure and more free." I will leave it to philosophers to debate whether or not we are "more hopeful" or "more free" (I for one am feeling more hopeful every time Al Gore gets caught telling a tall tale!) America, however, is NOT more secure today than it was when Clinton-Gore took office in January 1993. America is much less secure. We still have no defense against ballistic missiles, either on the tactical or strategic level. Meanwhile, on Clinton-Gore's watch, Red China has deployed at least two new types of ballistic missiles — and used them to threaten Taiwan. North Korea has developed an IRBM (Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile) capable of targeting all of Japan, including U.S. forces on Okinawa and an ICBM (Intercontinental Ballistic Missile) with at least the range to threaten Alaska and Hawaii and perhaps the continental U.S. Working closely with our friends the Russians and the North Koreans, the Iranians have entered the IRBM club with a missile that can reach out and touch U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf, our allies Israel and Turkey, and possibly other parts of NATO. More recently, Syria and Libya have been reported to be making progress in their own ballistic missile programs, with the help of our Chinese friends — a development Secretary of State Albright finds "troubling." So does my auto mechanic, Madam Secretary! Does President Clinton really believe that while our list of enemies has grown over the past eight years, the shrinking of our military might has made us more secure? And I won't even get into our mushrooming dependence on foreign oil.

"We are more secure and we're more free because of our leadership in the world for peace, freedom and prosperity . . . bringing the Middle East closer than ever to a comprehensive peace." What a difference a couple of months can make. I decline to comment on some poetic speechwriter's meaningless babble. But what about "bringing the Middle East closer than ever to a comprehensive peace?" Clinton may really have believed this himself when he read it off the teleprompter. No one can believe it any more. Thus far, the clock has been turned back at least 13 years on Mid East peace and there is wide speculation that the clock could be wound back to 1975 should Egypt recall its ambassador to Israel and cut off diplomatic relations with the Jewish State. Bill Clinton has to take at least partial blame for this fiasco. His desperate search for a positive legacy forced the Israelis and Palestinians into negotiations they were clearly unprepared for. The result, a dangerous breakdown of dialogue, the emergence of extremists on the Palestinian side and a horrible outbreak of violence.

"We're working with Russia to destroy nuclear weapons and materials. We're fighting head-on the new threats and injustices of the global age: terrorism, narco-trafficking, biological and chemical warfare . . ." Had the Republicans been given an opportunity at rebuttal, they could have had a field day with this passage. Because, while the Russians are destroying old nuclear weapons and materials, they are building new ones with whatever money they can find. They have recently deployed a new, mobile ICBM, the TOPOL-M, with new MIRV (Multiple Independently Targeted Re-entry Vehicle) warhead technology designed to confuse missile defense systems. Moreover, we know that Russian scientists have been busy helping Iran with their extensive nuclear program. As for fighting terrorism, it appears to be an increasing threat despite our "head-on" fight. When it comes to narco-trafficking, Bill Clinton speaks out of both sides of his mouth. While we are plodding into a drug-war quagmire in Colombia, formerly effective interdiction efforts elsewhere have been abandoned. For instance, we needlessly abandoned our bases in Panama back in December of 1999 (something not required under the Panama Canal Treaties). Anyone involved in drug interdiction efforts will tell you that this move all but eliminated our eyes and ears and gave us no nearby base for interdiction forces. Last but by no means least, it is hard to believe that Bill Clinton would claim to be fighting biological and chemical warfare head-on. He cannot point to one success story in this fight, not one. The list of countries thought to be developing these weapons of mass destruction has not shrunk one iota over the last 8 years — only the U.S. military has shrunk.

"Now, the American military is the best-trained, best-equipped, most effective fighting force in the world. I can tell you that their strength, their spirit, their courage and their commitment to freedom have never been greater." Once again we have here a fluff statement that has been passed down from generation to generation at every single political convention since World War II and every State of the Union address to boot. The spirit, courage and commitment of the American military has never been called into question. In fact, our fighting men and women in Vietnam all displayed these qualities while Bill Clinton was evading the draft in Moscow more than 30 years ago. And there is no doubt that the American military is the most effective fighting force in the world. But this is despite Clinton-Gore. The problem is, no military force in the world has the huge responsibilities ours has. The American military must be able to fight and win on the Korean peninsula and in the Persian Gulf at the same time. The American military must be able to fight in the Balkans and in the Taiwan Strait at the same time. This is all part of a doctrine that says that we must be able to fight two medium-sized regional conflicts at the same time. Even General Henry Shelton says that we'd endure more casualties if we had to try to carry out this doctrine today because our forces are stretched too thin. In this day and age that amounts to an admission that we could not do it for long. Under Clinton-Gore, training has suffered and equipment needs have gone unfulfilled. Simply put, President Clinton is lying when he tries to paint a picture of a healthy American military ready to defend America's national security and vital interests.

"And we have an even better chance this time than we did then, with . . . no great external threat." No great external threat? How about a baker's dozen (in no particular order)?

1. Terrorism
2. Nuclear proliferation
3. Chemical weapons
4. Biological warfare
5. Ballistic missile proliferation
6. An increasingly expansionist China undergoing a huge arms build-up.
7. Speaking of China: nuclear espionage.
8. A beligerent Iraq breaking out from sanctions and international isolation.
9. A beligerent Iran building ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction.
10. Norh Korea.
11. Libya working on ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction.
12. A Russia making its way back into totalitarianism.
13. Continued unrest in the Balkans.