As Winston Churchill said: "A fanatic is someone who won't change his mind, but who also won't change the subject." National Review's Rich Lowry is just such a fanatic.

Ever since he raised marginal tax rates on the wealthiest Americans in 1993, Bill Clinton has been in the crosshairs of the the American right wing, and Lowry's "Legacy" reads like a laundry list of old favorites that we originally heard throughout the 1990s. Lowry lays all -- and I mean all -- the blame for the fact that we are now in a war against terror at the doorstep of President Clinton. To say the least, Lowry's argument begs the question, and is as tendentious as any that I've had occasion to read.

As weak as his arguments on terrorism and foreign policy are, Lowry's book really falls apart on domestic policy. Given GW's woeful economic performance, it's actually kind of funny to see Lowry claim that Republicans (and dumb luck) are, in fact, due all the credit for the economic expansion of the 1990s. If a fact doesn't comport with the central thesis that Clinton took the country off the rails, then Lowry simply ignores it. A prime example is the 22 million new jobs that Clinton created throughout his two terms, which is actually 25 million more jobs than George W. Bush has created. Even though GW will be the first president to lose jobs on his watch, and he has lost nearly 3 million jobs, Lowry saw fit to release a book in October 2003 that assails Clinton's economic policies. Come on now, kids....Against the backdrop of the Bush administration, the argument is just plain bizarre, and strikes this reader as nothing more than old -- and I mean OLD -- wine in old bottles. The Republicans were wrong in their dire predictions of what Clinton's economic plan would do when it originally passed in 1993, and Rich Lowry is giving them a chance to be wrong again in this silly book that tries mightily to rewrite history.

In short, if you are a brain-dead paleoconservative who wants to be reassured in everything you already wrongly believe, then by all means read Lowry's book. If you are are said paleoconservative and you uncomfortable trying to defend GW's first term -- and, quite frankly, who would be comfortable trying to do that? -- then you should also read Lowry's book. But if you are not such a paleoconservative, and you realize that the 1990s were a much better time than anything we've experienced since the reckless Crawford cowboy took office, then go on ahead and skip this book.

This time Rich Lowry gets to play Captain Ahab and harpoon the White Whale (Clinton). Compared to the other Pequod members, he does a pretty good job. Although you cannot see it on the copy gracing the customer review section, a Scarlet "A" appears in the word Legacy on the cover. It speaks volumes to Mr. Lowry's central thesis. And that central thesis is that President Clinton's only real accomplishment had the brand of an adulterer affixed. The rest of his achievement was mere kismet and the fine fortune of having worked with a Republican congress. He offers a researched look at an administration that he clearly does not like.

And he forwards the opinions of former administration members to further his case. This technique is of value because an argument is generally more persuasive when "the goods" come from folks who worked with the principal rather than from opponents. But the discerning reader must know two things: first, relationships with several of these close associates, George Stephanopolos for example, were severely strained years before Lowry interviewed them. Other interviews with people like Leon Panetta involve Clinton's nature and personal style which at times were wanting--the self-destructive tendency the president manifests that put his career in danger, moodiness and pensiveness. However, no complicity in a major scandal is ever revealed in these conversations.

At a political level Lowry dismisses Clinton's role in the many accomplishments of his administration. He credits the economic recovery of the 90's, as it should be, to the dot com boom, to industry and imagination in general. But an administration can create a climate for doing business, and this is dismissed. Lowery reduces all credit to conservative engines unleashing entrepreneurial energy. The truth is that a whole constellation of variables are involved. I think removing Clinton's contribution from the mix strains the credibility of Lowry's arguments. 'Tis also true of lower crime rates and welfare rates. He gives Clinton no credit, but at least he never reduces his polemic to Coulteresque name calling. The reader will get principaled but overstated argument.

Second, if you read this book, you get a real strong sense that Rich definitely thinks the boys should be in charge In the chapters on the "Nanny State" and (I kid you not) "The Queen of the Bunny Planet" he rues the feminizing influence of women in public life. It is clear that Lowry felt that Madeline Albright was miscast as secretary of state. He describes a fight with Yasser Arafat as reminiscent of a Lucy and Ricky skit.

Lowry also looks at the many investigations in the Clinton presidency. Lowry dismisses most of the many alleged scandals as mere right wing mongering. This enhances his credibility. He lends merit to three scandals which he found legitimate: Pardongate, Templegate and Monicagate. But he comes off as disingenous about the presidential pardons (Marc Rich et al). The president pardons people. And they are generally not nice people. The presidents who book ended Clinton, Bush 41 and 43, also pardoned questionable people. It helps the reader to know this context that Lowry does not give. Nor does he give a full context for the White House fund raising scandals that occurred in 1996.

About Monica though, Lowry says that the scandal should have sunk Clinton's administration. Evidently Clinton lied about a sex act. This was not just a scurrilous rumor; it was a "fact." Clinton, Lowry argues, had to give up the presidency. The idea that most Americans thought that that was a weak reason to relinquish a presidency matters little to Lowry. This appears to be a deep conviction with the author. However, the makeup of the congress preordained the outcome; 70 million dollars was spent, the nation was polarized. Lowry even admits the practical folly of the venture. But oh that lovely scarlet letter they did affix!

Finally, I found Lowry's take on the military, foreign relations and terrorism very telling. Lowry rues the fact that during Clinton's presidency eight times as many servicemen and women committed suicide as were killed in action. He makes this statement at the beginning of the chapter on Clinton's mishandling of the military. That the current administration has reversed that ratio is to me a bad thing and a credit to Clinton. Lowry is clearly a disciple of the neocon movement of preemption. He has given an ominous new language to courage. Clinton was not fit to lead because of his draft status. Lowry writes how he agonized over the death of a Janitor who was killed in a building targeted in a bombing raid. He tortured over the use of force. It was informed by his draft status, Lowry argues.

One of Lowry's central negations of the Clinton presidency is that his weakness emboldened the terrorists. This is a frequent argument in conservative screeds on the subject. And at best overstated. Consider this: If Clinton was viewed by Al Qaeda as a cream puff, why did Osama and the boys not just throw in the towel when George W. Bush, a tough disciple of preemption, was selected president? If Lowry is correct in his assessments of both Clinton and Bush, 9/11 would have never happened. The fact that that awful day occured severely undermines Legacy's most damning argument

The introduction and closing chapter discuss the September 11th attacks, which he says provided the impetus for writing this examination of Bill Clinton's presidency. The scope, however, is widened to a systematic survey of most of the major elements and episodes of Clinton's two terms in the White House. Was the country better off in the areas of the economy, foreign affairs, etc., when Clinton left office than when he entered, and was it because of anything his administration did? These are the questions Lowry addresses, in order to find Clinton's legacy beyond the apologia of his supporters.

Lowry's job as editor of National Review may raise suspicions to some that this work can't be anything more than partisanship in hardcover. That's not the case, however, as Lowry is careful to allocate credit or blame to the president and others without the blinders on. For example, while some Republicans and the press questioned the timing of the August 1998 bombing of al-Qaeda targets as a cynical attempt to drive the Monica Lewinsky scandal off the headlines at a critical point in the investigation, Lowry notes that the real problem with this response to the recent bombings in Kenya and Tanzania was that it wasn't a hard enough response, and that this was one of several examples of his overall hesitancy to fully engage the threat of terrorism abroad.

Although the scope of the book is not intended to encompass the totality of 1990s politics, Lowry's book provides a clearinghouse for sorting out the details of many of the 1990s episodes in concise form. For those of us who were otherwise disposed and have only a vague idea of what Mogadishu, the Tutsis, the Hutus, and the Kosovars were all about, Lowry's descriptions of the conflicts, as part of getting to the core of Clinton's handling of them, are a very helpful tool. Lowry also sorts out the scandals and alleged scandals into three categories: the overblown (example: the Travel Office firings, the FBI "filegate"), the serious but unproven (example: dirty dealings with Whitewater partner Jim MacDougal), and three serious scandals that deserve attention (the 1996 fundraising from China, the pardon of Marc Rich, and the perjury and obstruction of justice related to the Monica Lewinsky testimony).

Lowry sets out his thesis regarding the Clinton legacy in the opening paragraph: "By his second term, Bill Clinton's presidency had achieved a kind of Seinfeldian self-referentiality. He was a president devoted to his presidential legacy, whatever that might be." The solipsism permeates the rest of the book, leaving at the core of all of these episodes in the Clinton presidency a legacy of searching for something to define his presidency, but continually being unwilling to risk the political capital to accomplish it. This not only detracts from his claimed successes, but it did severe damage in foreign affairs, as it gave al-Qaeda a growing confidence that they wouldn't have America to reckon with in any serious fashion. Lowry drives his point home with this assessment of Clinton's legacy in the fight against terrorism [p.301]: "His ego made him yearn after a great foreign policy crisis to give him a legacy: his moral shallowness kept him from dealing with one when it arrived."