Letters to the Editor
-
Legal Wordsmithing - dcmeserve
Actually;
The impeachment was over Clinton's statements under oath. That the congress determined that these facts did not amount to perjury has nothing to do with the reason why he was impeached. Again, impeachment is just the formal accusation, not the removal from office. Likewise impeachment must relate to an actual crime either a High Crime, or a Misdemeanor (theoretically intentionally worded as such so that a majority party could harass a sitting minority president). As simply lying isn't a crime, the impeachment, though perhaps encouraged by Clinton's extra judicial statements concerned only those statements made under oath in Arkansas for which he was disbarred.
With regard to Mr. Bush, there certainly is enough suspicion to warrant an impeachment, as the impeachment is just the accusation, however the question at hand is whether or not the moral victory of this accusation would be worth the pyrrhic victory if he as Clinton did, survives the impeachment.
On the issue of legal wording it would seem Bush has taken Clinton's frivolous exercise to save his reputation and applied it to truly dangerous ends. In this we see the danger of precedent, just as Jackson's refusal to enforce laws with which he disagreed, and congresses capitulation to do so has enshrined such a notion in our legal annals for all time, likewise Clinton's legal doggerel on the presidential level has established that the meaning of words can be interpreted as one sees fit regardless of common understanding. As such, Bush's obligation to present evidence to congress means only that he must present a vaguely worded rehash of previous statements to congress in order to go to war. He was directed to present evidence not that congress should review and approve of said evidence.
Now perhaps I put too much burden on Clinton in this notion of precedent. However I do wish to illustrate a point, how what seems like a good idea at the time can turn around and bite you in the ass. Clinton's choice and our acceptance of that choice to mislead about issues that may be inconsequential lowers our threshold of tolerance when Bush makes the choice to mislead about issues of great importance. Likewise, it is important to remember that America loves and underdog. Clinton's popularity though not abysmal prior to the investigations was no where near the level they went up to when a newly minted opposition congress sought to bring him down. Likewise, harassing the president over these possible legal issues may well have the opposite effect than what is desired. If congress brings these charges and can not prove wrong doing, they establish the power of the presidency to act in these ways within these limitations, and perhaps embolden the Republicans as the underdogs to show the Democrats as vindictive do nothings out to "undermine our security".
It is best to let a neutered dog lie, pass legislation restricting further abuses, and force future monitoring and oversight by congress, but not to move into investigations of the past wrong doing.
It may seem morally lacking to do so, but it is perhaps best to just put this sad story behind us and move on.
To pick at this open soar may not help us to heal as a nation, and may cause greater disease in the body of government.
-
But given how dense TT's strips often... -- gar
I couldn't agree more.
Think how much space Salon could save by not printing them at all.
-
For Large Print
you can capture the image from salon and open it in another program such as word, paint or really any program allowing you to edit images, and then can expand the image to make the print more legible.
I often select favorite TT's and save them as my wall paper, which makes them very easy to read (if possibly slightly distorted).
Also with regard to what Cheny is saying it's Bergen, as in Edgar Bergan, of Edgar Bergan and Charlie McCarthy fame (Famous radio ventriloquist if you can figure that one out) it is intended to be illegible because it is being mumbled, and GWB is saying it allowed.
It's the old Cheney is the real brains of the outfit joke...which I think let's old GWB off too easy...but what you gonna do.
-
clinton did not lie about having sexual relations
oral sex is considered to be sexual intercourse.
there was a study showing this in a medical journal.
in arkansas perspective, the point is- "it ain't a sin if you don't stick it in."
but why are we discussing Clinton anyway here. he has not been Prez for years. it is dubya in the hotseat now, and i was under the impression that this comic strip was about the dubya years.
yeah, those good old clinton days- peace, prosperity, and low unemployment. but i guess that wasn't good enough for the average joe six-pack; he wanted to have "Love Jesus and cut taxes" so thus we got this spoiled fratboy moron in the oval office.
as gore vidal said- better to have oral sex in the oval office than oral roberts.
-
oops, a typo-
i meant to write that oral sex is not sexual intercourse!
only if you think it is can one fiddle with the idea that clinton lied.
but many experts do not agree that oral sex is equivalent to sexual relations.
sorry about that, i gotta proof-read my letters before sending in, but who has time for this in this busy Modern World...
.
-
Some good points, "What more harm can he do?"
Though actually I'm not clear what you're saying in your first paragraph. Certainly, there was debate at the time as to whether, legally speaking, he actually lied under oath; but since then, it has been resolved in Clinton's favor, in the view of the legal community (I believe). So it doesn't make sense nowadays to say, as you did, that "he lied under oath" -- because he didn't.
The fact that the vote to impeach was made exactly along party lines shows just what the nature of that accusation was.
For Bush, I agree -- if it is unlikely that a vote to convict in the Senate would succeed, then the proceedings should not be initiated in the House. I don't know if it would leave Bush stronger in the public mind -- I really doubt that surviving impeachment buoyed Clinton's popularity; I think he earned it directly, through his positive aspects. But a failed Bush impeachment would leave the Democrats severely weakened, especially if they are perceived as having the Impeachment as one of their major goals -- that they are running ahead of reality. Actually, even a successful impeachment & conviction could have that effect, under such circumnstances.
Which is why it's very smart of Pelosi to declare that Impeachment is "off the table," implying that she'd practically have to be dragged kicking and screaming into it. It must be understood by the public at large to be necessary, not just part of a Dem agenda. That the facts themselves, made clear through numerous hearings and public investigations, make Bush's guilt crystal clear in the public mind, thereby ensuring conviction in the Senate. Meaning, the public would demand impeachment and conviction so strongly that many Republicans would be forced to vote for it.
That was the situation for Nixon. That was not the situation for Clinton.
Now, I should also note that Bush is hardly "neutered." True, he will have a more difficult time getting all the legislation he wants through the congress. But he still has the Veto power. And he still nominates Judges. And he still controls the military, the Dept. of Homeland Security, the EPA, etc. etc. He still speaks for us to the rest of the world. He can even still have people disappeared if he wants, under the legal theory he uses to support his NFS wiretapping program. Basically, there is in fact quite a bit more harm that he can still do, even just by continuing his current behavior, even without cooperation from congress.
A Bush impeachment & conviction, robustly supported by the facts that are understood by the People, is necessary to heal our country, and put us back on the path that our Founders set out for us. Just letting him run out his term, in this case, will in fact be the precedent that encourages future Presidents to behave as he has.
p.s. I don't think that Clinton's wordsmithing inspired Bush's legalisms at all -- those fall neatly under the category of "lessons learned from Nixon's troubles."