- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I see I’m not the only one for whom this quote landed with a bit of a thud:
“It goes back to hypocrisy. We Republicans, during impeachment, were so outraged that Democrats would bitch and moan behind the scenes and talk about what a disgrace Bill Clinton was, but then when they went on the House floor and the Senate floor, would fiercely defend him ... We would all scratch our heads and say, 'How could they do that? How could they go out and circle the wagons and say something they didn't believe?'”
Okay, so Scarborough was there, and we weren’t. So, maybe we should give him the benefit of the doubt. And yet, I can’t help but wonder: when those Democrats were behind the scenes, “bitching and moaning,” were they in fact saying “That Bill Clinton! He’s broken the law and violated the Constitution and he should be impeached!”? Or were they saying “Damn, imagine that son of a bitch cheating on his wife that way! That’s just not right”? And when they went on the House floor and the Senate floor, and “would fiercely defend him,” were they defending him by saying “Bill Clinton has not committed a crime and should therefore not be impeached,” or were they saying “Hey, there’s nothing wrong with adultery! And even if there was, it would be okay, because Bill’s totally innocent of it.” Because you see, there’s really only one possible combination of answers to those questions that actually constitutes hypocrisy, and to imply one (which I think Scarborough does), IF in fact the other was the reality (and I'm just wondering aloud), strikes me as a tad dishonest.
To say that someone is an adulterous sleazebag on the one hand, and on the other that being a sleazebag is neither illegal nor unconstitutional, and consequently should not result in impeachment, is not hypocrisy. It’s simply saying two different things. And contrary to what a lot of people in the media would have you believe, the two are not synonymous. To say, on the one hand, “this desk is made of wood,” and on the other that “this chair is made of foam and plastic,” is not hypocritical. It’s simply saying two different things. Both are equally true, and there is no inherent contradiction, let alone hypocrisy. Clinton may have been an adulterer and a sleazebag. Neither of those things is an impeachable offense. And I’m sorry, but the whole “yeah, but he LIED about it!” argument doesn’t fly, because the underlying offense for which the impeachment was so bloodthirstily sought was the adultery, period. The “impeach the slick bastard” crowd would have settled for anything they could get, but let’s face it, it was all about the adultery, always, and anyone who claims otherwise actually is being, if not hypocritical, then at least willfully disingenuous.
