Just impeach everybody
: At Alternet (of cousre), Robert Scheer calls for impeachment because of Niger. I was ready to say that this was certainly stretching it — but then, what could have been stretching things more than impeaching a president because he unzipped?
by Jeff Jarvis
Mr. Clinton was impeached for committing the crime of perjury. A felony for which hundreds of Americans are currently sitting in jail.
That is a bit different than saying that he was impeached because he “unzipped”.
Now here is a real Presidential slate for the Dems, Bob Graham-President, Robert Scheer-Vice President, they both think Bush should be impeached. Floridiot and Calignorant in 2004.(What a bumper sticker that would make)
Dann– Clinton was impeached for a trivial, arguable perjury over an issue of no real consequence to the nation. IF there were actual substance to the Niger charge, it would only be about a billion times more consequential.
Of course, what both incidents have in common is that they show opponents grasping at any straw they can make stick legally, in heedless ignorance of the likely outcome of this kind of politics-playing. If the Democrats do as much with this as the Republicans did with their impeachment fantasies, Bush will coast to reelection and Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt will be tossed out of Congress. Happy hunting!
I agree with Mike. Grasping at straws in both cases.
What is with this latest “impeach the president” fad, anyway?
“Clinton was impeached for a trivial, arguable perjury over an issue of no real consequence to the nation.”
Tell Paula Jones that! Didn’t she deserve to have a FAIR day in court. Or are our courts not the place where ALL Americans should be EQUAL!
Or is sexual harrasment of women not important issue in our country.
I have to agree. While Mr. Clinton’s perjury was not a crisis affecting the nation, it was a serious breach of the law. Ms. Jones’ deserved her day in court. The line of questioning in the case was specifically sanctioned by a law that Mr. Clinton himself signed into law.
The entire episode was nothing more than a demonstration of Mr. Clinton’s unfitness to serve as President. His lack of character was widely known in 1992. Sadly, our nation ignored his lack of character and embraced his symbolism.
It was the Thomas hearings that brought the issue of sexual harrassment to light for most Americans. Thanks to the Democrats, this issue became important.
But, because of the Paula Jones affair, and Clinton’s perjury in it, we now have the “one grope rule” figuring that if the President can get away with it, why should not every man in the country.
What Democrats fail to see is the damage that Clinton’s perjury did to their principles. They wanted to keep him in office regardless of his open treason to the principles of the Democratic party. And thereby giving the common man in America the impression that Democrats have no principles, except possibly the principle of power.
When Nixon was impeached, the Republican told him that the gig was up and it would be best for all concerned if he resigned. The Democrats, faced with a similar test, failed. Not only did they fail to get rid of the man, and put Gore in a better position to win, but hurt themelves immeasurably in the process.
I’ll say it again to the Democrats. One of your own got busted trashing one of your own major principles. And you defended him and kept him. That is a big reason why it is hard to take the Democrats seriously any more and why they are heading toward “rump party” status for the foreseeable future.
For the record Nixon was NOT impeached. He did the honorable thing, at his parties insistence, he resigned.
FYI: Did you know, Hillary was evolved in drawing up the articles of impeachment on Nixon. Ain’t life strange! Poetic Justice, ain’t it grand!
“IF there were actual substance to the Niger charge, it would only be about a billion times more consequential.”
I suppose by this you mean that:
IF the President’s statement in had been inaccurate in any way; and
IF the President had know it was inaccurate; and
IF the case on Hussein’s WMD had centered on nuclear rather than chem-bio; and
IF Congress hadn’t voted three months before to give the President war powers over Iraq; and
IF anybody had changed their mind or taken any action at all in reliance on the Iraqi uranium charges;
then, yes, this might something more than a steaming pile of partisanship.
“While Mr. Clinton’s perjury was not a crisis affecting the nation, it was a serious breach of the law blah blah blah…”
Oh, put a sock in it. I already lived through the late 90s once, I have no intention of debating the exquisitely tiny issues of that supremely empty-headed political era all over again. One of the things that changed on September 11th was giving a shit about the rightwingers’ case against Clinton (or, for that matter, caring enough to defend him, either). It’s like still caring which Cassidy brother was cuter, when you’re 50.
The right wing would have tried to impeach Clinton if he’d offhandedly said during his testimony that he’d shot a 72 with Vernon Jordan when he actually shot an 86. They were so hungry for blood there would have been no issue to trivial for them not to pump themselves up in high Constitutional dudgeon about it.
What THEY shot– and this, the political aspect, is the only part of this that means anything now– was themselves in the head. (A lot of heads– Gingrich, Livingston, Faircloth, Barr, Hyde, Starr…) I hope the Democrats are not that stupid this soon to go repeating all of that.
I said hope, not believe. Bob Graham, who gave an occasional impression of being a grownup in this race, has already demonstrated that he’s stupid enough. Expect others to follow.
When you work on a defense contract requiring a secret clearance, one of the first things they want to know is if you have any personal problems that might make you vulnerable to money problems or blackmail. President Clinton put himself in a position where he was vulnerable to both and, it might explain some of the questionable things that happened during his reign (money laundering of Chinese cash to Democratic coffers and transferal of nuclear weapons designs to the PRC stand out – there are others).
These are pretty damned consequential. And, this doesn’t even consider the fact that 9-11 may have occurred because Clinton was too preoccupied with his mounting personal problems to go after Al Qaeda and nip that problem in the bud. Or, the fact that he did nothing to reform Social Security and, in fact, used it as a political bludgeon to counteract his impeachment woes. That’s one ticking time bomb that is going to explode in the next 10-20 years.
No consequences? Bullsh**!
“this doesn’t even consider the fact that 9-11 may have occurred”
Internet translation: “may have occurred” = “proof”
“because Clinton was too preoccupied with his mounting personal problems to go after Al Qaeda and nip that problem in the bud”
Because we just KNOW all the Republicans in Congress were sooooo eager to back him on any overseas military adventures against a shadowy, semi-mythical terrorist organization, right? Because no Trent Lott or Dick Armey would have used a term like “wag the dog” in reference to anything like that, would they? Hey, they did slow down impeachment for one whole day so the president could do something overseas before they went back to weakening the leader of the free world…
Let’s get real here. For 20 years the whole country, Republican and Democrat alike, with a very few exceptions like Richard Luger and (alas) Bob Graham, believed that the rein of peace and light had commenced, history had ended and all was going to be a wonderful, globalized world of free enterprise and ever-rising profits. Presidents with names as various as Reagan, Bush and Clinton all walked away from fights that terrorism tried to pick with them, encouraging ever stronger attacks which culminated in 9-11– assuming that that WAS indeed the culmination and the worst day of terrorism we will endure in this struggle, which I frankly doubt. Party has very little to do with what was obviously a trend throughout American politics for a very long time to ignore a rather significant Islamic elephant in the world’s room.
If you want to worry about complacency and compromised presidents, worry about the close ties between the Saudis and the Bushes before you go fantasizing things about Clinton with no real evidence. What you can say now for Bush II is that he has made real breaks with that policy in the face of his own history of being the quintessential wastrel son turned Saudi Li’l Buddy. That is why I, quite a partisan Democrat a few years ago when it didn’t really matter, am now a qualified Bush supporter– when it does matter. And why I no longer care about the supposed burning issues of a time whose real importance turns out to be all those things that no one, of either party, paid much attention to.
Well, MIke G., we disagree vis a vis Clinton but, I like a lot of what I read in your post. It reminds me of this article by Victor Davis Hanson.
WHAT? You can’t agree with me! Come back, I’ll even let you bring up Juanita Broaddrick…
Seriously, liberals who find themselves agreeing with Victor Davis Hanson, that’s about the best short description you could offer of how my politics have evolved since 9-11.
This is arguably repetitious, but:
(1) Clinton was not impeached “for unzipping”. He was impeached for felonious perjury and obstruction of justice, and no matter the political compromises he eventually paid nearly a million dollars in a settlement in order to avoid prosecution. In other words, he not only was impeached for perjury, he eventually settled in a way that effectively admitted guilt.
(2) By contrast, Bush’s supposed lies were (a) not under oath, (b) true. The British did tell the US that Iraq was trying to buy yellowcake uranium, and they stand behind that intelligence even yet. The whole discussion is based on the notion that George Tenet wishes a mention hadn’t gotten into the SotU speech, because it wasn’t as strongly verified as it could be. “George Tenet is not convinced” is not the same as lying.
So now, will you all for crying out loud at least get your freaking FACTS straight? These are things that can be verified from multiple sources. Maybe the intelligence wasn’t that good — although I’m withholding judgement; I’ve done intel work, and sometimes they won’t reveal something, even if it would be very helpful, in order to protect sources. But the “sixteen words” were not a lie and anyone who seriously thinks Clinton’s perjury is comparable to Bush et al making a statement that is apparently true badly needs a cold shower and a cup of coffee.
Mike G wrote:
“Dann– Clinton was impeached for a trivial, arguable perjury over an issue of no real consequence to the nation.”
Lie in the small things, lie in the big. Clinton bombed several countries on importants days in the Lewinsky Affaire. Co-incidence? I don’t thing so. Clinton literally killed people to distract us from the bad news brought about by his own actions. Too bad the Republicans didn’t have the guts to impeach him for these. Too bad Trent Lott and the Senate ducked their responsibilities to have a real trial.
Clinton had two or three chances to have the Sudanese hand Bin Laden over. 3000 dead Americans and two wars laters, the Democrats are still defending Clinton and attacking Bush for having to clean up the mess.
Before I could vote for any Democrat (I’ll vote, Green or Socialist before voting ‘RAT), I ask ‘what did dimmy do during the Clinton years?’ Did they try to clean up their party? Did they go along to get along? Does this mean the pubbies are good? No, but at least the media keeps an eye on them, while they let the ‘RATs get away with murder.
Please someone name one decent elected Democrat? Before he connected with algore, Lieberman was at least a decent person, not any more.
Here comes Jabba to prove my point about how even if Clinton had decided to do something decisive about al-Qaeda, he would have had nothing but backbiting and worse from the frothing-American community on the right.
“When you work on a defense contract requiring a secret clearance, one of the first things they want to know is if you have any personal problems that might make you vulnerable to money problems or blackmail. President Clinton put himself in a position where he was vulnerable to both. . .”
Just going through the entries in the thread and thought to myself, “How about a debate on how utterly and completely stupid it would be to even attempt to blackmail the President of the United States?”
It boggles the mind.
There’s nothing to gain and nothing to lose.
A person never tells you anything until contradicted.
Buy http://www.i-directv.net this it is a wonderful addition to anyones home entertainment system.