Search This Blog

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Some Clinton notes

I am not yet ready to make my post about the Clinton Presidency. Here are some points of interest, however:

Bill Clinton was not impeached for having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky or any of the other women he dallied with during his time of office. He was impeached for lying about it under oath.

Richard Nixon wasn't forced to resign because he engaged in political espionage (in fact he neither did it nor knew about it until after the fact) but rather for instigating a cover-up, which was, of course, tantamount to lying.

Those of you who whine about Clinton being harassed for "a blow job" entirely miss the point, whether deliberately or out of ignorance.

The Democrats pushed hard for the investigation into "Plamegate", ruining a career and costing millions over a three-year period and further casting aspersions on a completely innocent White House. Not only do we now know that it was an anti-Bush State Department official, Richard Armitage, that did it but we also know now that for most of the long investigation the investigators knew it, too! Actions like that make complaints about the Clinton investigation look foolish at best.

Trust me, though, that my view of the Clinton Presidency will not focus long or hard on the Lewinsky debacle. It was symptomatic behavior but in and of itself his proclivity to cheat on his wife wasn't likely to impact his Presidency.

Oh, and the best thing about the ABC 9/11 two-day series was the revelation that Sandy Berger and the administration deliberately passed on taking out Osama twice, which is very likely why Berger stole classified documents and destroyed them before they could be reviewed by the 9/11 investigation team. No matter what you say about Clinton, Berger and Albright were nincompoops of the highest order.

2 comments:

Mazement said...

Bill Clinton was not impeached for having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky or any of the other women he dallied with during his time of office. He was impeached for lying about it under oath.

That's right, but it's kind of ironic that you've been defending Scooter Libby elsewhere on the blog.

He hasn't been indicted for leaking Valerie Plame's name to the press, and he apparently wasn't even behind the initial leak. He was indicted for obstruction of justice, perjury, and making false statements to the FBI.

Of course, there's a big difference in the two cases. Clinton was of course lying to protect himself from embarrassment.

But if Libby didn't leak the information, then lying wouldn't benefit him directly. He must have been lying to protect someone else. But who? And how did they benefit from those lies? And what pressure were they putting on him? (I don't think Libby would have lied to protect Armitage, since you say that Armitage was anti-Bush)

This needs to be investigated. I'd like to see Congress take a more active role, the way they did with Clinton.

cranky old fart said...

Radar,

Are all lies equal?