 |
| |||||||||||
|
|
| |||||||||||
For those of you who are not following the Clinton saga carefully (and perhaps for those of you who might be following it a little too closely), I'm stepping back a bit this week to summarize the case against Bill Clinton. (Next week I'll try to provide the other side.) I'm not going to provide the evidence here. I've already done that. (Click here to read about it.) This is merely a layman's summary of the case against Clinton:
Once again, this is not about
sex. The president did commit adultery. And while that is surely
immoral; all by itself, it is a private matter.
The president lied; not once, but dozens
of times.
(Click here to read about it.)
He lied repeatedly under oath in his deposition in the Paula Jones case.
He lied repeatedly under oath to the grand jury. He lied to his cabinet;
He lied to the country - not once, but dozens of times. He lied when he
said he didn't lie.
The president used his employees and the
power of his office to conceal the truth, to obstruct justice, and to
impede the administration of justice.
By his actions, the president has seriously
demeaned and disgraced the office of the president, the government of the
United States, and the citizens of the country.
The U.S. Constitution provides Congress
with the authority to remove the president for "high crimes and
misdemeanors." After claiming for eight months that he didn't do
anything wrong, many of the president's defenders are now left with
saying that the president's actions do not represent impeachable
offenses. That's all they have left. Quoting the Constitution, they say
they are neither "high crimes" nor "misdemeanors." But the term "high
crimes," as they would have you believe, does not mean serious crimes.
The term "high crimes" dates back to the 17th century; it refers to
crimes by officials in high offices. There is no higher office than the
President of the United States. The term "misdemeanor," as used in the
Constitution, is not a legal term. As it was written in the 18th
century, it comes from the Latin words "mis," for bad or inappropriate,
and "demeanor," for conduct or behavior. In other words, it means bad or
inappropriate conduct. The framers of the constitution felt that the
president should obey all the laws, not just the ones that do not relate
to sex. And contrary to the trendy morality of the 1990's, the framers
thought that the president should set a positive example by his conduct.
They did not want a buffoon or a fool to continue to hold the highest
office in the land. That is why they used the term "misdemeanors." Bill
Clinton is both.
The president lacks the moral judgment
necessary to carry out his duties. The evidence that the president
committed perjury is complete and irrefutable. But he continues to
proclaim otherwise. Nobody with any sense believes him anymore... nobody.
The president's words are literally unbelievable. He is simply no longer
credible.
Removal from office is not
about punishing the president. The Constitution did not give the
Congress the authority to punish the president. This is
not about punishment! The judicial branch deals with punishment. This is
about preserving the Constitution and the dignity of the office of
President of the United States, as nebulous and insignificant as that may
seem to you. The framers of the Constitution did not think that the
dignity of the office of the president was inconsequential. They thought
it was so important that they provided a specific remedy to deal with a
president who disgraced the office. That is what this is
about.
This president has, by his own admission,
done what no president of a major U.S. corporation could get away with,
what no school official or teacher could get away with, what no local
political leader could get away with, what no religious leader could get
away with. Dozens of Americans have gone to prison for doing what this
president has done. We threw an Air Force pilot out of the military
because she lied about a sexual relationship. Why would we leave in
office the person who is supposed to be the nation's leader?
Franklin Roosevelt said that the job of the president is primarily one of moral leadership. In 1765, John Adams said: "Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people who have a right and a desire to know....But besides this... this they have a right, an indisputable, unalienable right, defined right, to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge. I mean of the characters and conduct of their rulers." By any measure, Bill Clinton has failed to live up to this standard.
This president is not indespensible to the
country. He did not balance the budget; he did not take the Dow up to
9,000; he did not bring unemployment down; he did not bring interest
rates down. He had very little to do with any of these things. The only
thing that the president did that no other man (or woman) would likely
have done is... "don't ask, don't tell."
As a result of his deplorable conduct, the
president lacks both the moral authority and the political strength to
effectively carry out his duties. Stated very simply, the country
deserves better.
That's what it boils down to.
A Boomer Responds:
"The thing that concerns me is the fact that every legitimate voter, and I emphasize "legitimate," knew what kind of womanizer and sexual predator he was before he was elected. Unfortunately no one said he was a liar...Oh yeah I remember, "I didn't inhale." (Should have picked up on that one). He conned us into believing he was sincere. I cannot, and will not give credence to anything the man has to say. Remember? Fool me once,.....fool me twice? My fault. I am truly ashamed of my president and the fact he came from my generation, makes it worse. Now he doesn't even have the dignity to do the right and honorable thing. Go ahead Mr. President, rub our noses in the mess we made when we elected you." - Richard
|
|
| |||||||||||
Copyright © 1999-2008 Baby Boomer HeadQuarters (BBHQ) All rights reserved.