In what has been described as a "combative interview" on "Fox News Sunday," former president, Bill Clinton who, you may recall, was impeached for having oral sex in the Oval Office, was cross-examined by anchor Chris Wallace about why he didn't launch a preemptive strike against Osama bin Laden. (AP) The former president recounted how he went after bin Laden to the fullest extent possible, trying to "kill him," as well as how the same folks who condemned his actions then are stepping up to the plate to attempt a "conservative hit job" now. One can only say "amen, Mr. Clinton." What a troubling statement about our national priorities, and ethos, that we impeach a president for a sexual contretemps while a sitting president gets to turn the military into an assembly line of bungled misadventures while hiding behind a flagrant misreading of the Second Amendment, all but shredding the First and Fourth Amendments,while turning foreign policy into a simple, and deadly acronym, "CYA -- cover your ass."
Anyone who thinks Bill Clinton doesn't have the cajones to speak up needs corrective lenses. Happily, the former president defended himself against Chris Wallace's assertions that he was incompetent with regard to stopping Al Qaeda. Hello, anybody home? Which American leader has demonstrated competency with respect to diffusing Al Qaeda? Wallace's suggestions are equally ironic, and absurd, in light of the fact that Bill Clinton was the first president, on record, to talk about the danger posed by paramilitary groups, as well as to attempt to make inroads towards preventing their proliferation. About the only thing the Bush administration has been adept at exposing is how occupation of a conceptually neutral, if nefarious, state like Iraq can pose a clear and present danger to world peace for now, and possibly centuries to come.
Instead of putting a former president on the defensive with regard to the "handling" of bin Laden, how about holding the current president accountable for his mishandling of the hunt for the world's greatest terrorist, as well as for his exceptional deployment of weapons of "mass distraction." Make no mistake, Iran is at least as irrelevant to the "war on terror" as Iraq. This administration's jihad for global domination, whether it can be described as diabolical or otherwise, is at least as transparent as a Fox reporter's efforts to pin the blame for global insurgency, and insurrection, on a previous president.
http://ladyjaynestahl.blogspot.com
Widely published, poet, playwright, essayist, and screenwriter; member of PEN American Center, and PEN USA. Jayne Lyn Stahl is a Huffington Post blogger.
Was he actually impeached, or was it a case where the articles of impeachment were drawn up, but nothing came of them? As I recall (and goddess knows, my memory is not what it once was), there was a big public outcry against impeaching him, and the whole matter was dropped.
It is true that the articles weren't drawn up over a BJ, but because he attempted to lie about it. Of course, he did finally tell the truth, and questioned the meaning of the word "is", something I think was a brilliant tactic.
Most importantly, that lie didn't end one single life. As a matter of fact, it made Monica Lewinsky quite rich, and rather famous (or infamous depending on how you look at it). Can DUBYA make the same claim? Not on your life, or the lives of all those who died because of his lies!
I also wrote an article about this story. I am hoping it gets published. Please read it if you get a chance.
Blessed be!
Pappy
by
Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 863 comments)
on Monday, September 25, 2006 at 3:13:22 AM
Pappy likes to twist the truth doesn't he?
Clinton commited Perjury. Perjury and Obstruction. He fessed up to it when he was caught red handed after commiting perjry to a Grand Jury. I still remember his scarlet red face during testimony on the recorded video. Then months later, the dress is the final piece of evidence proving the intern's story. All Clinton had to do was come clean (pardon the pun) and the nation would have moved on. Not Slick Willie, he was caught again with something hanging out, but this time he had also perjured himeself. Hillary was PISSED!
by
sbaker (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 110 comments)
on Monday, September 25, 2006 at 6:16:13 PM
First off, no, I don't. If you will recall, and obviously you weren't reading as you were too busy formulating this wondrous Magnum Opus of literary regard, I was asking a question. Here, let me repost it in italics so maybe you can try to get it right this time.
Was he actually impeached, or was it a case where the articles of impeachment were drawn up, but nothing came of them? As I recall (and goddess knows, my memory is not what it once was), there was a big public outcry against impeaching him, and the whole matter was dropped.
Firstly, I asked the question, "Was he actually impeached, or was it a case where the articles of impeachment were drawn up, but nothing came of it?" In other words, I was asking if this was correct, not SAYING it was. The appearance of a question mark should indicate to most literate people that I was asking a quesiton. I then followed up that question with the statement, "As I recall (and goddess knows, my memory is not what it once was), there was a big public outcry against impeaching him, and the whole matter was dropped."
Once again, if you had taken the time to notice the parentheses, (those funny looking things, like the ones surrounding this bit of sarcasm) you would have seen that I admitted that I did not recall whether or not the statement contained on the other side of the parentheses was correct.
How is this twisting the "truth"? I was asking a question and admitting that my memory of what actually happened was not as good as I would have prefered it to be.
Once again, I thought that the people who stopped in here for a good read were actually people who not only could spell "literacy", but possessed it as well. I see that I was wrong in that assumption once again.
Perhaps instead of postulating on whether or not I "twist the truth", you might consider a refresher course in the English language. You might want to focus on syntax (how sentences are constructed), and punctuation (those funny marks like parentheses, question marks, commas, and the lowly apostrophe).
Now, can I get a straight answer from someone who can answer me without attempting to assassinate my character, or perform the Fox News Shuffle (making statements that show ignorance just by their appearance). Was President Clinton OFFICIALLY impeached, or was the process stopped short? I would like to know so I can be more accurate in the future!
Sheesh, you'd have thought I said that Liberace wasn't gay!
Blessed be! (that means even though I see you as illiterate after your comment and attempt to slam me, I am still wishing blessings upon you)(..oh shit, more parentheses.)(Will it ever stop?)
Pappy (Harpist, writer, and literate)
by
Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 863 comments)
on Tuesday, September 26, 2006 at 2:40:02 AM
