Tag(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags
Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

Permalink
View Article Stats      (64 comments)

NOBODY MARCHED TO IMPEACH BILL CLINTON!

Add this Page to Facebook!
Submit to Twitter
Submit to Reddit
Submit to Stumble Upon

Tell A Friend

Become a Fan
Get Embed HTML Code
By (about the author)

Become a Fan Become a Fan  (18 fans)   -- Page 1 of 1 page(s)

opednews.com

NOBODY marched to impeach Bill Clinton. Angry citizens DIDN'T fill the streets, carry signs and beg a non-responsive Congress to do its Constitutional duty and remove Bill Clinton from his job. Panels WEREN'T held across the nation, moderated by Constitutional scholars who loved their country so much that they traversed its full span to inform packed audiences of the high crimes Bill Clinton had done.

Nope. That DIDN'T happen.

In 1998, thousands upon thousands of Americans DIDN'T call, write, fax and visit their elected leaders every day imploring them to impeach Bill Clinton. Millions of citizens DIDN'T believe that the rest of the world wanted Bill Clinton impeached. Groups of citizen activists DIDN'T band together to camp out at their Representatives' homes and District Offices for days, sometimes weeks, holding "Impeach Bill Clinton" signs and wearing "Impeach Bill Clinton" T-shirts. Thousands of cars DIDN'T bear "Impeach Bill Clinton" bumper stickers.

Nope. That DIDN'T happen.

Average citizens DIDN'T travel to Washington, DC to walk the Halls of Congress and seek audiences with their elected officials demanding to have Bill Clinton impeached.

Nuh-uh!

"Impeachment Centers" WEREN'T opened dedicated to impeaching Bill Clinton like the one in Los Angeles that opened on the Fourth of July, dedicated to impeaching George Bush and Dick Cheney.

Hundreds of people DIDN'T join together in a park on a national holiday for an impeach-Bill-Clinton-rally the way they joined together in a park in Los Angeles on Wednesday for an impeach-Bush-and-Cheney-rally.

In 1998, the people DIDN'T need to inspire Congress to impeach Bill Clinton. The 105th Congress couldn't wait to throw the popular President out of his job. In fact they impeached Bill Clinton even though we-the-people implored them not to.

Of course, there were some Americans in 1998 who bought the smear and destroy campaign by the rabid Republican spin-machine and rabid Republican legislators to impeach Bill Clinton under the guise of restoring the Presidency. These duped citizens were conned by mainstream media's daily theatrics, directed by then-adulterer Congressman Henry Hyde, then-adulterer Speaker Newt Gingrich, then drug-addict Rush Limbaugh, future-indicted Congressman Tom Delay, and Special Pornographer Kenneth Starr. (My apologies to Larry Flynt).

How ironic for Gingrich and Hyde that Clinton was caught with his pants down just as they were dropping theirs. How further ironic that the lynchpin asserting the case for Clinton's impeachment was Ken Starr's obsessively compiled pornographic tome, whereas Americans today have a virtual library of scholarly books on the Constitutional merits of impeaching Bush and Cheney. Thanks to Mr. Starr's salacious expose, it is likely his lurid accounting of a private consensual affair will be his singular most powerful climax.

The fact is, during the 105th Congress's impeachment of Bill Clinton, Clinton's public APPROVAL rating was a positive 73%. Conversely, as the current 110th Congress takes NO action to impeach George W. Bush, Bush's public APPROVAL ratings range between 28 and 36%.

This means that the people's well-liked President Clinton was penalized, while the people's despised President Bush is allowed to stay on.

If this isn't a failure of democracy of, for, and by the people, then what is?

The 105th Congress's impeachment of Bill Clinton was an elitist backlash to pummel an Arkansas poor-boy for dethroning the patriarch of the ruling class. Unfortunately, the 110th Congress conforms to the same eliticism, refusing to impugn the progeny of that same ruling class. The collapse of our democracy is in no small part due to the ideological similarities between the Republican and Democratic parties, fueled by cronyism and mutual corporate ties.

Sadly, Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic Congress will rue the day they took impeachment off the table. By disregarding the wishes of The People and making no effort to impeach Bush and Cheney, Speaker Pelosi will go down in history as the Speaker who permitted the most corrupt Administration in American history to perpetrate its crimes. She has secured her legacy as the spineless leader of a spineless Congress that defied the Constitution and sanctioned Bush and Cheney's lies. The 110th Congress and its Speaker have become enablers, accomplices and accessories to the crimes.

The bottom line... Bush and Cheney have eighteen months left to their term. During this time they are capable of many more egregious crimes. Congress's failure to initiate articles of impeachment for Bush and Cheney's criminal acts is a breach of Congress's Oath "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic."  If Pelosi and the 110th Congress do not uphold this Oath, they have secured their rightful places alongside Bush and Cheney as enemies of the state.

One final note: Members of both the House and the Senate have stated that impeachment is certain to fail. Let it be known that if the current Legislative Branch doesn't make an honest attempt at impeachment, they have already failed.

But If they make an honest, heart-felt and diligent try, even if they fail, at least they have done their job.


 

LindaMilazzo.com

Linda Milazzo is a Los Angeles based writer, educator and activist. Since 1974, she has divided her time between the entertainment industry, government organizations & community development projects and educational programs. Linda began her (more...)
 

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Follow Me on Twitter

 

Share this page: (what's this?)                   Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

Add this Page to Facebook!      Submit to Stumble Upon      Submit to Reddit      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Blink List     (More...)

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
64 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Its a pity they didn't by Brett Paatsch on Sunday, Jul 8, 2007 at 4:16:36 AM
Nice try at revisionist history Brett by Steven Leser on Monday, Jul 9, 2007 at 12:56:01 AM
Perjury not adultery by Brett Paatsch on Monday, Jul 9, 2007 at 6:17:18 AM
Clinton did not commit Perjury by Steven Leser on Monday, Jul 9, 2007 at 6:33:46 AM
Shirley, you jest by Yaybob on Monday, Jul 9, 2007 at 7:55:40 AM
You are right by Brett Paatsch on Monday, Jul 9, 2007 at 1:38:22 PM
Correction -- Article 1 section 9 (nine) by Brett Paatsch on Monday, Jul 9, 2007 at 1:52:21 PM
And so are you by Yaybob on Tuesday, Jul 10, 2007 at 1:29:23 PM
Don't feel overwhelmed for too long by Brett Paatsch on Wednesday, Jul 11, 2007 at 12:02:49 AM
Share it by Cheryl Biren on Sunday, Jul 8, 2007 at 9:06:36 AM
Precedence was set with Regan by Joanne on Sunday, Jul 8, 2007 at 9:10:41 AM
I agree by Brett Paatsch on Sunday, Jul 8, 2007 at 9:45:48 PM
The world would disagree about when the US Looked best by Steven Leser on Monday, Jul 9, 2007 at 12:57:51 AM
Why Not? by CJ on Sunday, Jul 8, 2007 at 10:02:40 AM
Thank you by Rob Kall on Sunday, Jul 8, 2007 at 11:04:21 PM
Maybe we need a new speaker by Gareece on Sunday, Jul 8, 2007 at 12:25:17 PM
CLINTON was not a drooling POWER-MAD Dictator. by XweAponX on Sunday, Jul 8, 2007 at 3:20:18 PM
There is some hope by walley on Sunday, Jul 8, 2007 at 3:49:20 PM
An Open Letter to Congressman Bobby Scott (D-Va. - 3rd Dist) by LarryWBryant on Sunday, Jul 8, 2007 at 4:02:49 PM
Not a democratic country any more, either by Yaybob on Sunday, Jul 8, 2007 at 4:26:58 PM
Gag response by Pappy on Sunday, Jul 8, 2007 at 5:04:02 PM
Perhaps W has a phonetic Bible by Brett Paatsch on Monday, Jul 9, 2007 at 6:49:33 AM
The question I ask my CongressCritter by Susan Cass on Sunday, Jul 8, 2007 at 9:51:28 PM
Nice debating, son. by Scott on Monday, Jul 9, 2007 at 12:27:47 AM
Those tired talking points against Clinton deserve little by Steven Leser on Monday, Jul 9, 2007 at 1:07:13 AM
perjury defined by tim bristol on Monday, Jul 9, 2007 at 9:32:59 AM
material matter in a judicial proceeding IS THE SAME by Steven Leser on Monday, Jul 9, 2007 at 10:15:19 AM
I'm afraid it isn't. by tim bristol on Monday, Jul 9, 2007 at 11:18:25 AM
I'm afraid it is. by Steven Leser on Monday, Jul 9, 2007 at 5:48:31 PM
thanks by tim bristol on Tuesday, Jul 10, 2007 at 4:02:47 PM
Tim, BOTH are so important as to be essential, is the point by Steven Leser on Wednesday, Jul 11, 2007 at 12:47:27 AM
comments on "nobody marched to impeach bill clinton" by steve scheetz on Monday, Jul 9, 2007 at 7:41:00 AM
A good example of typical Reich-Wing Lies by Steven Leser on Monday, Jul 9, 2007 at 9:14:38 AM
No one can persuade with a bad argument by Brett Paatsch on Monday, Jul 9, 2007 at 10:04:13 AM
"Reich Wing Lies" is enough if you have already stated your by Steven Leser on Monday, Jul 9, 2007 at 11:12:06 AM
LM by Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo on Monday, Jul 9, 2007 at 12:05:43 PM
Ahhh Pete.... by Linda Milazzo on Monday, Jul 9, 2007 at 1:54:16 PM
Oh, please by Scott on Monday, Jul 9, 2007 at 12:12:10 PM
Who is dancing? Read the law! by Steven Leser on Monday, Jul 9, 2007 at 5:47:37 PM
Useful comment on material and perjury by Brett Paatsch on Wednesday, Jul 11, 2007 at 1:34:42 AM
Thanks Brett, although you will never find me attempting to by Steven Leser on Wednesday, Jul 11, 2007 at 10:16:01 AM
BLAME by Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo on Monday, Jul 9, 2007 at 12:15:55 PM
Clinton was not an angel by Mark Sashine on Monday, Jul 9, 2007 at 2:41:24 PM
Linda by Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo on Monday, Jul 9, 2007 at 3:19:48 PM
What? That Can't Be Right.... by RCG on Monday, Jul 9, 2007 at 3:24:05 PM
impeachment by tom felt on Tuesday, Jul 10, 2007 at 6:55:07 AM
Huh? by Pappy on Tuesday, Jul 10, 2007 at 1:45:36 PM
This is too long to deal with in this thread. by Brett Paatsch on Wednesday, Jul 11, 2007 at 1:51:28 AM
Right, Leser. And O.J. didn't kill Nicole. by Scott on Tuesday, Jul 10, 2007 at 10:34:33 PM
I know, it sucks when the law isnt what you wish it was... by Steven Leser on Wednesday, Jul 11, 2007 at 12:52:57 AM
Your high horse is too high! by Pappy on Wednesday, Jul 11, 2007 at 4:29:41 AM
Okay I didn't mean to knock or get on high horse by Brett Paatsch on Wednesday, Jul 11, 2007 at 5:28:26 AM
Reply as requested by Brett Paatsch on Wednesday, Jul 11, 2007 at 7:23:58 AM
There's another door you opened, Leser by Scott on Wednesday, Jul 11, 2007 at 2:14:05 PM
Again, apples to oranges comparisons... or, more like by Steven Leser on Wednesday, Jul 11, 2007 at 9:40:03 PM
LOL, down for the count ... dont get off the canvas... by Steven Leser on Wednesday, Jul 11, 2007 at 9:45:02 PM
Oy vey! by Pappy on Wednesday, Jul 11, 2007 at 2:55:23 PM
Where did that crap come from? by Scott on Wednesday, Jul 11, 2007 at 9:59:08 PM
I am more than happy for people to evaluate things by Steven Leser on Thursday, Jul 12, 2007 at 4:10:57 AM
Damail you have been here by Brett Paatsch on Thursday, Jul 12, 2007 at 5:57:23 AM
Wow, a reasonable request and question by Scott on Thursday, Jul 12, 2007 at 9:32:44 PM
Thank you by Brett Paatsch on Friday, Jul 13, 2007 at 3:46:52 AM
Sorry I'm so late in responding by Scott on Monday, Jul 16, 2007 at 11:20:20 PM
But would you be open to changing your mind? by Brett Paatsch on Wednesday, Jul 18, 2007 at 9:48:23 AM