-Caveat Lector-
In a message dated 12/30/98 7:42:30 PM Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
> http://www.consortiumnews.com/c122898c.html
>
> Dec. 29, 1998
>
>
> Editorial:
> ‘Clinton Impeached’
<brevity snip>
> The national Republican Party -- now dominated by some of the most extreme
> elements in U.S. politics -- has made clear it wants President Clinton's
> political death, nothing less.
They conveintly forget about the 5 Democrats who voted for the
impeachment...
NOT to mention if folks watched the impeachment vote, you will recall that
many democrats DID NOT vote until after the magical 218 number had been
reached, which
allowed them to take political cover and vote against impeachment..at least
according
to leading Democrats. These same Democrats were also claiming that had the
Republicans not reached the magical 218 number on the two articles that passed
they would have joined in and voted for impeachment. This way they get to
keep milking the Democratic National Committee for reelection money and
support.
>
> The larger picture might be even uglier. Beyond ousting Clinton, this new
> GOP is edging toward a modern style of totalitarianism that uses media,
> scandal and investigations to destroy adversaries who lack appropriate
> "values."
Apparently folks don't read history books because if they did, they would
find out that political scandels and investigations, not to mention media
coverage
of said scandels have been around since George Washington.
During the height of the Watergate crisis, James Roosevelt (FDR's Son) gave
an interview and said something to the effect of 'I don't know what the big
deal is..my dad bugged politcal rivals and used the us government to
intimidate and harass people
...in fact he was the guy who invented it.'
>
> And “scandals" now can be virtually created by the right's awesome attack
> machinery: a vast conservative media, including dominance of Washington’s
> pundit shows; well-funded "watchdog" groups and think tanks; legal groups
> that file civil suits against ideological enemies; far-right federal
judges,
> including ones controlling key appeals courts and the special prosecutor
> apparatus; and both houses of Congress with their broad powers to
> investigate.
Folks apparently wants us to forget the fact that LIBERAL DEMOCRATS
was the party which gave us the special prosecutor apparatus, and they also
fail
to mention the many attacks on Republicans over the years which came from such
leftist groups/think tanks as the Institute for Policy Studys, People for
the American Way, Greenpeace, ACLU, and on and on which have filed suits and
done the same
exact thing which Consortium berates others for.
What these people fail to understand is that all groups from all sides of
the political spectrum, even though their beliefs are different do essentially
follow the same paths
of pushing their agenda through Congress, Courts or file suits against people
who disagree with them.
I wonder when Consortium is going howl about and run some the big expose on
leftist idiological groups?
<brevity snip>
> Even without the charisma of Ronald Reagan or the scheming of Newt
Gingrich,
> the right-dominated House GOP caucus impeached a U.S. president for only
the
> second time in history.
As I recall it was all of the GOP plus 5-7 Democrats....which makes it a
biapartisian impeachment vote.
As to the impeachment, whats your point? The Constitution gives Congress
the power and authority to do so.
Folks should recall that when Ronald Reagan was going through Iran Contra,
the party that Consortium apparently throws it support behind (The Democrats
and Liberals) decided in advance that Ronald Reagan would never be
impeached UNLESS Congress could find a smoking gun, i.e. direct evidence
linking him to Iran Contra.
Consortium should also recall that in Lawrence Walsh's (Iran/Contra's
equivilant of Ken Starr) final report he concluded that Ronald Reagan DID
NOT LIE UNDER OATH.
We should also recall that Consortium's President Bill Clinton, unzipped
his pants, and let a White House intern perform oral sex on him, then
directly lied about it.
Had Clinton fessed up in the first place, he never would have been impeached.
>
> The House Republicans looked clunky at times, making self-righteous
speeches
> and losing Speaker-designate Bob Livingston to his own sex scandal. But
they
> still whipped GOP "moderates" into line and drove home two articles of
> impeachment against Clinton.
Livingston did the honorable thing and resigned. I found it interesting
that
Clinton called for Livingston NOT TO RESIGN. The way I see it, the leader
of the Democratic party and the left has asked a Republican leader not to
resign over his sex scandel because the White House termed it "politics of
self destruction."
SO publications such as Consortium should follow the lead of the person they
defend so much and start blathering about how Republicans shouldn't resign
over sex blah blah blah.
The fact that left leaning publications are not following that lead
and doing the same exact thing they excoriate the right for is mighty
interesting.
>
> The vote fulfilled a dream of many conservatives who have pined for
> Clinton's impeachment since his election in 1992.
>
> In February 1994 -- before Paula Jones burst onto the scene and long before
> Monica Lewinsky flashed her thongs at the president -- "Impeach Clinton"
> bumper stickers and buttons were stacked up at the annual Conservative
> Political Action Conference in Washington.
Kind of like the "impeach Reagan buttons and symbols that the liberals
floated
around during the Reagan Bush years. Don't forget that it was the same
liberal
democrats who howl and cry about Clintons impeachment who wanted to impeach
George Bush for Desert Storm. Ironicly these same liberal democrats defend
their leader to the absolute death for doing the same thing in principle
George Bush did, i.e. committing the US to a bombing campaign of Iraq. Never
mind the President directly ordering the bombing of a legit pharaceutical
factory in Sudan and the innocent
Africans who were killed in that attack.
Apparently the killing of blacks in Africa did not phase Jesse Jackson and
the liberal black groups, because unlike Desert Storm and other such events
during Republican years, they aren't protesting and howling about all the
needless deaths of blacks caused by American bombs
They seem to operate under the notion that: "It's OK when THEIR President
does it."
>
> All that was needed was an offense that could be pinned on Clinton. But the
> supposedly big issues -- Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, Vincent Foster's
> death, Mena drug trafficking, even the wild-eyed lists of "mysterious
> deaths" -- failed to generate anything that approached convincing evidence.
Had President had chosen to tell the truth in the first place, he would have
had nothing to be impeached for. Instead he choose to lie.
>
> Yet, given the right’s heavy investment in anti-Clinton propaganda,
> impeaching Clinton over something -- over anything -- became an
increasingly
> desperate need among conservatives. So, they turned to Clinton’s obvious
> weakness: sex.
Consortium seems to forget about the left's heavy investment in
anti-Reagan/Bush/Ford publications/storys over the years.
The next time the country elects a Republican President, leftists
will likely be leading the charge about investigating, impeaching, or
unloading
article after article on the so called evils of that President. Only when
the left does it
they will piously say 'that they are only trying to get or expose the
truth...'
Give me a break.
>
> In January 1998, cornered by conservative lawyers for Paula Jones’s dubious
> civil suit, Clinton tried to squirm out of a question about his adulterous
> relationship with Lewinsky and finally gave his enemies the pretext that
> they long had sought.
Finally Consortium admits that it was Clinton who ultimatly started this all
by trying "to squirm out of a question" under oath in the Paula Jones
lawsuit.
Consortium also forgets that the Federal Judge in the Case (a left leaning
judge) is looking at finding the President in contempt for telling the lie in
her court room.
Naturally you don't see that piece of information in left leaning
publications.
>
> With Starr’s “lies and cover-up” impeachment report in September,
> Republicans began daydreaming about an electoral landslide and the ouster
of
> both Clinton and Gore. But the voters shocked Republicans and the pundits
by
> cutting the GOP's House majority almost in half.
Ultimatly the voters still elected the Republicans to majority, which by
leftist
standards used when it was the Democrats who won the Congressional elections,
meant that the Republicans should impeach Clinton.
<snip>
> In the weeks after the election, in a “lame-duck” session, the Republican
> Right led the renewed assault. Rep. Henry Hyde and GOP partisans on the
> House Judiciary Committee spurned any talk of compromise despite Clinton’s
> offer to accept a strong censure for his actions.
Consortium apparently forgets about the Constitution which gives Congress
two options. Impeach, or not to Impeach. Likewise it gives the Senate two
option. Convict or Acquit. Why isn't the left on the band wagon to amend
the Constitution
to permit Congress the Censure option if they are so hot and bothered about
it? Probably because if it was a Republican president in office and a
Democratic controlled Congress, the left would be howling for impeachment.
>
> Along party-line votes, the House approved two articles of impeachment and
> delivered them to the Senate. The Senate now can oust the president with a
> two-thirds vote, an act that would make Clinton the first president in U.S.
> history to face that humiliation.
Consortium seems to have forgotten about the Democrats who voted for
impeachment,
so by leftist standards it was a "biapartisan" impeachment.
If the left had read its history books, it would have found out that
President
Andrew Johnson was also impeached and went to a three month trial in the
Senate and was acquited by one vote. So Clinton will be the 2nd President in
history
to face impeachment.
The left also conviently forgets about all the judges and other officials
(that
faced the same impeachment "humiliation") that Democratic Congresses have
impeached in the past. Naturally the left believes that because it was a
Democratic controlled congress who "humiliated" and "impeached" those
government officials, then it was the right thing to do....
Folks also fail to grasp that IF Clinton is convicted in the Senate,
its going to require the YES vote of 17 people of the party they support...the
Democrats.
>
> As the impeachment drive advanced, however, two key Republicans -- Rep. Bob
> Barr of Georgia and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott -- were exposed as
> having given fawning speeches to a white racialist group called the Council
> of Conservative Citizens.
That so called exposure that Consortium talks about had some serious
flaws..which is why even the liberal left leaning media is ignoring the issue
to death.
<snip>
> Clinton’s views on race may have inspired fierce opposition from another
> leading Republican. Last spring, House Republican Whip Tom DeLay lashed out
> at Clinton’s mild apology for America’s role in African slavery. During a
> state trip to Africa, Clinton had expressed regret for slavery.
Clinton apologized for Slavery. The truth is that apologies for historical
events
are truly meaningless words that are designed as soundbites for the evening
news
casts no matter which politcal party does them.
Consortium should also recall that this is the same trip to Africa in which
Clinton claimed that he didn't know what his attorney Bob Bennett was doing,
but later we found out that this was a total lie...at least according to Bob
Bennett.
If folks are in to endless meaningless apologies about historical events
then they should consider:
Bill Clinton should apologize to Japan for Democrat Harry Trumans decision
to
drop the A-bombs and kill 100,000 Japanese in the name of trying to end a war
early.
Bill Clinton should apologize to Japanese Americans for Democrat Franklin
Roosevelt's decision to round up Japanese Americans during World War 2 and put
them in detention camps.
Bill Clinton should apologize to Vietnam for Democrat JFK involving the US
in that war..even more then Eisenhower did, and Democrat LBJ's decision to
widen the war
which killed alot of innocent women and civilian in the process.
By liberal left, touchy-feelie-feel-good logic, all OJ Simpson would have
had to do is
simply apologize for what happened to his wife and Ron Goldman and that would
have been it.
<snip>
>
> Meanwhile, conservative special prosecutor Kenneth Starr kept splitting
> hairs when he finally responded to questions from the House Judiciary
> Committee’s Democrats who were skeptical about the honesty of his earlier
> testimony.
What Consortium doesn't want anybody to check out is the fact that when
Ken Starr was first appointed the Clinton White House said they didn't have
any problem with it until the last year.
The Clinton White House didn't have any problem with Ken Starr when he found
that Vince Foster killed himself (much to the dismay of the conspiracy
mongers).
The White House and the liberal left haven't complained about the fact that
it was
Clinton appointtee Janet Reno who approved the investigation into the Monica
angle.
The bottom line is not matter what Clinton says or does, no matter what the
Left
claims or doesn't claim the fact remains that it was Clinton appointee Janet
Reno who ultimatly approved of Starrs investigation into Monica..and made that
reccomendation to the three judge panel.
<snip>
> The political drama then shifted to the Senate. Conservatives immediately
> began lobbying for Clinton’s conviction and removal from office.
If Clinton is in fact convicted (which I don't think he ever will be) it will
be because 15 Democrats voted with Republicans.
By one Democratic leak, many Democrats think they will be better suited
politically in the year 2000 Presidential elections with Clinton gone and Gore
being in office.
One Democrat said that he felt the Democrats were attempting to delay any
resignation until after Jan 21. Why? Because then Gore can finish Clinton's
term and run for two more.
Interestingly you can think of it this way. Bill Clinton has one upped
Richard Nixon. Nixon was never impeached. Clinton was.
>
> Some conservatives maintained that the real case against Clinton rested in
> what had not been included in the impeachment articles. Some likened
> impeaching Clinton over sex lies to convicting Al Capone on tax evasion,
> when cases could not be proved about more serious felonies.
>
> DeLay urged senators to examine evidence in the House files which had not
> been publicly released -- apparently pertaining to disputed allegations
that
> Clinton made an unwanted advance toward a woman in the 1970s. The House
whip
> said the secret evidence would persuade the Senate to proceed to a full
> trial and conviction.
Personally I think we should have a full blown trial in which evidence put
forward and witnesses can be called AND CROSS EXAMINED by the President's
attorneys.
>
<snip>
> The grassroots group, Censure and Move On, vowed to raise money and
> challenge pro-impeachment Republicans. Other activists staged rallies in
New
> York City and Los Angeles.
What folks fail to grasp, is that even if Clinton is removed from office, Al
Gore will be our next President and by the time the year 2000 elections come
around America will be focused on other issues that the polls and the public
deem to be far more important then retaliation and punishment for impeachment
of Clinton. The Censure and Move On groups will lose support once Al Gore is
installed as President and the American public will move on. It was already
leaked (by Gore and Republican people) that if Gore became President, he and
Congress would work together and the truly important issues that face our
society...which would make the whole Clinton issue a mute and meaningless
point.
> Even the Democrats may be grasping the threat. Following the impeachment
> votes, House members rallied to Clinton's side, as the public boosted
> Clinton's approval ratings to above 70 percentage points in opinion polls.
If folks think polls are meaningful, then the fact that Richard Nixons
(who in fact was a crook) approval ratings were above 55-60 percent even after
the Watergate hearings should mean a great deal.
Cheers,
Robert
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
