So they say Lieberman will not be chosen for Vice President is because
he is Jewish? Not true.....
I reproduce the reason Lieberman will not be the chosen one and that
includes Diane Feinstein too.....when Clinton sunk to bottom of bilge,
Feinstein was the first to turn on him like a Pit Bull and Lieberman,
who was without sin, it is alleged he alone could cast the first stone.
The Democrat Party is a family - they hide each others indiscretions -
and Republicans do the same...matter of personal pride and honor.
Clinton went off the deep end and I think little Monica was sent in for
all knew his weakness...this fat dumpy frump with pizza? Still that
that pizza was loaded with Ecstasy and the phone sex with Mossad
listening in?
And Lieberman will not be the chosen one because he is Jewish? Not it
is because he was honest, and they have to skeletons to pull from his
closet.....Feinstein has few skeletons when you look into her
history......
So Lieberman took the less traveled road - and Gore no longer wants to
travel on the same well traveled road with Clinton and Flynt and
Carville and Barney Frank - or does he?
I say this - what is Lieberman's weakness for to this date they
have......he has prevented the spy Pollard being released against
desires of the mossad....Gore needs the jewish vote and Hilliary went
after the vote with a passion
Lieberman was elected in Connecticut - so their is no religious test for
running for public office, only if the character or activities of an
individual are questionable.
Well maybe Lieberman has just a little too much integrity for that lot
of thieves and sodomists; yet he refrained from malicious attacks.
So do not blame the fact he is jewish for his not being considered for
Vice President - it is that Conecticute is a small state, the jewish
vote is small in this country - maybe in New York it is needed - but it
seems to me that Lieberman ran as a man, and not a jew and was elected
on his qualifications?
Who knows.....now Barney Frank, he has a handicapp.......male
prostitution ring he ran with? Homosexual we would like to put back in
closet? Last think that comes to mind, is he is jewish.
So I liked this article; for it tells you what Lieberman did when it
came to Clinton - he weighed the scales, and did the right thing, which
was the wrong thing if you want to fly with
the snow birds - guess Lieberman would rather fly with the eagles?
Saba
September 3, 1998
Lieberman Addresses the Senate Regarding President Clinton and the
Independent Counsel's Investigation
Washington, DC -- Sen. Joe Lieberman today addressed his colleagues in
the United States Senate with regard to President Clinton and the
Independent Counsel's investigation.
The following is the text of Lieberman's statement made in the Senate
late this afternoon:
Mr. President, I rise today to make a most difficult and distasteful
statement, for me probably the most difficult statement I have made on
this floor in my ten years in the Senate.
On August 17th, President Clinton testified before a grand jury convened
by the Independent Counsel and then talked to the American people about
his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, a former White House intern.
He told us that the relationship was "not appropriate," that it was
"wrong," and that it was "a critical lapse of judgement and a personal
failure" on his part. In addition, after seven months of denying that he
had engaged in a sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, the President
admitted that his "public comments. . . about this matter gave a false
impression." He said, "I misled people."
My immediate reaction to this statement was deep disappointment and
personal anger. I was disappointed because the President of the United
States had just confessed to engaging in an extramarital affair with a
young woman in his employ and to willfully deceiving the nation about
his conduct. I was personally angry because President Clinton had by his
disgraceful behavior jeopardized his Administration's historic record of
accomplishment, much of which grew out of the principles and programs
that he and I and many others had worked on together in the New
Democratic movement. I was also angry because I was one of the many
people who had said over the preceding seven months that if the
President clearly and explicitly denies the allegations against him,
then, of course, I believe him.
Since that Monday night, I have not commented on this matter publicly. I
thought I had an obligation to consider the President's admissions more
objectively, less personally, and to try to put them in a clearer
perspective. And I felt I owed that much to President Clinton, for whom
I have great affection and admiration, and who I truly believe has
worked tirelessly to make life tangibly better in so many ways for so
many Americans.
But the truth is, after much reflection, my feelings of disappointment
and anger have not dissipated. Except now these feelings have gone
beyond my personal dismay to a larger, graver sense of loss for our
country, a reckoning of the damage that the President's conduct has done
to the proud legacy of his presidency, and ultimately an accounting of
the impact of his actions on our democracy and its moral foundations.
The implications for our country are so serious that I feel a
responsibility to my constituents in Connecticut, as well as to my
conscience, to voice my concerns forthrightly and publicly, and I can
think of no more appropriate place to do so than the floor of this great
body. I have chosen to speak particularly at this time, before the
Independent Counsel files his report, because while we do not know
enough to answer the question of whether there are legal consequences
from the President's conduct, we do know enough to answer a separate and
distinct set of questions about the moral consequences for our country.
I have come to this floor many times in the past to speak with my
colleagues about my concerns, which are widely-held in this chamber and
throughout the nation, that our society's standards are sinking, that
our common moral code is deteriorating, and that our public life is
coarsening. In doing so, I have specifically criticized leaders of the
entertainment industry for the way they have used the enormous influence
they wield to weaken our common values. And now because the President
commands at least as much attention and exerts at least as much
influence on our collective consciousness as any Hollywood celebrity or
television show, it is hard to ignore the impact of the misconduct the
President has admitted to on our children, our culture and our national
character.
To begin with, I must respectfully disagree with the President's
contention that his relationship with Monica Lewinsky and the way in
which he misled us about it is "nobody's business but" his family's and
that "even presidents have private lives," as he said Whether he or we
as a people think it fair or not, the reality in 1998 is that a
president's private life is public. Contemporary news media standards
will have it no other way. Surely this President was given fair warning
of that by the amount of time the news media has dedicated to
investigating his personal life during the 1992 campaign and in the
years since.
But there is more to this than modern media intrusiveness. The President
is not just the elected leader of our country, he is, as presidential
scholar Clinton Rossiter observed, "the one-man distillation of the
American people," and "the personal embodiment and representative of
their dignity and majesty," as President Taft once said. So when his
personal conduct is embarrassing, it is so not just for him and his
family. It is embarrassing for us all as Americans.
The President is also a role model, who, because of his prominence and
the moral authority that emanates from his office, sets standards of
behavior for the people he serves.
His duty, as the Rev. Nathan Baxter of the National Cathedral here in
Washington said in a recent sermon, is nothing less than the stewardship
of our values. So no matter how much the President or others may wish to
"compartmentalize" the different spheres of his life, the inescapable
truth is that the President's private conduct can and often does have
profound public consequences.
In this case, the President apparently had extramarital relations with
an employee half his age, and did so in the workplace, in vicinity of
the Oval Office. Such behavior is not just inappropriate. It is immoral.
And it is harmful, for it sends a message of what is acceptable behavior
to the larger American family, particularly to our children, which is as
influential as the negative messages communicated by the entertainment
culture. If
you doubt that, just ask America's parents about the intimate and often
unseemly sexual questions their young children have been asking and
discussing since the President's relationship with Ms. Lewinsky became
public seven months ago.
I have had many of those conversations in recent days, and from that I
can conclude that many parents feel much as I do, that something very
sad and sordid has happened in American life when I cannot watch the
news on television with my ten-year-old daughter any more.
This is unfortunately familiar territory for Americas families in
today's anything-goes culture, where sexual promiscuity is too often
treated as just another lifestyle choice with little risk of adverse
consequences. It is this mindset that has helped to threaten the
stability and integrity of the family, which continues to be the most
important unit of civilized society, the place where we raise our
children and teach them to be responsible citizens, to develop and
nurture their personal and moral faculties.
President Clinton is well aware of this threat and the broad public
concern about it. He has used the bully pulpit over the course of his
presidency to eloquently and effectively call for the renewal of our
common values, particularly the principle of personal responsibility,
and our common commitment to family. And he has spoken out admirably
against sexual promiscuity among teenagers in clear terms of right and
wrong, emphasizing the consequences involved.
All of which makes the President's misconduct so confusing and so
damaging. The President's relationship with Miss Lewinsky not only
contradicted the values he has publicly embraced over the past six
years. It has compromised his moral authority at a time when Americans
of every political persuasion agree that the decline of the family is
one of the most pressing problems we as a nation are facing.
Nevertheless, I believe the President could have lessened the harm his
relationship with
Ms. Lewinsky has caused if he had acknowledged his mistake and spoken
with candor about it to the American people shortly after it became
public in January. But as we now know, he chose not to do this. His
deception is particularly troubling because it was not just a reflexive
and understandably human act of concealment to protect himself and his
family from the "embarrassment of his own conduct," as he put it, when
he was confronted with it in his deposition in the Paula Jones case, but
rather the intentional and
premeditated decision to do so.
In choosing this path, I fear that the President has undercut the
efforts of millions of American parents who are naturally trying to
instill in our children the value of honesty. As most any mother or
father knows, kids have a singular ability to detect double standards.
So we can safely assume that it will be that much more difficult to
convince our sons and daughters of the importance of telling the truth
when the most powerful man in the nation evades it. Many parents I have
spoken with in Connecticut confirm this unfortunate consequence.
The President's intentional and consistent misstatements may also
undercut the trust that the American people have in his word, which
would have substantial ramifications for his presidency.
Under the Constitution, as presidential scholar Richard Neustadt has
noted, the President's ultimate source of authority, particularly his
moral authority, is the power to persuade, to mobilize public opinion
and build consensus behind a common agenda, and at this the President
has been extraordinarily effective. But that power hinges on the
President's support among the American people and their faith and
confidence in his motivations, his agenda, and ultimately his personal
integrity. As Teddy Roosevelt once explained,
"My power vanishes into thin air the instant that my
fellow citizens who are straight and honest cease to believe
that I represent them and fight for what is straight and
honest; that is all the strength I have."
Sadly, with his deception, President Clinton may have weakened the great
power and strength of which President Roosevelt spoke. I know this is a
concern that many of my colleagues share, that the President has hurt
his credibility and therefore, perhaps, his chances of moving his agenda
forward. But I believe that the harm the President's actions have caused
extend beyond the political arena.
I am afraid that the misconduct the President has admitted may be
reinforcing one of the most destructive messages being delivered by our
popular culture --namely that values are essentially fungible. And I am
afraid that his misconduct may help to blur some of the most important
bright lines of right and wrong left in our society.
I do not raise these concerns as self-righteous criticism. I know that
the President is far from alone in the wrongdoing he has admitted. We as
humans are all imperfect. We are all sinners.
Many have betrayed a loved one, and most of us have told lies. Members
of Congress have certainly been guilty of such behavior, as have some
previous Presidents. We try to understand the profound complexity and
difficulty of personal relationships, which gives us pause before
passing judgement on them.
We all fall short of the standards our best values set for us. Certainly
I do.
But the President, by virtue of the office he sought and was elected to,
has traditionally been held to a higher standard. This is as it should
be, because the American president is not, as I quoted earlier, just the
one-man distillation of the American people but the most powerful person
in the world, and as such the consequences of misbehavior by a
President, even private misbehavior, are much greater than that of a an
average citizen, a CEO, or even a Senator. That is what I believe
presidential scholar James Barber, in his book, The Presidential
Character, was getting at when he wrote that the public demands "a sense
of legitimacy from, and in, the Presidency. . . There is more to this
than dignity, more than propriety. The President is expected to
personify our betterness in an inspiring way, to express in what he does
and is (not just what he says) a moral idealism which, in much of the
public mind, is the very opposite of politics."
Just as the American people are demanding of their leaders, though, they
are also fundamentally fair and forgiving, which is why I was so hopeful
the President could begin to repair the damage done with his address to
the nation on the 17th. But like so many others, I came away feeling
that he for reasons that are thoroughly human had squandered a great
opportunity that night. He failed to clearly articulate to the American
people that he recognized how significant and consequential his
wrongdoing was and how badly he felt about it. He also failed to show
that he understood his behavior has diminished the office he holds and
the country he serves, and that it is inconsistent with the mainstream
American values that he has advanced as President. And he failed to
acknowledge that while Mr. Starr, Ms. Lewinsky, Mrs. Tripp, and the news
media have all contributed to the crisis we now face, his presidency
would not be in peril if it had not been for the behavior he himself
described as "wrong" and "inappropriate."
Because the conduct the President has admitted to was so serious and his
assumption of responsibility on August 17th so inadequate, the last
three weeks have been dominated by a cacophony of media and political
voices calling for impeachment, or resignation, or censure, while a
lesser chorus implores us to "move on" and get this matter behind us.
Appealing as the latter option may be to many people who are
understandably weary of this crisis, the transgressions the President
has admitted to are too consequential for us to walk away and leave the
impression for our children and for our posterity that what President
Clinton acknowledges he did within the White House is acceptable
behavior for our nation's leader. On the contrary, as I have said at
length today, it is wrong and unacceptable and should be followed by
some measure of public rebuke and accountability. We in Congress
--elected representatives of all the American people --are surely
capable institutionally of expressing such disapproval through a
resolution of reprimand or censure of the President for his misconduct,
but it is premature to do so, as my colleagues of both parties seem to
agree, until we have received the report of the Independent Counsel and
the White House's response to it.
In the same way, it seems to me, talk of impeachment and resignation at
this time is unjust and unwise. It is unjust because we do not know
enough in fact and will not until the Independent Counsel reports and
the White House responds to conclude whether we have crossed the high
threshold our Constitution rightly sets for overturning the results of a
popular election in our democracy and bringing on the national trauma of
removing an incumbent President from office.
For now, in fact, all we know for certain is what the President
acknowledged on August 17th. The rest is rumor, speculation, or hearsay
--much less than is required by Members of the House and Senate in the
dispatch of the solemn responsibilities that the Constitution gives us
in such circumstances.
I believe that talk of impeachment and resignation now is unwise because
it ignores the reality that while the Independent Counsel proceeds with
his investigation, the President is still our nation's leader, our
Commander-in-Chief. Economic uncertainty and other problems here at
home, as well as the fiscal and political crises in Russia and Asia and
the growing threats posed by Iraq, North Korea, and worldwide terrorism,
all demand the President's focused leadership. For that reason, while
the legal process moves forward, I believe it is important that we
provide the President with the time and space and support he needs to
carry out his most important duties and protect
our national interest and security.
That time and space may also give the President additional opportunities
to accept personal responsibility for his behavior, to rebuild public
trust in his leadership, to recommit himself to the values of
opportunity, responsibility and community that brought him to office,
and to act to heal the wounds to our
national character.
In the meantime, as the debate on this matter proceeds, and as the
investigation continues, we would all be advised to heed the wisdom of
Abraham Lincoln's second annual address to Congress in 1862. With the
nation at war with itself, Lincoln warned, "If there ever could be a
proper time for mere catch arguments, that time is surely not now. In
times like the present, men should utter nothing for which they would
not willingly be responsible through time and eternity."
I believe we are at such a time again today. With so much at stake, we
too must resist the impulse toward "catch arguments" and reflex
reactions. Let us proceed in accordance with our nation's traditional
moral compass, yes, but in a manner that is fair and at a pace that is
deliberate and responsible. Let us as a nation honestly confront the
damage that the President's actions over the last seven months have
caused, but not to the exclusion of the good that his leadership has
done over the past six years nor at the expense of our common interests
as Americans.
And let us be guided by the conscience of the Constitution, which calls
on us to place the common good above any partisan or personal interest,
as we now work together to resolve this serious challenge to our
democracy. Thank you.
- 30 -
A. Saba
Dare To Call It Conspiracy
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions 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, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
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
