NDavis --
I'll respond as well as I am able.
First understand that I am not defending Clinton. The moment someone speaks out against impeachment, said person is immediately labeled a 'Clinton-lover' and every comment thereafter falls on deaf ears.
I am not a Clinton-lover, though I do admire what the man has done for this country (as opposed to, say, Bush -- and no, I'm not going to get into a debate about Bush's presidency vs. Clinton's presidency, so save your breath).
My belief is that the impeachment hearings are a direct result of a partisan vendetta against Clinton which started the moment he was elected into office. It sickens, embarrasses and disgusts me that the Republicans spent 40 million dollars investigating Clinton. It further sickens me that after spending this insane amount of money (and coming up with nothing worse than one or two sexual indiscretions), the Republicans now want to dismantle the office of the special prosecutor so that in the event there is ever another Republican president (an eventuality which becomes less and less likely with each passing day), he or she will not be subjected to the same amount of scrutiny.
My personal belief is that Clinton should have refused to answer the accusations leveled at him regarding his "sexual indiscretions". I find it embarrassing and humiliating that the leader of our nation was forced to discuss his private sexual life in public.
But it happened, and now people say that Clinton perjured himself. I don't personally believe that he did, but that seems to be the opinion of people better informed and more knowledgeable than I, so I'll even go with that in the spirit of majority rule.
So the issue has come down to whether or not Clinton should be impeached for perjuring himself. And my opinion is that no, he should not. Because it has not been proven to MY satisfaction that he did in fact perjure himself, and it will never be proven, because matters of semantics can be argued endlessly without ever reaching a satisfactory conclusion. And if it cannot be proven, then how can he be judged guilty? Hence my earlier question regarding "innocent until proven guilty".
And, furthermore, if it COULD be proven, I would STILL not consider it an impeachable offense. The impeachment hearings are dividing our country and causing hatred and unrest, and this would not be considered a good thing by anyone but a madman. Clinton did nothing to harm our country. Let him be tried in court when he has left office. Let's get back to the matters at hand; let's get on with the work that needs to be done.
I have heard people say that they are embarrassed by Clinton, and that they fear other countries are laughing at us. You bet they're laughing. But ask around and try to determine the reason for their laughter...and my guess is you'll have a rude awakening.
Rose |
