You and I keep having this debate....if we are a nation of laws then they are equal. Under the law. If what you are saying is that they should be treated differently under the law..no. (I don't think you are saying that). If what you are saying is that the impact on the country is different, then it probably will be....but, and this is a big but, when Clinton was indicted for something that was wrong, wrong, wrong, it did not go toward national security. The country seemed to be bubbling along (let's not debate that, as it is old news) but his approval ratings never fell below, what? 55%, 60%? The impeachment process was a heck of a civics lesson, but for most of the Country, honestly, it was not a world shaker...life went on. What we seem to be brewing now seems almost to have more impact than the impeachment of a President. I understand you may disagree, but if what we are talking about is the impact on the country, its policies and outlook....this whole business MIGHT end up being bigger.
What Clinton did was wrong, wrong, wrong. But many people looked at the republican response to it and wondered how much of that was politics and how much was really a commitement to the rule of law.
what comes around, goes around. The republicans are now faced with their old quotes on this very issue. If there are indictments (we'll see), on lying under oath....how can the republicans do anything but insist on a full prosecution, and to the fullest extent of the law (no pardons or deals)?
Maybe the republicans had to be as zealous during Clinton's problems as they were. Maybe they did not. But now they will reap what they sow. And in a country ruled by laws and not men, yes, lying under oath is lying under oath. As for impact on the country and foreign policy and the administration...we just have to wait and see. You or I saying one or the other is less important won't matter. Events will dictate. |
