Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Catfish who wrote (278)	8/3/1998 9:37:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Respond to of 13994

David Broder blames Clinton for everything and predicts Clinton's demise: No One to Blame but Himself By David S. Broder One more reluctant trip into Lewinskyland, where we now find the embattled president just a fortnight away from the moment of truth with independent counsel Kenneth Starr and his Washington grand jury. What a rotten way to spoil an August vacation. Bill Clinton has no one to blame but himself. Had he dealt with the situation forthrightly back in January, when it surfaced, it would be long gone. And the country would have been spared seven months of tawdriness. He first denied a sexual relationship with Lewinsky when giving a deposition to the lawyers for Paula Corbin Jones in the wretched (and now dismissed) civil suit the Supreme Court foolishly allowed to proceed while he was still in office. But suppose instead the president had said publicly: "I foolishly let myself become involved with this young woman in a way that is deeply painful to my family and embarrassing to all of you who have placed your confidence in me. I regret my actions and ask your forgiveness. I take full responsibility for what happened and I hope you will not cast stones at Monica Lewinsky, who is not the one at fault. I also ask out of consideration for the feelings of all the others involved that you accept that these will be my final words on the subject." I would bet anything that most of the public would have said, "Make it up to Hillary and Chelsea and get back to work at your job." And even Kenneth Starr, I think, might have had the good sense to leave the mess alone. Had Clinton done so, odds are this second year of his second term would have been far more productive for the country. Recall that it was at exactly the same juncture that Ronald Reagan was able to sign the most notable piece of legislation he had initiated since his first year in office -- the great tax reform act of 1986. This year has been a cipher for Clinton. Except for the highway and mass transit bill, a certainty no matter who was president, this session of Congress has been almost empty of achievement. None of the important domestic initiatives Clinton outlined just before the Lewinsky explosion has become law. His trip to China looks equally hollow. Just last week, Secretary of State Albright complained that the Chinese "have moved backward" on human rights since the Clinton visit. The rear-guard actions Clinton ordered in an attempt to thwart Starr have occasioned a series of court decisions that will weaken the presidency and plague his successors. For the first time, there is a judicial ruling that the Secret Service officers who guard the first family must be prepared to give grand jury testimony about the activities they observe. For the first time, the courts have told everyone on the White House staff, including the attorneys, there is no privilege that protects the privacy of their conversations with the president. That can only make it harder for future presidents to get the candid advice they need. And now the country -- and Congress -- face a question about Clinton's conduct that both would prefer to avoid. The most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll measures the ambivalence. It gave Clinton a healthy 63 percent job approval rating. But 61 percent said they believed he and Lewinsky had an affair, and 57 percent said he had lied about it. But then this: "If Starr reports to Congress that he has evidence that Clinton had an affair with Lewinsky and lied about it under oath, do you think Congress should . . . impeach Clinton and remove him from office?" Just 39 percent yes; 55 percent, no. When the Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll asked an almost identical question last week, the figures were 45 percent yes; 51 percent, no. Those figures have not shifted markedly during this long, sorry saga. When I wrote about them back in February, I cautioned, "If proof appears that the president has lied, Clinton may yet face Richard Nixon's fate." I based that on what we saw in Watergate, when a pattern of obstruction and dissembling eventually crumbled Nixon's defenses and eroded what then, too, was a palpable public inclination to preserve the president and the presidency. I wrote Feb. 18: "The rule of law requires any American to give truthful testimony when sworn as a witness in a legal proceeding. If it turns out that President Clinton has not done that, the props of public opinion now supporting him will collapse. I would bet anything that Americans will once again say no one is above the law." That bet stands. It is only monumental folly that has forced the nation to face this test. washingtonpost.com