Political Agendas vs. Broken Oaths
by ZACK NGUYEN
Coffee Shop Times
coffeeshoptimes.com
Wednesday September 23, 1998
I had a conversation with a self-described liberal
recently.
Our conversation wandered, of course, to the
Starr report, and the liberal lamented Clinton's
total "lack of judgment" in his dealings with
Monica Lewinsky. He stated that he had voted
for Clinton twice, though, to his credit, said that
he would not again (which I suppose is an easy
position to take since, God willing, he will not
have the opportunity.)
However, like Clinton, my liberal friend wanted
to have things both ways.
Jump to the
FRONT PAGE of...
Also, don't miss our "Guide to
the Monica Lewinsky Story"
for complete coverage of
Kenneth's Starr's investigation
of President Clinton.
.
He contended that Clinton has displayed an appalling "lack of judgment," but he felt
strongly that Starr's report should never have gone where it did. The report was "just
about sex" anyway, and Starr should have left all that alone. As a liberal, he liked Clinton
because he "honestly cares about children and minorities."
This man had trouble understanding why I would call Clinton "arrogant," and flatly did not
believe me when I stated that Starr has so far left covered more than he has revealed.
There are no two ways about it. Either you believe the president should be held
accountable for illegalities or you do not. If you agree that illegal behavior by the
President is important, then the report is not "just about sex," but is about the rule of law
and whether our President should be held to it. However, many liberals that were ready
to throw Ronald Reagan in chains are curiously tolerant when it comes to Clinton and
obstruction of justice.
But then the triumph of the agenda over right and wrong is one of the chief characteristics
of modern liberalism. So Clinton's political viewpoint is paramount, regardless of how
revolting or criminal his behavior is.
This sets an alarming precedent. Beginning with Soviet Russia and the consignment of
millions to death and torture in the name of "world socialism," a political agenda has been
more important to tyrants of all political stripes than the morality and law of a particular
society. And if an agenda is more important than the laws that govern that society, then
almost any behavior, no matter how cruel or criminal, is justified. As far as liberals are
concerned, concepts like morality and the rule of law are malleable anyway.
Consider the recent exchange that reportedly occurred between Senator Bob Kerry and
Bill Clinton. Clinton asked plaintively, "Do you trust me?" Kerry replied that he did not,
and that impeachment was a real possibility. In fact, he added that if at least 70% of the
American people felt he should be impeached, then that would be the route pursued.
Think about that for a moment. It takes 70% of the American people feeling one way for
Senator Kerry to do his constitutional duty? What does it matter what the polls think?
Does that mean if 50% of the people felt Clinton should be impeached, well then, forget
it, we'll just let obstruction of justice go? Why do poll numbers matter in this case at all?
Starr's report, while dictating many clearly impeachable offenses, was a disappointment
to many freedom-loving Americans who hoped it would reveal serious offenses dating
back to Clinton's days as governor of Arkansas. Though Starr has indeed left covered
far more than he has revealed thus far, there may be reason to hope that he has a few
more aces up his sleeve. Consider this portion of the recently released Starr report:
"From the outset, it was our strong desire to complete all phases of the investigation
before deciding whether to submit to Congress information -- if any -- that may
constitute grounds for an impeachment. But events and the statutory command of Section
595(c) have dictated otherwise. As the investigation into the President's actions with
respect to Ms. Lewinsky and the Jones litigation progressed, it became apparent that
there was a significant body of substantial and credible information that met the Section
595(c) threshold. As that phase of the investigation neared completion, it also became
apparent that a delay of this Referral until the evidence from all phases of the investigation
had been evaluated would be unwise."
In other words, this is not Starr's entire report, but rather the Lewinsky report, and the
rest of Starr's investigation is not yet complete. Filegate, Travelgate, Whitewater for
Clinton and Mrs. Clinton, Kathleen Willey, and so on are still lurking at the Office of
Independent Council. Starr has impanelled three separate Grand Juries in the Washington
area. Where these investigations are headed is anyone's guess. Whether Starr will expose
illegal acts, or will instead cover up blatant crimes, as he did in the death of Vincent
Foster, is also anyone's guess.
The Lewinsky report is an interesting insight into the character of Bill Clinton. Clinton and
Lewinsky reminisce about their childhoods, about whether they will be together after
Clinton leaves office. And Clinton confides in her that he "treasures" his time with her.
But why would a grown, allegedly mature man say these things to a woman less than half
his age? With whom he has absolutely nothing in common? A woman with whom he can't
share his life?
Sadly, it seems he kept her around strictly for sexual gratification.
Clinton has an enormous, insatiable need for ego-fulfillment and the immature twenty-one
year old intern was obviously enthralled by his mere presence. Aside from sexual
fulfillment, this is all Clinton wanted from the relationship, and that is exactly what he got.
Monica Lewinsky is just one more in a long line of people who have had their lives ruined
through their connection with Bill Clinton.
Another puzzling aspect is Clinton's use of extravagant and largely pointless lies.
He lied about having a sexual relationship with Lewinsky, this much was expected. But
why lie about ever having been alone with her? Why lie about the gifts he received? Why
did he claim that he was not sure if he was alone with her when he clearly was? Why spin
such a huge trail of lies when he might have gotten away with a small one?
Emmett Tyrell of the American spectator was one of the first to label Clinton a sociopath,
and the label fits. Clinton's brain does not seem to work properly. Does he lie simply for
the enjoyment of it?
Still, Clinton is far from politically dead. Congressman Dan Burton, and Congresswoman
Helen Chenoweth, both implacable enemies of the President, were both revealed to have
had adulterous affairs. In Ms. Chenoweth's case, it was with a married man not long after
her divorce. In Mr. Burton's case, his adulterous affair resulted in a child.
I would point out that it hasn't been alleged that either Dan Burton or Helen Chenoweth
broke any laws while conducting their affairs. Nor is it alleged that they've broken federal
law as Clinton has. The immorality of this behavior cannot be denied, however, and the
citizens in these lawmakers' respective districts would do well to withdraw their votes as
a matter of principle.
But perhaps just as important is how these stories came to be public knowledge in the
first place. It is well known that Vanity Fair magazine colluded with the White House to
publish the details of Dan Burton's affair, but how Chenoweth's affair came to be public
knowledge is murkier. In any case, the fact that both of these stories came up in the same
week is proof positive that the White House is fulfilling its promise to begin its "Ellen
Rometsch" strategy and take everyone down with the president.
The consequences for our free society are severe. Government policy by blackmail is
incompatible with a government run by the rule of law and the will of the people.
It seems our allegedly free and impartial press has joined the establishment government in
destroying an enemy of the establishment. So much for the watchdogs of government.
Any media outlet that joins with its ideological soul mates in the White House to destroy
a mutually despised member of the "opposition" can no longer call itself editorially free. It
would even move beyond the usual bounds of advocacy journalism and become a mere
extension of the White House communications office (which in many ways is exactly what
the elite media has been for years.)
A conversation between Clinton and his Cabinet has leaked which proves this point
about liberal ideology being placed in front of right and wrong.
Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala asked Clinton if he considered his
policies and programs more important than whether he provided moral leadership.
"I can't believe that is what you're telling us, that is what you believe, that you don't have
an obligation to provide moral leadership," she said, according to the leaked account.
Clinton apparently lost that famous temper of his and shouted that if her thinking was
correct in 1960, Richard M. Nixon would have been elected instead of John F.
Kennedy. Well, yes, he probably would have. And Kennedy would have been instantly
impeached at any point in his abbreviated presidency had people known anything at all
about his "covert activities" in the White House.
If this exchange is authentic, then it definitely proves the point that Clinton feels an agenda
(which, in his particular case, usually serves to protect his hide) is the single most
important thing in the world, and determines whether (in his mind) he should be held
accountable for any criminal behavior.
This is frightening. The President has stated that Kennedy should have been elected over
Nixon because of his agenda. He more or less admits that Kennedy had less moral
authority than Nixon. And Kennedy, considering his dealings with the mob, IRS audits of
enemies, wiretaps, and his stable full of women, was at least as corrupt as Nixon, if not
more so.
But none of that matters, according to President Clinton. After all, Nixon was a
Republican -- so that means that any illegal behavior, any sort of disgusting sexual act, is
just fine and dandy if that politician has the right agenda.
Or rather a left one. After all, the alternative would have been a Republican, and we can't
have that, can we? |
