The Neal Boortz Show -- News Talk 750 WSB -- Atlanta
Friday, December 18, 1998
The protests of the Democrats are so completely transparent. They are grasping at every straw … every possible angle … to try to delay or derail the impeachment process. The goal? Delay the impeachment vote until the present congress is over .. shove it into the next congress where there will be fewer Republicans.
Some of the arguments proffered by the Democrats border on the absurd.
Border, hell. They ARE absurd.
First, we have this argument from the Democrats that there should be no attempt to impeach the president while American troops are in harms way. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. The same Democrats gleefully went forward with their investigation AND an impeachment vote while thousands of American troops were still in Viet Nam. The Viet Nam war ended in 1975. The debates and votes on the impeachment of Richard Nixon ended in 1974. During those debates not one Democrat said that the matter should be deferred so long as American men and women in uniform were in harm's way. If it was OK to go forward with the impeachment of a president while we were engaged our longest war, then just why isn't it OK to go forward with the impeachment of a president while American ships and airplanes are firing cruise missiles at targets hundreds of miles away.
Another argument …. The men and women in uniform will be so dispirited if the evil, wicked, mean and nasty Republicans vote to impeach their Commander in Chief. Who are these Democrats kidding! It would be cause for an almost certain boost in morale if the man who once boasted of his loathing of the military, and who is now it's Commander in Chief, were to be impeached. It could easily be argued that a vote for impeachment is a vote in support of our men and women serving in the military.
Fact is .. the Democrats are grabbing at anything they can --- anything – to save their president.
So, why are the Democrats being so partisan? Do they approve of perjury? Do they approve of abuse of power? Do they approve of obstruction of justice?
The answer to all of those, of course, is, for the most part, no. But there is one thing driving the Democrats that is much stronger than any appreciation they may have for our revered rule of law. The desire for revenge, and the hunger for power.
In 1974, when the majority party, the Democrats, were leading the impeachment efforts against a Republican president, Richard Nixon, the Republican minority in congress was not nearly so "partisan," as they say. And why not? Because the minority Republicans had been in their minority position for at least twenty years. It was a position they were accustomed to. They knew their role, and they played it with honor.
Not so for the present-day Democrats. They are still reeling from their loss of majority status after over forty years of rule. They are stunned, angry, and terrified. They feel that one more slip and they'll never pull themselves up again. They just can't give up one single inch .. not one. Add that to their obsessive desire for revenge on the Republicans who knocked them out of power and you have the irrational partisanship they are displaying today.
The Democrats do not see this as a fight to save a Democratic president. This is a fight to save their party … and to put their party in the position to once again take control of the House, and then the Senate. The Republicans in 1974 had no such agenda.
HARSH RHETORIC OVER THE SOCIOPATH-IN-CHIEF
The Democrats may be right when they complain about the harsh rhetoric about Bill Clinton. Here are just some of the things that are being said:
Clinton's actions are "foolish," "reprehensible," and "maddeningly reckless." He has been "lying" and he is a "bum."
Clinton "violated the trust of the American people, lessened their esteem for the office of President, and dishonored the office which they have entrusted to him."
Clinton "made false statements concerning his reprehensible conduct with a subordinate" and "wrongly took steps to delay discovery of the truth."
Clinton's testimony under oath was "evasive, incomplete, misleading [and] maddening."
Clinton "violated his sacred obligations to his wife and daughter … misled his family, his friends, his colleagues and the public, and in doing so, he betrayed the trust place in him not only by his loved ones but by the American people."
So, there you go! Some pretty harsh words. Damn those nasty Republicans.
But wait! Those words didn't come from Republicans. They are from the people who are DEFENDING Clinton!
The words in item No. 1 came from Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee. Numbers 2 and 3 are lifted from the Democratic sponsored censure resolution. Number 4 is from Greg Craig, the president's special counsel for impeachment matters, and No. 5 is from Charles Ruff, the president's lead attorney.
IT'S TIME FOR YOUR APPOINTMENT, MR. PRESIDENT
Now I got all of this from one of the best essays on the impeachment question I have read to date. You MUST go out and find today's Wall Street Journal. Hell, take your boss's copy. Leave him the financial section, he probably doesn't read the opinion page anyway. There you will find an essay entitled "A Day of Justice" by William J. Bennet, author of "The Death of Outrage."
William Bennett calls this impeachment process Bill Clinton's "appointment with justice." It's an appointment Clinton has been putttin off for years. It's time to keep it.
I'll cover some of Bennett's essay on the air --- but this one is a definite "clip and save."
LIVINGSTON'S MESSIN' ROUND
So, we find out now that the next Speaker of the House has indulged in a few affairs over the 33 years of his marriage.
This has NOTHING to do with the impeachment action against Clinton. Clinton is not being impeached for affairs -- not even that tawdry little "look, Ma! No Hands!" bit with his intern. It's about perjury.
Bob Livingston did not commit perjury.
By the way, according to The Drudge Report, it seems that Livingstone became aware that information as to his affairs was in the hands of the president's people.
The scorched earth tactics continue.
WILL THE DEMOCRATS WALK OUT?
Some of the news ferrets around WSB are wondering what happens tomorrow if the Democrats just walk out of the House and refuse to participate in the debate? What constitutes a quorum?
WHERE ARE THEY NOW?
Do you remember Clinton's "circle of spiritual advisors?" Yup! He was going to surround himself with a circle of religious men to help him through this crisis.
So far as I can tell, there hasn't been one meeting of the circle. Not one.
Just another public relations ploy.
THE MIND OF JOE LOCKHART
I wanted to repeat this item today because it's still getting media coverage. I saw the video again this morning on CNN. The president's new press secretary says that the Republicans want to impeach Clinton "because they don't like him" and because they are "mad" and him and they "don't like the way he talks."
Problem is ---- there are far too many Americans around who are dumb enough to nod their heads and say "Yeah, Joe! You tell 'em! They just don't like him, that's why they're impeaching him!"
NIFTY NAME
William Safire points out that the attacks against Iraq are the first US military action named after a Nazi general.
OLD WAG THE DOG
This is a list of previous times that Clinton has used military force against Iraw. It was compiled by Washington Times.
Election eve 1996: US jets fire on Iraqi radar sites
January 26, 1998: President goes on TV to deny Lewinsky affair; sends top officials on tour to build support for attack on Iraq. Warns Hussein not to "defy the will of the world."
June 30, 1998: Judge Suzan Webber Wright orders unsealing of Clinton's Jones case deposition; US jets fire on Iraqi radar sites.
August 20, 1998: Monica Lewinsky appears before grand jury; Clinton attacks alleged terrorist centers in Sudan and Afghanistan.
November 13, 1998: Clinton settles Paula Jones suit for $850,000; Clinton orders, then aborts, massive missile attack on Iraq.
Impeachment eve 1998: Clinton launches massive missile attack on Iraq.
FILE GATE IS NOT DEAD.
Linda Tripp has testified in a Judicial Watch deposition that she saw confidential FBI files piled on tables and floors around the White House. The Clintonistas, of course, say that these files were never used. Hopefully this issue is not dead.
AND NOW A WORD FROM THE RELIGIOUS LEFT
This from The Progressive Review. "The World Council has called for canceling the foreign debts of impoverished nations. The statement on debts was adopted on the final day of a gathering at the University of Zimbabwe that drew nearly 1,000 delegates from Protestant and Orthodox churches around the world. The meeting declared, 'The basic human needs and rights of individuals and communities and the protection of the environment should take precedence over debt repayment.'"
Right ... and while we're at it, let's remove the tax exemption from member churches of the World Council of Churches."
THIS IS WHERE RADICALS ARE GOING WITH THEIR "HATE" CAMPAIGN
Also from The Progressive Review ----
"There's a move afoot in Canada to amend the criminal code to make it illegal to possess material "for the purpose of distribution to promote hate." It would also broaden existing "hate crimes" law so that it would be unlawful to say mean things about people based on age, gender, or mental disability, in addition to the traditional categories of race, religion, and the like. Defendants under the charges couldn't even plead that they believed the material to be true. The suggested law comes from something called the Federal, Provincial, and Territorial Working Group on Diversity, Equality, and Justice.
"A similar form of censorship already exists in British Columbia where the law declares that:
"No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be published, issued or displayed any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that
"(a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a group or class of persons, or
"(b) is likely to expose a person or a group or class of persons to hatred or contempt because of race, color, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age of that person or that group or class of persons."
Now you get some idea where the left is going with all of their "hate speech" nonsense. Once they get this concept firmly ingrained in the American consciousness ... the next move is to follow the Canadian example.
boortz.com
|
