There is such a bizarre disconnect going on. On one hand, Arlen Specter thinks: "This is not just the trial of the century but the most important trial in the history of Anglo Saxon jurisprudence."
Contrast that with Clinton's reaction to all this.
[Page to the end to read an interesting lecture on lying]
CLINTON'S COCKINESS
by Fred Barnes
The Weekly Standard; Pg. 10 January 4, 1999 / January 11, 1999
THE DAY AFTER HE WAS IMPEACHED, President Clinton gathered with several hundred friends at the White House for a Christmas
party. He acted like a man who'd just received an honor, not a rebuke. He joked about Larry Flynt, the porn publisher bent on exposing
Republicans as philanderers. And he noted that attacks on an opponent's personal failings are a common tactic in politics. To punctuate the point, he recounted the famous story of President Lincoln's response to complaints that Gen. Ulysses Grant had a drinking problem. "Whatever he's drinking, make sure the other generals get some, too," Clinton quoted Lincoln as saying.
Think about that anecdote for a moment and you'll understand why the president himself is the biggest impediment to his short-circuiting a trial in the Senate and escaping with censure. What is he suggesting in the Lincoln story? Okay, he's being a bit lighthearted and jocular. Ha, ha, ha. Still, the message is that he's as successful a president as Grant was a Civil War general, so others should do what he's being condemned for -- having sex with a young intern. Does any other interpretation make sense? I think not. By the way, we have Elizabeth Shogren of the Los Angeles Times to thank for reporting on the Clinton party, which she attended as a guest.
So here's the situation: As crisis engulfs his presidency, Clinton thinks he's doing fine. He's only the second president in American history to be impeached by the House, he may be ousted by the Senate, the public seems indifferent to his fate, and he still faces possible criminal prosecution. But Clinton thinks he's on a roll. And he isn't just whistling past the graveyard. Having forgiven his critics, he really believes he's more sinned against than sinning. "I have accepted responsibility for what I did wrong in my personal life," he declared at a White House pep rally on December 19, a few hours after he was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. "And I have invited members of Congress to work with us to find a reasonable, bipartisan, and proportionate response." In other words, mild censure.
Don't get your hopes up, Mr. President. There's a groundswell for censure in the Senate, but not for granting censure to a cocky, unrepentant defendant. Sen. Robert Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, was furious at the president for piously lecturing the Senate. He told the president to butt out. Sen. John Breaux, Democrat of Louisiana, zinged the White House for considering a challenge in federal court to the impeachment counts. Other Democratic senators thought the pep rally on the South Lawn was a serious mistake, putting a defiant Clinton on display. Even some Clinton advisers think he's taken the wrong tack since the impeachment. "The White House should have learned the lesson that when it's up is the time to be the most magnanimous and reach out to your opponents," says Don Baer, the former communications director for Clinton and a current defender.
Notice the word "up." By this, Baer and indeed everyone else in Clinton's orbit means up in public opinion polls. For Clinton, poll numbers are holy and determinative. His presidential approval rating crept above 70 percent in some polls after his impeachment, and that told Clinton all he needed to know. This was also after 70 hours of bombing Saddam Hussein, but never mind. The White House interpreted the numbers as enthusiastic support for Clinton in the impeachment process. Press secretary Joe Lockhart insisted the polls "indicate that the American public has a full understanding of what the House did, that this was a partisan effort which had more to do with politics than it had to do with the Constitution, and that they did do a disservice to the House." Lockhart said the cover of Time with Clinton and Independent Counsel Ken Starr as men of the year was appropriate, "the leader of the Democratic party and the Republican party."
This is not the attitude senators are looking for. A censure that appears to let Clinton off easy won't wash, especially with Republicans and perhaps with as many as two dozen of the 45 Democrats. One conservative Republican senator called Gary Bauer of the Family Research Council to ask for his blessing if the senator opts for censure. Bauer didn't give it. Imagine how hard it will be for the senator to back censure if the president continues to act as if an "up" arrow is firmly attached next to his name. Then censure becomes O.J., Part II.
Even if Clinton cleans up his public act, he'll still be the chief impediment to censure. Every Clinton aide, adviser, and lawyer under the sun says the president won't admit he lied about his relations with Monica Lewinsky. Yet this is required by moderate Republican senators like John Chafee of Rhode Island as part of a censure deal. "He believes he didn't lie," a Clinton adviser told me. The trouble is nobody else believes that, least of all members of the Senate.
This lecture given by one if Clinton's Yale professors explains why the world looks so different from inside the liar head:
Near the end of our stay at Yale, Professor Chirelstein gave us a very pragmatic "sermon" about why it didn't make sense to lie. Here's whathe said:
"Ladies and gentlemen, I want to talk to you today about why you should always tell the truth.
I don't know what your religious or moral convictions are, and quite frankly, I don't care. I would hope that your beliefs are such that you would
never want to lie.
However, I want to talk about why you shouldn't lie even if you believe in nothing.
When you tell the truth to somebody, everyone stays on the same page. When you tell someone a lie, you create three "realities." The first, of
course, is the truth, that which really happened. The second is the lie, third "reality" is a world that only you can see. It is the world where your
lie has modified the truth and how that modification affects the person you lied to.
Think about it. You tell someone a lie Tuesday and by Friday, many events that are out of your control have intersected with you and the
person you lied to.
Each of you interprets these new events through your view of the "truth" or "reality". Each time an event occurs where your lie plays a role in the
other person's view of "reality," that event creates three new lines of reality.
The first is the growing world of your lie, which is their only reality. The second is the growing world of the truth. The third is the growing world
of the marriage of the lie and the truth.
As you can see, very quickly one little "white lie" generates an almost impossible set of combinations and permutations. And that's just one lie!
Ladies and gentlemen, I don't know about you, but I have a hard enough time trying to remember what actually happened without making my
life more difficult by having to remember three realities for every event.
So again, I would hope that you would tell the truth because it's the right and moral thing to do. But, at the minimum, why don't you tell the truth
because it's also the easiest thing to do.
|
