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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Les H who wrote (28401)	1/18/1999 10:40:00 AM
From: DMaA	Respond to of 67261

Athletes Foot now a STD?

To: Les H who wrote (28401)	1/18/1999 1:44:00 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

MONDAY JANUARY 18 1999 David Limbaugh Superior cynics and others who know Following Henry Hyde's eloquent summation to the Senate, many skeptical pundits were beside themselves with disbelief that Henry would "go over the top" by invoking patriotic images such as Normandy Beach in challenging senators to keep their faith with our war dead. Mr. Hyde anticipated this kind of response when he said, "Senators: This trial is being watched around the world. Some of those watching, thinking themselves superior in their cynicism, wonder what it is all about. But others know." Others know what? Others -- lovers of the unique American experiment in constitutional government -- know how sacred are the rule of law, equal justice under the law and the sanctity of the oath. The superior cynics, those enlightened souls steeped in their own self-imposed mire of moral relativism, cannot grasp what it means to aspire to lofty ideals. To them there are no grand moral distinctions, no compelling reasons to strive for greatness and excellence in our institutions. Was Chairman Hyde exaggerating in daring to declare that there are still principles worth fighting for, even dying for in this country? Was he correct in warning that dire and permanent consequences will follow from the abject trivialization of Mr. Clinton's infractions? The answer, of course, depends on your perspective. Let me suggest that as a citizen of this nation, you are either a lover of the rule of law or you are its enemy. There is no middle ground. It's not surprising that those contemptuous of the rule of law are so comfortable with distorting the truth. Both attitudes spring from a rejection of moral absolutes. Those of us who revere the rule of law and believe that the whole truth matters, must continue to occupy ourselves correcting the disinformation being constantly disseminated by Mr. Clinton and his defenders. Our efforts are not merely academic; we hope that there will be 12 honorable Democratic senators who will objectively incline their ears. We appeal to their willingness to place patriotism above party. There are many falsehoods being perpetuated today and their purveyors are fully aware of what they are doing. To them, the truth and the rule of law are expendable for the "higher" cause of retaining Mr. Clinton in office. That is precisely why Mr. Clinton and his allies pose a far greater threat to this nation's institutions than did Mr. Nixon. In describing Nixon's conduct they facilely throw out the phrase "assault on our institutions of government," obviously never pausing to consider what it really means. Our side is just as guilty of blindly accepting this assertion. Think about it: No matter how bad Nixon's conduct, even using the CIA and FBI to wiretap illegally, it did not "threaten constitutional government" as Democrats claim, any more than murder does. When Nixon resigned and his misconduct ceased, though people may have been injured in the process, the system itself remained unscathed. Clinton's wrongs, by contrast, are continuing and, as the House managers have noted, strike at the very heart of our judicial system. Clinton's wrongs are not limited to perjury and obstruction of justice, but the virtual decriminalization of those crimes by so trivializing them that they are forever diminished in importance. Since they are two of the most important crimes aimed at deterring the disfunctioning of our judicial system, their diminution necessarily promotes the destruction of our system. Remember that the proper functioning of our judicial system is essential in safeguarding our civil rights and our personal liberties. This is why this battle is far more serious than it may first appear. That is why it is a hill to die on. So when you hear senators, whose duty is to preserve our system of government, making such preposterous and destructive statements as: witnesses don't resolve conflicts, they create them; perjury and obstruction of justice are not impeachable offenses when about sex; it is not necessary that witnesses be called (in the most important trial of the century); everyone lies about sex -- even under oath; Bill Clinton may have been misleading but did not commit perjury or obstruction of justice; perjury and obstruction of justice are not impeachable offenses; Presidents are subject to a different impeachment standard than are judges; the House managers presented nothing new, but a weak case built on circumstantial evidence; and, President Clinton's conduct was reprehensible and indefensible but doesn't rise to the level of impeachable offenses; ... please remember Mr. Hyde's admonitions: there are those who love the rule of law, and there are superior cynics; there are those still willing "to keep the faith" with our honored dead, and others who no longer "believe in an America where the idea of sacred honor still has the power to stir men's souls