Topic: White WaterWho needs to watch their butt (my title)
Creators.com You have to give the Democrats credit for chutzpah. Their official position is
that the Republicans are really over a barrel because they have been forced to
deal with a Democratic president who had sex with an intern in the Oval Office,
told finger-wagging lies to the American people, lied under oath in a deposition
in a sexual harassment suit against him, lied under oath before a grand jury in a
criminal investigation, lied to the Congress in response to interrogatories, lied to
his top aides, lied to his own lawyers, lied to the members of his cabinet, used
taxpayer-paid employees and resources to cover up what he was doing,
suborned the perjury of others, tampered with witnesses in a criminal
investigation, participated in the concealment of evidence and orchestrated the
character assassination of private American citizens.
Democrats are trying to make a mole hill out of this mountain of shame. Thus
far, their collective attitude toward blatant and unrepentant presidential
lawlessness is indistinguishable from that of the criminal lawyers who were hired
to use any and every means, including deceit and personal attacks, to protect
Bill Clinton from the truth and from justice.
Rather than chastise Republicans for confronting hard evidence that the
president committed serial felonies for which a lawyer in private practice would
likely be disbarred and jailed, it might be in order for the Democrats to examine
what they are doing to themselves.
The association of the Democratic Party with immoral and illegal behavior
was addressed by an esteemed Democrat, Henry Ruth, who served as
Watergate Special Prosecutor.
In a Wall Street Journal piece entitled "Clinton Has Corrupted His Party's
Soul," Ruth wrote, "Here are the credos for which the party seems to stand
today: (1) Character doesn't count. (2) Lying to a federal judge and a grand jury
is OK, at least in a sexual harassment suit, because everybody does it and it is
a private matter. (3) A CEO may take sexual advantage of a young employee as
long as the employee consents. (4) As with professional basketball players, so
too with presidents: It is unfair to expect them to be role models. (5) All
presidents lie. (6) Presidents may use executive privilege and the secrecy
privilege with government lawyers to defend themselves against personal
wrongdoing."
Perhaps, of all the absurdities and rationalizations used by Democrats to
defend the president, the most insidious is the contention that what he has done
in no way intrudes on his official duties and public stances.
They are effectively trying to obliterate the concept of hypocrisy.
Let's examine how our president's "private" behavior has disabled his ability
to lead the country. We have in place a president who cannot, without evoking
scorn and derision, make a public speech promoting family values. He cannot
appear before a group of children and talk with believability about telling the
truth. He cannot appear before a meeting of legal scholars and credibly
describe the solemn oath as the bedrock of our judicial system. He cannot
appear at West Point and inspire future officers with words about their "code of
honor."
On Dec. 10, 1998, various news services reported that Maj. Gen David Hale
has been officially charged with 17 military offenses based on improper sexual
relationships, lying to investigators and obstructing justice. He faces 56 years in
prison if convicted by a military court.
What could be the mind-set of every man and woman in the military as they
watch Democratic apologists trivialize comparable behavior by their
commander in chief?
An answer was provided by retired Navy Adm. Leon A. Edney, who teaches
ethics at the U.S. Naval Academy. He testified before the House Judiciary
Committee that the military is undermined when the commander in chief makes
a mockery of the rules and flouts them openly.
He said, "The leadership of our armed forces must be based on principle, not
litigious double-talk. Military readiness and mission accomplishments depend
on trust and confidence in the integrity of the leader."
In his book "Human Nature and the Social Order," the late U.S. sociologist
Charles Horton Cooley wrote, "If we divine a discrepancy between a man's
words and his character, the whole impression of him becomes broken and
painful; he revolts the imagination by his lack of unity, and even the good in him
is hardly accepted."
On his recent trip to Israel, Clinton once again said that he had never
considered resigning his office. It is unconscionable that he never once had a
selfless moment during which he considered putting his country's interest above
his own.
His resignation last January would have spared this nation a full year of ugly
strife and divisiveness. His resignation now would lift the burden of humiliation
that is to come.
12/15/98
Linda Bowels
Sorry if this is a repost. It reads well.