After all, you fought hard for honor and integrity. You are not a hypocrite. You said so yourself. : LUSENET : Unk's Troll-free Private Saloon : One Thread

If You Wanted Clinton Impeached, Take a Look at Bush

Sunday, May 26, 2002 BY LORIN NELSON I have to wonder at the astounding silence from those who frothed and rattled ceaselessly for the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Isn't it inconsistent and blatantly dishonest not to be calling for an investigation of the sitting administration?
Let's see, the charges against William Jefferson Clinton were perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power. As far as I know, President Bush hasn't yet had the opportunity to lie under court oath but he surely has lied about his relationship with Kenneth Lay, the staggeringly rich poor boy of Enron infamy. At least three times he publicly denied knowing Ken Lay, the guy who donated the very jet that shuttled Bush around during his campaign. The guy for whom Bush interrupted his campaign so he could watch him toss the first pitch at Enron Field. Ken Lay, the man who ran the single largest corporate contributor to the Republican Party. Bush has acted like he never heard of the guy. Lay has publicly recalled differently. But that was just lying while under the oath of office and only to the press and the American people. Not the court. Besides, Bush is such a friendly guy and has given so many people cute nicknames, maybe he really doesn't remember calling him "Kenny Boy."
Dick Cheney has lied about national security matters when his Haliburton firm did trade with Iraq (now part of the so-called Axis-of-Evil, you might recall) after it was against federal law to do so. Whoops. Cheney's Haliburton paid $2 million for defrauding the government by inflating what the taxpayers had to pay for contract maintenance and repairs at Fort Ord in California. Very likely, that $2 million was less than Haliburton profited from the scheme. We trust him to protect our national interests over his and his friends' financial interests? His history shows that to be extremely foolish. But it is questionable that all of this meets the definition of perjury, so we'll leave perjury out of the immediate considerations and move on to the remaining charges.
Obstruction of justice. That sure sound like a serious charge. I think most Americans really want to believe that justice prevails in their country. While there are some embarrassments, we generally have a proud history in our efforts at being a just society. The obstruction of justice naturally galls us as Americans, as it should.
The written charges against Clinton began with the statement: "The president has misused and abused the office and impaired the administration of justice." In Clinton's case, the charges that he obstructed justice were mostly about his lying, giving misleading statements or encouraging others to do so on his behalf relating to the Paula Jones case.
Basically, denying accurate information in the pursuit of justice. Evil right? Well, certainly not presidential behavior. The movement to impeach Clinton made it clear that was unacceptable. This administration seems to think that refusal to respect requests for public information is OK. Heck, Cheney said it was a matter of principle. He refuses to elaborate on that novel concept while he denies us accurate information in the pursuit of justice. He's not lying because he won't say anything. Still, I think that counts as obstruction.
In this case it is not just the president, but also the vice president and quite possibly several White House officials as well who should be investigated for high crimes and misdemeanors against the American public. With his flat refusal to grant their requests for information regarding the Energy Task Force and Enron's influence over energy policy, Cheney has demonstrated his contempt for the General Accounting Office and the public's right to know what its government is doing.
The White House refused to account for Karl Rove's meetings with the heads of companies in which he held stock. Bush-Cheney have thrown a blanket of secrecy over all sorts of information for no apparent reason other than to establish precedent by which they can withhold anything. I can't see how this serves the public. All of this seems suspiciously evasive and clearly at odds with the ideals of free and open government. There are grounds for suspecting that this administration's top officials are obstructing lawful investigation into possible criminal wrongdoing. So why is it so quiet?
I recall many people clamoring that refusal to release information implied guilt when it was the Clinton administration that was withholding information. In contrast to the Bush-Cheney regime, the Clinton White House was extremely forthcoming in supplying information upon request.
As for abusing the office, Clinton had nothing on these giants of industry and well-greased cogs of their party's political machine. Clinton was accused of selling influence and lying to the American people, impairing the administration of justice.
The whole White House reeks of return-on-investment politics. At least 51 White House officials have direct ties to Enron. Thomas White, secretary of the Army, is a former chair of Enron Energy. Lawrence Lindsey, Bush's chief economic adviser, is a former advisor for Enron. Robert Zoellick, Bush's federal trade representative, is a former adviser to Enron.
Feeling secure about your country's economy under these hands? What do you want to bet that when you are trying to live within the means of your Social Security checks these guys will be golfing the days away in plush retirement? Remember, please, that Enron was at the top of the list of private companies Bush recommended the Social Security program invest in when he was pushing privatization on the campaign trail.
The list of Enron cronies in the Bush-Cheney administration goes on and on. The White House announced its opposition to price caps on electricity during the California power crisis the day after Cheney's meeting, in the White House, with Enron officials. And we have Karl Rove who helped Intel gain government approval of a merger that enriched him personally since Rove failed to reveal and sell his stake in Intel until after the merger had taken place and the stock's value had risen considerably. To me at least, this kind of whoring is far more disturbing than the juvenile antics of Bill and Monica.
Still, it seems quiet. Maybe you are still in shock and temporarily crippled by outrage. Perhaps you want to get the facts straight before you let the rage and indignation at this situation take hold. After all, these are very serious issues we're talking about, directly impacting thousands more people than Paula, Monica or a relatively petty real estate investment scheme ever did.
The offices of the president and vice president of the United States of America are being abused and dishonored by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. It is quite clear there is ample reason to believe that this administration may have committed crimes and misdemeanors great enough to warrant impeachment. I still don't hear the calls for justice from those of you who couldn't say Clinton's name without bringing up impeachment. Maybe you're tired from the long fight. But I know you will raise your voices again in defense of the honor and integrity of the office of the presidency of the United States of America. Soon the silence will stop and the roar of true patriotism will call out in righteousness once again. I know this because you swore that it wasn't just personal, it was the principle. You told everyone that you were fighting to bring honor back, that integrity mattered. Many believed this. Now you have the opportunity and duty to prove it. After all, you fought hard for honor and integrity. You are not a hypocrite. You said so yourself.


Lorin Nelson lives in Salt Lake City.

-- American Freedom Fighter (, May 28, 2002


Right on!! Save our Constitution! Save our Country! Save our People! Impeach the crooked Fascist bastards NOW!!

-- Patriot (I@love.America), May 28, 2002.

Has Cherri found a name or is this a new source of op-ed regurgitation? Personally, I thought if Clinton had a shred of decency, he would have resigned. I would expect the same of any person in a position of responsibility caught dallying with an intern.

I did not think Clinton's behavior, however tawdry, met the impeachment threshold of "high crimes." One concern during the Clinton scandals was that impeachment would become a common form of political vendetta... just as suggested in this hystrionic op-ed piece. What tripe.

-- Ken Decker (, May 28, 2002.

Naw, this isn't Cherri. It's Doc-the-dork, the biggest bore in LV

-- (, May 28, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ