vision2020
RE: impeachment
Scott,
Thank you for the cogent response.
I couldn't agree with you more that President Clinton was made to walk a
minefield. And I also agree that much of that minefield was created by his
own behavior, and choices.
In our consideration, we do not want to be guilty of the fallacy of false
dilemma. There are many more reasons a person may lie, primarily to protect
oneself. I do not want to speculate on his motives or his reasonings
because only he and God know his heart. However, "You know a tree by its
fruit.." and there has been a lot of bad fruit on that tree. I don't
believe that he was protecting his family when he purjered himself. If he
truly cared about his wife, he would not have started down the road that led
the cover up.
For the sake of discussion, I am willing to grant our President the most
favorable motive for this and say that he was protecting his family. Does
that change the issue?
I don't believe so. We, as a culture consider lying another tool in the
toolkit to use when necessary (I am speaking of us as culture, not of you in
particular). If we believe it is wrong, it is a minor offense at best.
That was one thing I heard continually when this issue first broke. "They
have all lied. What's the big deal?"
I don't agree with that. Deception in general is a tool of warfare. It is
tool to be used in the waging of war against an enemy. Are the American
people President Clinton's enemies? Is our justice system his enemy?
I believe you can tell the truth and still protect someone's feelings (e.g.
"Do you like my new hat.") and you can tell a lie and still hurt their
feelings. In the case of the lie to protect someone's feelings, you are in
fact wounding yourself as well as them.
You also asked the question whether justice has been served or not. I agree
that President Clinton, his family, and many other families have been
punished severely already. Perhaps justice has been served. The problem is
that this is has long stopped being a question of justice, and has become a
more fundamental question of fitness to lead. There is no question in my
mind that justice WILL be served, whatever the outcome in the Senate. I am
not advocating that specific punishment must be served for this to end
properly. I do not seek to punish President Clinton. That is not my job,
nor my interest.
My question is a more basic one. How do the impeachment detractors find
President Clinton still fit to lead, when he has used a tool of war against
the people and the system he is sworn to serve?
P.S. If this discussion belongs somewhere else, please don't hesitate to
tell me so.
-JG-
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott_Dredge@BayNetworks.COM [mailto:Scott_Dredge@BayNetworks.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 1998 12:08 PM
To: John Guyer; vision2020@moscow.com
Subject: RE: impeachment
Agreed that the behavior of the Democrats has been every bit as
reprehensible as the Republicans on top of the already incredibly poor
conduct our Commander in Chief, Monica, Linda Tripp, and Ken Starr. I'm
wondering if the Senate can salvage some respectability out of this mess
and come up with some bipartisan solution of conviction, acquittal, or even
some sort of a plea bargain as is commonly used by our system of justice.
It's awfully tough to put politics aside in this matter since the whole
thing has been political from the start. However, I'll take my best shot.
Personally, I have not ever testified under oath in a deposition or in a
court room so looking back at the times that I was less than truthful,
there were essentially two main motivating factors...one was to protect
someone's feelings and the other was to screw over a buddy. In Bill
Clinton's case, my feeling is that he was forced to walk through a
minefield full of political, legal, and moral traps set by his own conduct
and pounced on by Paula Jones' legal team armed with information from Linda
Tripp and a doggedly determined prosecutor also armed with information from
Linda Tripp. It's not all that surprising to me that with him knowing that
his supposedly sealed testimony from the Jones deposition would be aired in
entirety to the general public, that he would answer his questions
carefully and evasively rather than come out and tell all about his sex
life to the detriment of his wife and daughter.
At this point, the argument could be made that justice has already been
carried out. The Jones case has been tossed out of court and now has been
settled to her satisfaction to the tune of $850,000. Thus, she has
received her justice. Monica, who comitted undeniable perjury by filing a
perjurious affidavit has been given the almost unheard of deal of
transactional immunity (where's the justice in this???). Bill Clinton has
received the harshest rebuke that can be meted by the House of
Representatives.
My question for impeachment and removal from office supporters is
this...politics aside, with the Jones case settled and House impeachment,
hasn't justice been carried out far enough on this matter?
-SD
At 09:14 AM 12/29/98 -0800, John Guyer wrote:
>Scott,
>
>You are certainly correct in stating that the Republicans are just as
fallen
>as the Democrats. I believe we can all agree on that point.
>
>My question for President Clinton's supporters (or shall we say impeachment
>detractors) has to do with the role of the President. What does it mean
to,
>"..defend the constitution.." if not to support the very justice system
that
>guarantees our freedoms?
>
>"..tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth," are specific
>words with specific meaning. If these words become meaningless, then so
>does our justice system. That is why it is a felony to take that oath and
>then violate it.
>
>Politics aside, how do the impeachment detractors explain this?
>
>Feeling very out of touch with the 70% that approve,
>
>-JG-
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Scott_Dredge@BayNetworks.COM [mailto:Scott_Dredge@BayNetworks.COM]
>Sent: Monday, December 28, 1998 1:51 PM
>To: vision2020@moscow.com
>Subject: Re: impeachment
>
>
>I couldn't agree more that the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton had
>absolutely nothing to do with sex. The impeachment was firmly based on
>power, politics, and partisanship. The Republicans had a slim majority in
>the House of Representatives and that was all the power they needed to
>trump up charges against a President of an opposing party and hasten a lame
>duck party line impeachment vote before their ranks decreased even further
>in the new Congress. It's no surprise to me that prior to 1994 the
>Republicans had not controlled both houses of Congress as they have quickly
>proven that they are irresponsible and reckless in wielding this power by
>focussing it on a presidential impeachment instead of on a domestic agenda.
> By the way, doesn't every outgoing generation lament that we're all going
>to hell in a handbasket because the incoming generation doesn't know right
>from wrong and you can tell this by their music (if you can call it music)?
>
>-SD
>
>
>At 04:54 PM 12/26/98 -0800, Stewart Schell wrote:
>-- Snip --
>The paper today (liberal, of course) states that both defendants and
>accusers agree to all of the impeachable offenses. This case has really
>affected my life as it appears that our current generation (middle-aged
>hippies?) do not know right from wrong. Unfortunately it has absolutely
>nothing to do with sex. After our country is flushed down the toilet from
>the follies of the Clintons maybe they will understand, but I doubt it.
>
Back to TOC