One day last week, a wire photo found its way into this newsroom as I suspect it did in just about every newsroom in the country. I'm also quite sure it never made it into any newspaper.
The undatelined photo from wherever it was our nominal president happened to be that day, showed a woman holding up a sign bearing the following message: "Will Someone Please Give Bush a B--- J-- So We Can Impeach Him?"
The message was a subtle reminder that it was a sexual act that got Bush's predecessor impeached, and a not-so-subtle reminder that Bush's numerous and far more egregious impeachable acts that have cost America thousands of lost and ruined lives and billions in treasure have so far gone unpunished.
3 comments:
There is a major problem with the jokey assertion made by this article: Clinton wasn't impeached for getting a blow job. He was impeached because he lied under oath in a civil case brought using a civil liberties-violating law that he himself pushed into enaction. This law rendered sexual accuasations special, enabling prosecuters and plantifs attorneys to introduce into legal proceedings "prior conduct" of the accused, and enabled juries to consider this in determining the liklihood that the accused committed the alleged act.
If Paula Jones had sued Clinton for stealing $100 from her, she would not have been able to call witnesses testifying that Clinton had also stolen money from them. But since she was suing him for having improperly propositioned her, she could call witnesses testifying that he had also engaged in similar contact with them. As part of her persuit, she called to testify many women whom she believed had also experianced these advances from him, Monica Lewinski being one of these people.
People who want to protect the rights of the accused -- from such actions as un-monitored wiretapping of calles to or from foriegn addresses linked by federal agents to terrorists -- should oppose this Clinton-promoted law, and savor that he found himself hoisted by his own preverbial petard.
Quibble as you like about the reason for Clinton's impeachment. The point is Bush is guilty of much greater crimes than Clinton, but no charges have been filed as yet.
Nadir: Do you call a "quibble" correcting a false statement? I agree that Bush is getting accused of worse actions than Clinton got accused of. Of those accusations which involve impeachable offenses, I may agree with you that Bush is guilty of at least some of them. I do hope that you accurately describe those charges, as opposed to the writer of this article, who inaccuratley depicted the charge against Clinton, if you want people to take your assertions seriously.
Post a Comment