I feel as if i am beating a dead horse. But it just irks me beyond endurance that the same wrong words have been bandied about when it concerns clinton and the perjury accusations. Don't ask me why it really irks me, it just does.
Anyway, I found the following.
In April 1999 Judge Susan Webber Wright found Clinton in civil contempt of court for misleading testimony in the Jones case but did not press for any criminal charge. Wright referred her ruling to the Arkansas Supreme Court. Rather than undergo a review by the Arkansas Supreme Court, Clinton voluntarily surrendered his Arkansas law license.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewater_scandal
So, Clinton was never found guilty of perjury. He voluntarily gave up his license since to get it all over with since he don't practice law anyway.
To repeat from another thread. He did not at any time commit perjury under oath. He technically told the truth when he said that he did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinski. Oral sex did not fall under the definitions given at the Paula Jones case so he was not guiltyof perjury. Had he have gone to court, he would have won.
I found another good article by someone who did not like Clinton when he was in office but has since changed his mind. Would that more follow suit.
June 20, 2004
Clinton, the Statesman
Posted by Jon Henke
Now that Clinton is out of office, I find myself re-evaluating him as a figure on the political stage. When he was in office, he had the potential--and sometimes the desire--to take this country in a collectivist direction I found disturbing. Most often, though, he was a good enough politician to recognize the concessions he had to make, and to give that ground in areas that were good for the country - welfare reform, a balanced budget, and free trade spring to mind.
Now that he's out of office--and his critics are never going to cede an inch to the man, so I expect a fuss--I'm finding him much more of a respectable character than I ever found him when he was in office and trying to foist nationalized health care on us. Perhaps it is the distance I've gotten from the 90s, or perhaps it is the distance he's gotten from legislation, but things like this are positively inspirational....
Former President Clinton has revealed that he continues to support President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq but chastised the administration over the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.
"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview...
[...]
Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.
Noting that Bush had to be "reeling" in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, Clinton said Bush's first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining "chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material."
"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for," Clinton said in reference to Iraq and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998.
"So I thought the president had an absolute responsibility to go to the U.N. and say, 'Look, guys, after 9/11, you have got to demand that Saddam Hussein lets us finish the inspection process.' You couldn't responsibly ignore [the possibility that] a tyrant had these stocks," Clinton said.
His criticisms? He thinks Bush should have given the inspections more time, and that the abuses--as at Abu Ghraib--show a breakdown likely coming from "higher echelons".
You know what? Those are pretty damned fair criticisms to make. I'd tend to agree with the latter, and a very strong case can be made for the former, as well. (not that the inspections would have solved the problem from the Iraq end, but that they would have prevented post-war political difficulties)
Most of all, I'm impressed with the intellectual honesty that Clinton exhibits here, respecting the arguments from each side of the Iraq debate. This isn't an arguments of absolutes - there are costs and benefits to each side. The real, intellectually honest, useful debate occurs in the margins.
There are bloggers--and readers--who would do well to recognize this.
UPDATE: Conversely, there are journalists who would do well to get over the blowjob. It's soooo 1998. (no sarcasm intended) Kevin Drum writes...
Matt Yglesias has been watching TV this morning and says the talking heads are practically salivating at the idea of being able to talk about Clinton's blow jobs again. This will undoubtedly be followed up with a special segment on how woefully underinformed the American public is on the important issues of the day.
This issue was settled. He was impeached, lost his license to practice law, and that's the end of the story. Let's drop it. Really. There are important things to discuss, and Bill Clinton is discussing them...that is, in between all the bj questions.
TrackBack
Comments
What else do you expect him to say? After all, you have eight years of statements from Comrade Bill and various members of his administration all claiming that Sodamned Insane was sitting on tons of bio and chem weapons.
Posted by: Paul at June 20, 2004 07:29 PM
You used "Clinton" and "intellectual honesty" in the same sentance.
I'm going to sleep now, I have a splitting headache
http://qando.net/archives/003306.htm
If only Bill Clinton explained the Iraq thing and other people carried out the process that was not in such a all fired hurry before planning; I might of looked at it all differently.
I realize this has nothing to do with Condi Rice but to tell the truth, I am not that much of a anti condi/or pro condi person.
