OIC Has Evidence that Clinton Tried to Hide that He and Lewinsky . . . Dated.
Well, there we have it. After seven years and better than $65 million spent on investigating every aspect of former President Bill Clinton's post-zygote existence, Independent Council and rumored Republican senatorial candidate Robert Ray announced Wednseday that his office had evidence that Clinton lied about sex. That's it? After accusations of involvement with Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, the "murder" of Vince Foster, and literally dozens of other accusations from Republican hacks, all America learns is that Clinton lied about sex?
Let's put that statement in perspective, shall we? In order for Bill Clinton to emerge completely unscathed from the longest and most expensive investigation into someone's background and activities, he would have merely needed to alter his testimony in the Jones trial as follows:
Q: "President Clinton, is it true that Monica Lewinsky has in the past played a chorus or two of "Hail to the Chief" on the presidential skin flute?"
A: "Yup."
That's it, kids. Had that single line of testimony been included, the independent council would have absolutely nothing to show for all of its effort. Nothing. Gosh, the Republicans really got us with that one, didn't they?
Of course, what we also learn by omission is that all of the other stories that Republicans told and repeated ad nauseum were just that - stories. By all accounts the "liars" in this sordid political episode were the Republicans. They made up anything and everything about Clinton, and it all turned out to be unsubstantiated. Every single Republican who whispered an allegation, forwarded a fabricated e-mail, or stood before a microphone coyly stating that they would "wait to pass judgment until all of the facts are known" while fanning the rumors, all of these people are liars. Moreover, their lies were so much worse than Clinton's lie, used to tear down their opponent and destroy a sitting president with whom they could never compete. Bill was just trying to cover up embarrassing personal behavior.
My advice to fellow liberals who are approached by beaming conservatives with the "Clinton lied" story is as follows: Pose this question to the offender:
Suppose we had the opportunity to put George W. Bush on the stand. He would be sworn in and asked the following questions:
1. "Please give a full accounting of your alleged cocaine use during your college and Texas Air National Guard years."
2. "Is it true that you were suspended from flying during your last two years of Texas Air National Guard service for refusing to take a physical examination that might have revealed illegal drug use?"
3. "Is it true that in the winter of 1971, while dating a woman whose initials were R. L., you arranged for her to have an illegal abortion at the Twelve Oaks Hospital in Houston?"
4. "Besides the 1976 DUI arrest that America learned of days before the 2000 election, how many other times have you been arrested for driving while intoxicated?"
How do you suppose Bush would answer under oath? Any of these allegations, if true, represent criminal activity and could require jail time. If your conservative brother-in-law wants to call Clinton a liar, ask him to imagine the answers to these questions. By the time Dubya was done, the Congressional impeachment vote would be 535-0. Bush would be back in Crawford with Uncle Sam's boot permanently imprinted on his ass so fast, it would make your head spin.
Sort of puts a lying about a couple of puffs on the cigar-in-chief in perspective, doesn't it?
3/07/02
