Dem revisionist history, episode 84
Dictators and thugs often try to re-write history to make themselves look better. They count on people not having a sharp memory of events that happened more than a couple of years ago. And it usually works.
In a story pushing the expected call for "bipartisanship" after the overwhelming GOP sweep, The Hill reported a leftist Dem congressman calling for Republicans to "disavow" the impeachment of Bill Clinton, as follows:
Did you catch the revision of history? First the writer implies that Clinton's proven perjury didn't actually occur but was merely "alleged." Second, he (she?) states that Clinton was "acquitted" by the Senate trial. Any normal meaning of the word would suggest that the senate "jury" found that Clinton didn't commit perjury. In fact the senators made no such finding.
It should be an eternal shame to the Dems that they voted to let Clinton remain in office despite finding that he had in fact lied in sworn testimony in a legal case--which is perjury, and a felony.
That piece of political whoredom--Senate Democrats voting to put their party's power above the law--hugely damaged the idea that all are equal under our laws, as it proved what most people suspected: that powerful people are effectively above the law--that laws that apply to "ordinary" Americans don't apply to them.
I have no problem with sexual fun between consenting parties. But I hate it when partisan journo-whores try to rewrite history to whitewash the errors their party made in the past--not the dalliance but the totally partisan vote to retain a perjuring president in office.
Oh, and for the record, I find the sudden post-election interest in bipartisanship...predictable and amusing.
In a story pushing the expected call for "bipartisanship" after the overwhelming GOP sweep, The Hill reported a leftist Dem congressman calling for Republicans to "disavow" the impeachment of Bill Clinton, as follows:
On the day after Republicans reclaimed control of Congress, a Democratic lawmaker said he will introduce a measure that would "disavow" the impeachment of former President Clinton.Rep. Chaka Fattah (Pa.) said that the resolution is necessary so that Democrats and Republicans can work together in a bipartisan fashion.
The last time they were in power House Republicans impeached Clinton for allegedly perjuring himself over his supposed affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Clinton, only the second president in history to be impeached, was eventually acquitted at trial in the Senate.
Did you catch the revision of history? First the writer implies that Clinton's proven perjury didn't actually occur but was merely "alleged." Second, he (she?) states that Clinton was "acquitted" by the Senate trial. Any normal meaning of the word would suggest that the senate "jury" found that Clinton didn't commit perjury. In fact the senators made no such finding.
It should be an eternal shame to the Dems that they voted to let Clinton remain in office despite finding that he had in fact lied in sworn testimony in a legal case--which is perjury, and a felony.
That piece of political whoredom--Senate Democrats voting to put their party's power above the law--hugely damaged the idea that all are equal under our laws, as it proved what most people suspected: that powerful people are effectively above the law--that laws that apply to "ordinary" Americans don't apply to them.
I have no problem with sexual fun between consenting parties. But I hate it when partisan journo-whores try to rewrite history to whitewash the errors their party made in the past--not the dalliance but the totally partisan vote to retain a perjuring president in office.
Oh, and for the record, I find the sudden post-election interest in bipartisanship...predictable and amusing.
posted by SF at
8:36 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home