Clinton's Other Unimpeachable Offenses

[12th Doctor]

This article is old, but good:

GeorgiaPolitics.com

February 15, 1999

(Some of) Bill Clinton’s Other Unimpeachable Offenses

First, the Senate has demonstrated for us that a trial doesn’t necessarily include witnesses. Then they also established the fact that felonious perjury is not an impeachable offense (well, unless you’re federal judge Walter Nixon). Since we now know the new rules, we can note a long list of other unimpeachable offenses committed by Bill Clinton, which will set new standards for future presidents.

During the election of 1992, Bill Clinton morally condemned George Bush for refusing incoming refugees from Haiti. Clinton promised to reverse the policy. Upon hearing this, thousands of Haitians literally tore down their houses to construct boats to sail to the U.S. Once in office, Clinton reversed himself and left those Haitians homeless, but proud new boat owners. However, this didn’t rise to the level of an impeachable offense because Clinton’s victims were poor Black people who couldn’t even vote in the U.S.

Also during the 1992 election Clinton promised voters a middle-class tax cut, which he then repudiated even before taking office. But this didn’t rise to the level of an impeachable offense because politicians aren’t legally bound by their advertising promises the way used car salesman are.

Soon after assuming the presidency, Clinton pushed through the largest tax increase in history. But this was not an impeachable offense because politicians regard all of the money that you earn as theirs; what they allow you to keep, they arrogantly call "tax expenditures."

Also, in 1993 the President created a health-care task force to propose a government takeover of 14% of the U.S. economy. There is no Constitutional authorization for such an action, and Clinton did swear to uphold the Constitution when he was inaugurated.

But this was not deemed to be an impeachable offense because politicians long ago quit letting the Constitution get in the way of their power grabs. (Actually, maybe Clinton didn’t know what exactly was meant by "swear" or "Constitution" or any of the other words in the oath, such has been his method of excuse.)

Additionally, the health-care task force met in secret, illegally, and ultimately paid more than a $250,000 fine for doing so—with your tax dollars! But this was not an impeachable offense because Hillary Clinton headed the task force and it would have been in bad taste and ungentlemanly to impeach Bill (for whom she was working) based on his First Lady’s misdeeds.

In 1995 Bill Clinton was faced with the dire prospect of lawyer Webster Hubbell telling what he knew about the Madison Guaranty debacle from Clinton’s earlier years.  Suddenly, Hubbell—after having been fired from the Justice Department—had several consulting contracts, amounting to more than $600,000, arranged for him by Friends-of-Bill corporations. These were all no-show jobs with no work ever performed. And Hubbell suddenly went mum. But this was not an impeachable offense because it was all just coincidence, wasn’t it?

In 1996 it was discovered that the White House illegally had possession of over 900 Republicans’ FBI files. The offense of having just one file put Charles Colson in jail in the 1970’s. The blame for the White House’s private stash of FBI files was placed on political operative Craig Livingstone. But this wasn’t an impeachable offense because everyone in the White House claimed that they didn’t know who had hired Livingstone.

The worst unimpeachable offense of all, was Clinton’s conveniently timed Monica Missile attack on the pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan. Not only was this done without solid evidence that the plant was a munitions factory—which it wasn’t—but also, Clinton didn’t even consult his Defense Secretary or the Joint Chiefs of Staff before ordering the attack. Besides it is the Constitutional authority of Congress to start a war, not the President’s. But again this was not an impeachable offense, because those innocents who died for Clinton were poor and dark-skinned, with names most Americans couldn’t even pronounce; and it was a nice thing to temporarily divert the attention of the American people away from the tawdry personal details of this man.

Clinton then followed this up with yet another curiously timed, billion dollar plus missile launch against Iraq—scheduled to occur just as the House was set to vote on the articles of impeachment—which delayed the vote several days. Again, a war begun without Congressional authorization, and missing even the approval of the U. N., in contrast to the 1991 Gulf War. Not impeachable, yet again.

Thank you both, Democratic President Clinton and the Republican U. S. Senate, you’ve made quite a bi-partisan contribution to American law.

Jim Cox is an Associate Professor of Economics and Political Science at the Lawrenceville Campus of Georgia Perimeter College and author of The Concise Guide to Economics.

[WalterMitty]

clinton isnt president any more.  move on.

[NHPolitico]

As the 9/11 commission investigates what Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush might have done to prevent the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, one piece of evidence the commission will examine is a videotape secretly recorded by a CIA plane high above Afghanistan. The tape shows a man believed to Osama bin Laden walking at a known al-Qaida camp.

The question for the 9/11 commission: If the CIA was able to get that close to bin Laden before 9/11, why wasn’t he captured or killed? The videotape has remained secret until now.

Over the next three nights, NBC News will present this incredible spy footage and reveal some of the difficult questions it has raised for the 9/11 commission.

In 1993, the first World Trade Center bombing killed six people.

In 1998, the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa killed 224.

Both were the work of al-Qaida and bin Laden, who in 1998 declared holy war on America, making him arguably the most wanted man in the world.

In 1998, President Clinton announced, “We will use all the means at our disposal to bring those responsible to justice, no matter what or how long it takes.”

NBC News has obtained, exclusively, extraordinary secret video, shot by the U.S. government.  It illustrates an enormous opportunity the Clinton administration had to kill or capture bin Laden. Critics call it a missed opportunity.

In the fall of 2000, in Afghanistan, unmanned, unarmed spy planes called Predators flew over known al-Qaida training camps.  The pictures that were transmitted live to CIA headquarters show al-Qaida terrorists firing at targets, conducting military drills and then scattering on cue through the desert.

Also, that fall, the Predator captured even more extraordinary pictures — a tall figure in flowing white robes. Many intelligence analysts believed then and now it is bin Laden.

Why does U.S. intelligence believe it was bin Laden?  NBC showed the video to William Arkin, a former intelligence officer and now military analyst for NBC. “You see a tall man…. You see him surrounded by or at least protected by a group of guards.”

Bin Laden is 6 foot 5.  The man in the video clearly towers over those around him and seems to be treated with great deference.

Another clue: The video was shot at Tarnak Farm, the walled compound where bin Laden is known to live.  The layout of the buildings in the Predator video perfectly matches secret U.S. intelligence photos and diagrams of Tarnak Farm obtained by NBC.

“It’s dynamite.  It’s putting together all of the pieces, and that doesn’t happen every day.… I guess you could say we’ve done it once, and this is it,” Arkin added.

The tape proves the Clinton administration was aggressively tracking al-Qaida a year before 9/11.  But that also raises one enormous question: If the U.S. government had bin Laden and the camps in its sights in real time, why was no action taken against them?

“We were not prepared to take the military action necessary,” said retired Gen. Wayne Downing, who ran counter-terror efforts for the current Bush administration and is now an NBC analyst.

“We should have had strike forces prepared to go in and react to this intelligence, certainly cruise missiles — either air- or sea-launched — very, very accurate, could have gone in and hit those targets,” Downing added.

Gary Schroen, a former CIA station chief in Pakistan, says the White House required the CIA to attempt to capture bin Laden alive, rather than kill him.

What impact did the wording of the orders have on the CIA’s ability to get bin Laden?  “It reduced the odds from, say, a 50 percent chance down to, say, 25 percent chance that we were going to be able to get him,” said Schroen.

A Democratic member of the 9/11 commission says there was a larger issue: The Clinton administration treated bin Laden as a law enforcement problem.

Bob Kerry, a former senator and current 9/11 commission member, said, “The most important thing the Clinton administration could have done would have been for the president, either himself or by going to Congress, asking for a congressional declaration to declare war on al-Qaida, a military-political organization that had declared war on us.”

In reality, getting bin Laden would have been extraordinarily difficult. He was a moving target deep inside Afghanistan. Most military operations would have been high-risk.  What’s more, Clinton was weakened by scandal, and there was no political consensus for bold action, especially with an election weeks away.

NBC News contacted the three top Clinton national security officials. None would do an on-camera interview.  However, they vigorously defend their record and say they disrupted terrorist cells and made al-Qaida a top national security priority.

“We used military force, we used covert operations, we used all of the tools available to us because we realized what a serious threat this was,” said President Clinton’s former national security adviser James Steinberg.

One Clinton Cabinet official said, looking back, the military should have been more involved, “We did a lot, but we did not see the gathering storm that was out there.”

[12th Doctor]

clinton isnt president any more.  move on.

The reason I posted this is becaue there were people on other threads saying that Bush should be impeached and all Clinton ever did was screw around with Monica, Bush is a terrible president and Clinton was great.  I would rather not have to talk about Clinton, but since they keep bringing him up....

[zachman]

Presidents make decisions and sometimes, with history as a judge, they turn out to have made the wrong decision.

[M]

Yes, I agree, most of the things you mention Clinton having done were pretty standard and not awful. One could wish he had handled Haiti, health care, and especially Middle East Peace better. Still, he was a president who actually got some pretty important things done; the main problem was that he was, personally, a real shmuck. (If you know the literal definition of this word- and it's more vulgar then you might think- then it applies here.)

[12th Doctor]

I think that as a care-taker president, Clinton did fairly well, but he let the problem of terrorism get away with him and basically turned the 90's into nothing more than the "Binge Decade".  As Bush said in his convetion speech "So much promise with no great purpose.  That basically sums up the 90's and the Clinton presidency.  I simply take issue with those who think Clinton was great and Bush should be impeached.

[12th Doctor]

To prove a point, I honestly can't name a single Clinton accomplishment.  Other than ruining our ability to defend ourselves.

[M]

Welfare Reform (although of course the GOP was the driving forcve here, he did get it done).

Expansion of NATO.

NAFTA (once again althoufh the GOP started this, he did make it reality).

Probably some other things too. He was not, however, a magnificent present as some imply. And yes, he very poorly handled terrorism and Nuke Proliferation.

[12th Doctor]

Welfare Reform (although of course the GOP was the driving forcve here, he did get it done).

Expansion of NATO.

NAFTA (once again althoufh the GOP started this, he did make it reality).

Probably some other things too. He was not, however, a magnificent present as some imply. And yes, he very poorly handled terrorism and Nuke Proliferation.

Welfare Reform- he didn't want to do it, but Dick Morris told him that he would be a one term president if he didn't sign it.

Expansion of NATO- would have happened anyway, he really didn't have much to do with it

NAFTA-  Tons of holes in the treaty that ARE sending jobs ot Mexico.  This is where I separate with the GOP, but there were many Republicans who were against it (including Tom DeLay) so...

[afleitch]

No you keep bringing up Clinton! Budget surplus...cough...economic growth...cough...respect on the world strage...ah what's the point, Republicans never listen

[12th Doctor]

No you keep bringing up Clinton! Budget surplus...cough...economic growth...cough...respect on the world strage...ah what's the point, Republicans never listen

The only reason we had a budget surrplus is that Clinton cut the military and intellegence budgets.  Not only that, but they lied about the size of the surplus.  It turned out to only be half the size of what they claimed.

The Economic growth started in the last eight months of the first Bush Administration.

LMAO People didn't respect us.  Do you think that the French respected us?  Do you think that the Mexicans respected us?  Do you think that Saddam Hussien respected us?  Do you think the Chinese respected us?  Of course they didn't.  They pretended to like us because Clinton was willing to blame America first for everything that happened in the world, but they didn't respect us.  Did you know that Castro called Clinton one of the best American presidents.  Castro, who hated Kennedy, for obvious reasons, liked Clinton.  Gee, I wonder why?  I wasn't respect.  They simply pretended to like us.  That's all.  Who the HELL needs that.  I could personally care less if countries like France like or respect us as long as we are out there doing the right thing.  As long as the British and Aussies don't abandon us, I don't care.

[M]

There is only one country in the world you can always count on without a shadow of a doubt, and that is Israel. This is because if we ever lose our only friendly country (not just only ally, but the only country in the world willing to consider our existence), we're pretty much done for, one way or the other.

[Gustaf]

There is only one country in the world you can always count on without a shadow of a doubt, and that is Israel. This is because if we ever lose our only friendly country (not just only ally, but the only country in the world willing to consider our existence), we're pretty much done for, one way or the other.

Yeah, that's probably right. Though I think the UK is very reliable as well. As are most of the Anglo-Saxon countries in the world.

[M]

After Hugh Grant's performance in Love Actually, however, and Mayor Red Ken's rantings, it has become clear that there is a very anti-Atlantic strain in British politics and culture. Do you know that Hugh Grant claims to model himself after Caligula?

[Gustaf]

After Hugh Grant's performance in Love Actually, however, and Mayor Red Ken's rantings, it has become clear that there is a very anti-Atlantic strain in British politics and culture. Do you know that Hugh Grant claims to model himself after Caligula?

No I didn't.

I think the UK is reloiable anyway.

[Moooooo]

If anyone should have been impeached it was Ronald Reagan.

[Dave from Michigan]

If anyone should have been impeached it was Ronald Reagan.

why

[Moooooo]

If anyone should have been impeached it was Ronald Reagan.

why

"Provided money for the Islamic fundamentalist government in Iran in order to gain the release of American hostages in the Lebanon. The profits of the deal were then used to supply weapons to the ant-Marxist Contra guerrillas fighting in Nicaragua. This was in defiance of declared government policy and of congressional directives. Reagan deserved to be impeached and only got away with it because the American public were not willing to sack another president after the trauma of getting rid of Richard Nixon."

[ATFFL]

If anyone should have been impeached it was Ronald Reagan.

why

"Provided money for the Islamic fundamentalist government in Iran in order to gain the release of American hostages in the Lebanon. The profits of the deal were then used to supply weapons to the ant-Marxist Contra guerrillas fighting in Nicaragua. This was in defiance of declared government policy and of congressional directives. Reagan deserved to be impeached and only got away with it because the American public were not willing to sack another president after the trauma of getting rid of Richard Nixon."

Selling outdated arms to Iran in exchange for the freedom of hostages and using that money to overthrow a repressive regime is far, far worse than selling missile technology to China, allowing them to develop nuclear armed missiles capable of hitting anywhere in the United States and sell the technology to enemy nations in exchange for massive campaign contributions.  Why spread freedom when you can get your own ass re-elected?

[dazzleman]

If anyone should have been impeached it was Ronald Reagan.

why

"Provided money for the Islamic fundamentalist government in Iran in order to gain the release of American hostages in the Lebanon. The profits of the deal were then used to supply weapons to the ant-Marxist Contra guerrillas fighting in Nicaragua. This was in defiance of declared government policy and of congressional directives. Reagan deserved to be impeached and only got away with it because the American public were not willing to sack another president after the trauma of getting rid of Richard Nixon."

Selling outdated arms to Iran in exchange for the freedom of hostages and using that money to overthrow a repressive regime is far, far worse than selling missile technology to China, allowing them to develop nuclear armed missiles capable of hitting anywhere in the United States and sell the technology to enemy nations in exchange for massive campaign contributions.  Why spread freedom when you can get your own ass re-elected?

Tredrick, beautifully said, dude.

[The Duke]

If anyone should have been impeached it was Ronald Reagan.

why

"Provided money for the Islamic fundamentalist government in Iran in order to gain the release of American hostages in the Lebanon. The profits of the deal were then used to supply weapons to the ant-Marxist Contra guerrillas fighting in Nicaragua. This was in defiance of declared government policy and of congressional directives. Reagan deserved to be impeached and only got away with it because the American public were not willing to sack another president after the trauma of getting rid of Richard Nixon."

No, he got away with it because most Americans understood he was right.

[dazzleman]

If anyone should have been impeached it was Ronald Reagan.

why

"Provided money for the Islamic fundamentalist government in Iran in order to gain the release of American hostages in the Lebanon. The profits of the deal were then used to supply weapons to the ant-Marxist Contra guerrillas fighting in Nicaragua. This was in defiance of declared government policy and of congressional directives. Reagan deserved to be impeached and only got away with it because the American public were not willing to sack another president after the trauma of getting rid of Richard Nixon."

No, he got away with it because most Americans understood he was right.

Absolutely.  I think that the sale of arms to the Iranians was a policy mistake, and certainly not an impeachable offense.

As far as giving the profits to the contras in Nicaragua, let's just say that it's hard for me to work up too much outrage about helping to oust a communist regime, with ties to Cuba, that was supporting communist guerilla offensives in neighboring Central American countries.