How Can Democrats Defend Clinton?

Advertisement

I cannot help but wonder why the Democrats are willing to do almost anything and everything to get their president, William Jefferson Clinton, out of the mess that he, and only he, got himself into.

I have carefully watched the Judiciary Committee hearings, and then the hearing in the House of Representatives, and am now watching the Senate hearings. In the House, the Republicans were courteous and fair, while the Democrats, not having any real defense for Clinton, were desperately trying to accuse Kenneth Starr, Henry Hyde and others, to create a smoke screen, while the president was busily creating other diversions to throw the people off the real issues.

I especially recall Representatives Conyers, Waters, Jackson-Lee and Nader, their faces contorted in hatred, viciously attacking every Republican in sight, but never uttering a word that came anywhere near a defense of their president. When the Republicans refuted the allegations, they were accused of "trying to prolong the hearings." This tactic of "bait-then-accuse" has never ended.

I am 89 years old, and I must say I have always respected those elected to the House and Senate to represent the people, and have believed that their goal was to do the best for not only their constituents, but for all of us. The behavior of the above mentioned representatives has shocked me. Their strict partisanship, and their refusal to listen to the evidence that was presented, along with their rantings and ravings, has made an unfavorable impression on me that I will never forget. I know there are many more of us who share the disgust I feel.

The polls that appear in the media do not reflect "the people," in my opinion. Do these pollsters carefully check to see if the person asked is a registered voter? How reliable are the answers they get, and are the questions they asked fair?

We all have a good idea how this hearing will end, because there is not a Democrat who will stand up, as some of the Republicans did when President Nixon was impeached, and remove Clinton, in spite of the fact that we all know that he lied through his teeth to the grand jury and twisted the truth in the way he answered questions. Although he did not come out and tell others to lie, he sure maneuvered them into lying for him, even poor little pitiful Ann Lewis. Most of all he broke his oath of office when he appeared on television and lied to me and "the people."

I don't care if Clinton wants to have his peculiar kind of sex in the red light district, or a sleazy hotel, but I sure resent him bringing young interns into MY Oval Office, while he is supposed to be working on MY time, and talking on the phone with important government officials. What if she had been a spy?

This is not behavior that befits the President of the United States, and I think we should send a message to all government officials that we should not and do not condone this kind of behavior.

If we do condone it by acquitting Clinton, then we should pardon the doctor/attorney who lost her job for the very same behavior in a veterans hospital, the lady Air Force pilot who was thrown out because she lied about an affair with a married man, and many others who are in jail because they lied in similar circumstances.

Is Clinton so special that those same laws do not apply to him? You talk so much about "fairness." How about fairness for all of us? Think about it.

Kathryn J. Loftfield
Payson

Commenting has been disabled for this item.