Please title this page. (Page 1)


Sometimes married people have disagreements about small matters and now Susan and I find ourselves on different sides of the impeachment issue. I prefer that Clinton face a protracted trial in the Senate with many embarrrassing details. Susan would like to see Clinton torn apart by wild dogs. But then, I eat my M&Ms one at a time.

As a technical matter, I’m not sure that Clinton should be removed from office for the offenses he is charged with. I do believe that his seven month long war against the truth is sufficient grounds to remove him though. I know that many politicians have done many despicable things but Clinton presents a special problem to the Senate.

1. The facts suggest that he shut down Utah’s anthracite coal industry to pay off his friends in the Lipo grroup who control large anthracite coal deposits in Indonesia.

2. The facts suggest that he sold missile technology to the Chinese communists for campaign contributions.

3. The facts suggests that he bombed Iraq in order to avoid impeachment.

Only one piece of evidence is offered to disapprove these allegations: the word of William Jefferson Clinton.

[I noticed that reporters have started referring to him as William Jefferson Clinton lately. I think they want to help him out. After all, I heard a CNN reporter declare on the morning ot the impeachment, “This may be a day that will live in infamy for the Congress.” I suppose that William Jefferson Clinton is supposed to sound presidential but have you ever noticed that reporters often refer to serial killers by three names, John Wayne Gasey, etc.]

If Clinton has done half of what I suspect him of, he has added a new weapon to the political arsenal. It’s comparable to Hitler’s “big lie.” Clinton commits “unspeakable deeds.” His actions are so outrageous that his critics are embarrrassed to discuss them. For instance, his defenders villify Ken Starr for saying what Clinton did. Should anyone suggest that Clinton bombed Iraq to escape impeachment, people of good will would be horrified: ”How could you even think such a thing!?”

Therein lies the brilliance of the man. If you’re psychopathic enough, you embarrass everyone into silence. I always wondered how a poor boy from Arkansas could rise to the presidency. I think I understand now. If a poor person wants to become the president of the United States, he must become a lying, treacherous, shameless, remorseless villain. Mere dishonesty is no longer enough.

My mother used to say something about certain people and I always think of it when I hear Clinton talk. She’d say, “He lies when the truth is funnier.” Clinton lives and breaths falsehood. When he was confronted with the semen stained dress, he had to admit something. He had to deal with facts. He was out of his element, the world of the lie. He became a fish out of water. In The Maltese Falcon, Caspar Gutman says, “I don’t trust a man who doesn’t like to talk because when he does talk he usually talks too much and says the wrong things.” That was Clinton’s problem. A man who never tells the truth can’t be expected to handle it in a competent manner.

What disappoints me most about the impeachment is the solemn tone that everyone is taking. Democratic people ought to relish impeachment. They ought to be gleeful. I keep hearing that politicians are all crooks; shouldn’t we gloat when we trap one? A nation that believed in democracy would celebrate impeachments as they do the 4th of July. Fireworks would be called for.

The used to have contests called greased pig chases. Someone would grease up a bunch of pigs and put them in a large pen. The contestants would try to catch them but the pigs were so slippery that they’d usually escape. When a man caught one and held on to it, he would be the winner and deserve the applause of the crowd.

That’s how Americans should treat an impeachment, any impeachment.