Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Clinton (Big Dog) says Impeachment was Abuse of Power

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
deminks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-11-05 07:19 AM
Original message
Clinton (Big Dog) says Impeachment was Abuse of Power
Wow, there's the Big Dog that I remember.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051111/ap_on_re_us/clinton_conference

Clinton Calls Impeachment Egregious Abuse

HEMPSTEAD, N.Y. - Former president Bill Clinton called Congress' impeachment of him an "egregious" abuse of the Constitution and challenged those who say history will judge him poorly because of his White House tryst with Monica Lewinsky.

Speaking at an academic conference examining his presidency here Thursday, Clinton challenged historian Douglas Brinkley's comments in a newspaper interview that Clinton would be deemed a great president were it not for his impeachment.

"I completely disagree with that," Clinton said in his speech at Hofstra University. "You can agree with that statement, but only if you think impeachment was justified. Otherwise, it was an egregious abuse of the Constitution and law and history of our country."

"Now if you want to hold it against me that I did something wrong, that's a fair deal," he said. "If you do that, then you have a whole lot of other questions, which is how many other presidents do you have to downgrade and what are you going to do with all those Republican congressmen, you know, that had problems?"

His remarks were cheered loudly by the audience.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Dudley_DUright Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-11-05 07:24 AM
Response to Original message
1. I think it will be pretty clear to historians that impeachment
was a terrible abuse of power by the likes of Tom DeLay and company and that compared to Bush, Clinton's presidency was a model of success.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indepat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-11-05 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #1
15. Historian will undoubtedly speak of a vast RW conspiracy which did great
harm to this nation and its institutions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nightwing Donating Member (489 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-11-05 07:24 AM
Response to Original message
2. Give em hell Big Dog!!
Love them or hate them, but the Clintons know how to play the game and most importantly they play to WIN!!

That's what I always loved most about Bill and (gasp) Hillary.

Now I'll duck and hide while the Hillary Haters Club of DU blasts me for my honest opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Missy M Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-11-05 07:26 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. No blasting from me, I totally agree with you. The two of them sure..
know how to win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sufrommich Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-11-05 07:40 AM
Response to Original message
4. Clinton will be remembered as a great president.
and the history books will show his impeachment as an attempt by the right wing to derail him.If there is a bright side to the Bush fiasco,it is that he will be remembered as the Republicans disastrous alternative.America's 8 year nervous breakdown.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unblock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-11-05 07:46 AM
Response to Original message
5. the impeachment certainly reflects worse on congress than on clinton
especially when you follow up clinton with shrub and there's zero talk from the same banana republicans about impeaching shrub after all HE'S done....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr.Green93 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-11-05 07:57 AM
Response to Original message
6. When we take back the Congress
the impeachment should be reversed and erased.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sufrommich Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-11-05 08:00 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. I would love to see that done.
Is there a legal way to do that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
warrior1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-11-05 08:01 AM
Response to Original message
8. Amen Brother Bill
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-11-05 08:26 AM
Response to Original message
9. Great nutshell. Remember when presidents were articulate?
Miss that guy. Can't he run for senate or something?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gulliver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-11-05 08:37 AM
Response to Original message
10. The question I want to ask him is "Would Bush be in office now ...
... if you hadn't done what you did?"

Clinton owes the world a tearful, abject, on-his-knees apology in my opinion. Republican impeachment malfeasance doesn't erase Clinton's culpability for Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ItsTheMediaStupid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-11-05 08:54 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. Bullshit. RW media, Gore's lousy campaign and cheating created W.
Clinton would have been reelected if he could have run again.

Gore would have been elected if he had chosen to run on Clinton's record. Eight years of peace and prosperity look pretty good right now.

Gore won the popular vote and would have won the election if voters hadn't been purged from the books in FL. This is amazing when you consider his lack of personal charm and the media bias he faced.

In the 2000 campaign, RW media repeated pug talking points as if they were facts. How many times did voters here "Al Gore claims he invented the internet." It's hard to win with the media biased against you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-11-05 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #12
24. .
:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gulliver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-11-05 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #12
27. Bullshit. Clinton's fly stays zipped, Bush loses.
RW media? Yup. Gore's lousy campaign? Yup. Cheating by W? Yup. Clinton/Lewinsky/Impeachment peccadillo? Yup!! Nader? Yup. Any of them slightly better and Bush is a nothing with no title instead of a nothing with a title.

Clinton should answer for his part (ahem). You can defend him, but you can't answer for him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-11-05 08:42 AM
Response to Original message
11. don't forget "blatantly partisan". The quote should read:
It as a blatantly partisan, egregious abuse...

Not his words, but mine. I still resent the fuck out of the rethuglican Congress that spent years and millions upon millions of dollars harassing a LEGALLY AND LAWFULLY ELECTED President of the United States for political gain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ismnotwasm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-11-05 09:02 AM
Response to Original message
13. He's right
Although I do remember denying that he would do something like that on an arguement-by-email list I was on at the time. I didn't think he was that stupid, when he KNEW they were out to get him. He probably thought the good 'ol boy system would protect him, since there is apparently so much of that type of behavior going around congress.
Bad mistake. The attack dogs were out in full force, and they were going to bring him down by whatever means nessisary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-11-05 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #13
21. He just thought he would lie his ass off
What were the odds that the intern would keep a dress with his semen crusted onto it?

If it wasn't for the dress he'd still be lying his ass off about it today.

The problem Clinton has in history is two.

1. There are no single great ccomplishments he can point to in his presidency that will be remembered 100 years from now. The economy was good. So how was the economy when John Tyler was president? No one knows because the economy isn't remembered unless there's a great disaster like Hoover.

2. Even if schoolchildren learn 100 years from now that the impeachment was wrong, the students will learn the same lesson that he could not keep his hands off the help. My guess is 100 years from now male bosses having affairs with their low paid female help at the office will be more looked down upon than it is today.

So my own opinion is that Clinton will have a hard time being seen as a great president in histor

PS - I am a former history textbook author.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flying_wahini Donating Member (856 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-11-05 09:28 AM
Response to Original message
14. speaking of Bill, I have a legal question
If Hillary runs and wins in the next Presidential election, could she get Bill in as VP? If this scenario could happen then,
If something happened to her could he serve as Pres. again?
Just asking, don't know the answer..... anybody??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-11-05 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #14
23. Yes.
Bill can still become president again. The 22nd amendment states that a president cannot be elected to more than two terms. It says nothing about a two-term president in the line of succession, or in the vice president's office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ernesto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-11-05 09:48 AM
Response to Original message
16. One word: Duh? n-t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Festivito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-11-05 10:00 AM
Response to Original message
17. The impeachment may actually enhance Clinton's legacy.
It proves how bad his opposition was, how badly they would act, how far they would go to disrupt not only his presidency, but how unconcerned they were with perhaps destroying this country. A destructive attitude and worthless behaviour confirmed when they subsequently took office.

Despite it all, Clinton rode the economy and worldwide peace to their highest ever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maximovich Donating Member (407 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-11-05 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #17
22. Highlights How Low the Political Opposition Was
or still is. I love it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-11-05 10:06 AM
Response to Original message
18. Some thoughts on the Clinton legacy
All this started in 1932 with the election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. This election ushered in the phenomenon known as the New Deal - the rise of Social Security, the eventual rise of Medicare, the development of dozens of other social programs, and the enshrinement of the basic idea that the Federal government in America can be a force for good within the populace. Even in 1932, such an idea was anathema to unrestricted free-market profiteers and powerful business interests, for the rise of a powerful Federal government also heralded the rise of regulation.

Within the ebb and drift of American politics, those who stood agains tthe concepts espoused by FDR and his adherents drifted inexorably into what is now the modern Republican Party. This drift was aided by the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which motivated the last vestiges of the old, racist, Confederate Democratic Party to bolt to the right. Lyndon Johnson's Great Society plan further widened the rift, and the progressive activism in the 1960's and 1970's solidified the battle lines. Once the shift was completed, the stage was set for the kind of political to-the-knife trench warfare that has been happening to this day.

Many issues were bandied about in the no-man's land between the lines, but at the end of the day, the issue to be tested was that basic premise brought by FDR: What will the place of the Federal government be in the lives of the American people? Can that government be a help?

Those who argued against this idea had ample rationales for their resistance, some of them uncomfortable to hear in the light of day. The activism of the Federal government brought about racial desegregation and the rise of minority rights, something a segment of the right finds unacceptable to this day. The activism of the federal government made it difficult for unrestricted free-market loyalists to secure the privatization of available mass markets like health care, insurance and Social Security. The activism of the Federal government kept mega-businesses from the ability to grow to whatever size they pleased, even though such growth was death to the basic capitalist concept of competition. The activism of the Federal government forced these businesses to spend a portion of their profits on pollution controls. The list of complaints went on and on. In a corner of their hearts, many who stood against FDR's plans did so because the rise of an activist Federal government smelled a little too much like Soviet-style communism for comfort.

And so the trenches were dug, the bayonet?s were fixed, and the war dragged on and on. The right howled that such an activist government would require the American people to be taxed to death. The right howled that public schooling did not work, and they de-funded public education on the state and local levels to prove their point. The right invented bugaboos like the "welfare queen," with her Cadillac and ten children, who avoided working and lived of the sweat from the honest man's brow. Often, the American people listened to their arguments. The rise of Ronald Reagan is evidence that their message had strength, if not merit.

The problem, as ever, became clear before too long. Unrestricted free-marketeering, deficit spending, tax cuts for the richest people in the country which would purportedly cause the trickling down of monies to the rest, unrestricted polluting, unrestricted defense spending, and the deregulation of absolutely everything, is poison to any economy that is subjected to it. George Herbert Walker Bush was left holding this particular bag in 1992, and he was not enough of a salesman to convince the American people that it was still working.

This is when all hell really began to break loose.

Many people believe the statement that "Bill Clinton was the best Republican President we've ever had." There are a great many facts to back this assertion, but it begs the question: If Clinton was the best Republican President we've ever had, why did the Republicans work every night and every day for eight years, why do they continue to work to this day, to destroy him and the economic legacy he left behind?

The answer is complex. Clinton is labeled 'Republican' by the Left because of the passage of NAFTA, of GATT, of the Welfare Reform Act, of the Telecommunications Act, and for a variety of other reasons. In many ways, however, this does not tell the entire story. The passage of these rightist packages came, in no small part, because Clinton had no hard-core activated base pushing him in the proper direction. After twelve years of warfare against Reagan and Bush, a massive swath of the progressive community saw Clinton's victory in 1992 and felt like they had at last won the fight. They threw their activism into neutral, leaving Clinton with no army to back him up. One can hardly blame them for doing so after such a protracted struggle.

But this left Clinton exposed. The onslaughts of the right pushed him inexorably in their direction, because there was no powerful progressive network there to push back. Only after the impeachment mayhem broke loose did the tattered threads of progressive activism come back together again, but by then the damage had been done. Certainly, there were many progressives in America who fought the good fight every step of the way, but there were not enough of them. Progressives in 2003 who label Clinton as 'Republican' should take a long look in the mirror, and remember what they were not doing from 1993 to 1998, before casting final judgment. I am, sadly, one who has trouble facing that mirror.

An analysis of the facts, and the record, reveals Clinton to have been one of the most effective progressive Presidents in American history. By 1998 he had managed to create an economic system that filled the Federal treasury with unprecedented amounts of available money, and he had also managed to pass a variety of progressive social programs that benefited vast numbers of middle-class Americans. When Clinton stood up in 1998, with a massive budget surplus waiting in the wings, and cried, "Save Social Security first!" he was roaring a battle cry across the trenches that had been there since 1932. Such a surplus would fund social programs all across the country. Such a surplus would, at long last, settle the argument: An activist Federal government can be a force for good within the American populace, and once more, can be paid for with extra left over. The New Deal/Great Society wars seemed to be coming to an end.

This was why he had to be destroyed.

The rest is coda. The impeachment, funded by right-wing activists and business interests, stormed along by a mainstream media whose Reagan-era deregulated status led to a complete breakdown in journalistic ethics, and all buttressed by years of unsubstantiated scandals pushed along by congressional zealots with subpoena power, left the American population exhausted enough to vote against their own best interests in 2000. Too many didn't vote at all. The "Clinton! Clinton! Clinton!" drumbeat that lasted over 2,000 days drove the voters into thinking a change was required. Though Gore won the election, the margin of victory was small enough to be exposed to theft by a partisan Supreme Court which, by rights, should not have come within a country mile of touching that case. A corrupted news media, again, pushed the whole farce along.

Now, we have a nation run by profiteers who preach the gospel of privatization in all things. When Bush, on October 4, 2001, argued that more massive tax cuts for rich people were needed to "counteract the shockwave of the evildoer," while a pall of poison smoke still hung over New York City, the truth was there for all to see. Now, pollution controls have ceased to exist, and the private realm of defense contractors are seeing more money than they ever dreamed they could. The simple truth that the Federal government can be a force for good within the American populace, a truth realized in 1998, has been flushed down the toilet by a pack of right-wing activists who are links in a chain of warfare that stretches back to 1932.

Mission accomplished indeed.

The fallout from this has been extreme. Trickle-down economics have returned to America, with the inevitable economic downturn and unemployment riding sidecar. The Federal Treasury, once full to bursting, has been looted completely. This, in the end, was the mission. That money could not be allowed to stay in the Treasury, because the American people would have expected it to be used to fund the programs they depend on. The Bush administration moved every penny of that money into the wealthiest portions of the private sector, using September 11 and terrorism and fear and war as an excuse to storm the trenches their forefathers had been shooting into for over 70 years. It was a smash-and-grab robbery writ large.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/101003A.shtml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deminks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-11-05 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. Thank you, Will, for reposting that.
So many people on both sides made fun of Hillary and her "vast right-wing conspiracy." Now, America finally can see it if they so chose in all of it's hideousness.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NicRic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-11-05 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #18
26. Clinton/Gore recored while in office !
Bill and Al's report card
Clinton/Gore administration acheivements:
1. The longest economic expansion in our history.
2. The creation of more than 22 million new jobs.
3. The lowest unemployment in 30 years.
4. Real wages rose at all income levels.
5. The highest home ownership in American history.
6. Unemployment reduced to 3.9 percent.
7. Hispanic unemployment reduced to 5%, the lowest level on record.
8. African-American unemployment reduced by 50% to its lowest level ever recorded.
9. The lowest welfare rolls in 32 years.
10. The lowest crime rates in 26 years.
11. Teen pregnancy and drug abuse were down.
12. Student test were scores up.
13. The number of people without health insurance was reduced for the first time in a dozen years.
14. The size of the federal government was reduced by over 340,000 workers.
15. The federal budget was balanced.
16. The Reagan-Bush federal debt had finally begun to be reduced.

Hopefully when history looks back at the Clinton years ,his record and what he accomplished while in office is what will be highlighted .I belive the terrible job that bush is and has done as a follow up to Clinton ,will only help to make President Clintons record look as good as it is ! The story is'nt over yet ,some claim the Clintons impeachment and the Monica fiasco is what cost us the White House in 2000 ? That is so far from the truth of what actually happen ,the truth is what cost us the 2000 election was a stolen election ,yes perhaps if Gore had been better at winning more states ,then the oppertunity for Jeb to help his brother steal Florida would not have been a deciding factor in the 2000 election. If the history books are accurate ,and if the whole truth becomes known ,I believe history will look very kindly upon the Clnitons and very poorly on the bush Presendency ,the level of corruption pales in comparision, from a Pesident who had a weakness for sexual desire ,compared to a President who cost thousands of American and others their lives by his decisions on going to war for profit. How they planned from the very start to invade Iraq and make the country only the start of a larger plan to take over the entire oil rich mid east ! Give no bid contracts to war profitering companiies in which they are closely related to . The list goes on and on of a White House that is morally bankrupt and yet claimed to be the complete opposite ,a suposely born again Christian ,who never even goes to Chruch, and who's favorite book the Bible, he only touched when sworn in as President. The lies go on and on supported by a lazy and compliant news ,that does no investigation of the corruption and takes the White House spin on everything a factual news ! It will be remembered as a low time in our history ,in which a prestine economy ws squandered by a gang of corrupt corperations, with a puppet President helping them rape our country for the eight years he was in office. Now thats the truth as I see it and as I pray history will also !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maximovich Donating Member (407 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-11-05 11:02 AM
Response to Original message
20. Damn... He Is Good!!!
He was one of the greats... I don't agree with everything he did, but that goes for everyone I know. So yes... he's one of the greats considering how he dealt with his responsibilities as President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-11-05 11:23 AM
Response to Original message
25. I have always said Clinton should be UNIMPEACHED!
Maybe he heard me. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 04:31 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC