The Impeachment of the President of the USA - Part IIWritten by Sam Vaknin
AC : “Before I do, allow me just to repeat. To me, there is no moral difference between one lie and another. All lies are loathsome and lead, in long run, to hell whatever good intentions, which paved way there. As far as I am concerned, President Clinton is a condemned man on these grounds only. But lies one chooses and victims he chooses to expose to his misbehaviour - reflect his personality, his inner world, what type of human being he is. It is only allowance I make. All lies are prohibited as all murders are. But there are murders most foul and there are lies most abominable and obnoxious. What are we to learn about President from his choice of arms and adversaries ? That he is a paranoid, a narcissist, lacks empathy, immature, unable to postpone his satisfactions, to plan ahead, to foresee outcomes of his actions. He has a sense of special, unwarranted entitlement, he judges his environment and world, at large, erroneously. In short : he is dangerously wrong for job that he has acquired through deception.”
DC : “Through elections …”
AC : “Nay, through deception brought about by elections. He lied to American people about who he is and what he stands for. He did not frankly expose or discuss his weaknesses and limitations. He sold his voters on an invented, imaginary image, product of spin-doctors and opinion polls, which had no common denominator with reality. This is gross deception.”
DC : “But now that American people know everything – they still prefer him over others, approve of his performance and applaud his professional achievements…”
AC : “This is power of incumbency. It was same with Nixon until one month before his resignation. Or, do you sanction his actions as well ?”
DC : “Frankly, I will compare President Clinton to President Andrew Johnson rather than to President Nixon. The shattering discovery about Nixon was that he was an uncommon criminal. The shattering discovery about Clinton is that he is human. Congress chastises him not for having done what he did – in this he has many illustrious precedents. No, he is accused of being indiscreet, of failing to hide truth, to evade facts. He is reproached for his lack of efficiency at concealment. He is criticized, therefore, both for being evasive and for not being sufficiently protective of his secrets. It is hard to win such a case, I tell you. It is also hypocritical in extreme.”
AC : “Do you agree that President of United States is party to a contract with American People ?”
DC : “Absolutely.”
AC : “Would you say that he is enjoined by this contract to uphold dignity of his office ?’
DC ; “I think that most people would agree to this.”
AC : “And do you agree with me that fornicating in White House would tend to diminish rather than uphold this dignity – and, therefore, constitute a violation of this contract ? That it shows utter disregard and disrespect to institutions of this country and to their standing ?”
DC : “I assume that you mean to say fornication in general, not only in White House. To answer you, I must analyse this complex issue into its components. First, I assume that you agree with me that sex between consenting adults is almost always legally allowed and, depending on circumstances and culture, it is, usually, morally acceptable. The President's relationship with Miss Lewinsky did not involve sexual harassment or coercion and, therefore, was sex between consenting adults. Legally, there could be nothing against it. The problem, therefore, is cast in moral terms. Would you care to define it ?”
AC : “The President has engaged in sexual acts – some highly unusual -with a woman much younger than he, in a building belonging to American public and put at his disposal solely for performance of his duties. Moreover, his acts constituted adultery, which is a morally reprehensible act. He acted secretly and tried to conceal facts using expressly illegal and immoral means – namely by lying.”
DC : “I took pains of noting down everything you said. You said that President has engaged in sexual acts and there can be no dispute between us that this does not constitute a problem. You said that some of them were highly unusual. This is a value judgement, so dependent on period and culture, that it is rendered meaningless by its derivative nature. What to one is repulsive is to other a delightful stimulus. Of course, this applies only to consenting adults and when life itself is not jeopardized. Then you mentioned age disparity between President and his liaison. This is sheer bigotry. I am inclined to think that this statement is motivated more by envy than by moral judgement …”
AC : “I beg to differ ! His advantages in both position and age do raise spectre of exploitation, even of abuse ! He took advantage of her, capitalized on her lack of experience and innocence, used her as a sex slave, an object, there just to fulfil his desires and realize his fantasies.”
DC : “Then there is no meaning to word consent, nor to legal age of consent. The line must be drawn somewhere. The President did not make explicit promises and then did not own up to them. Expectations and anticipation can develop in total vacuum, in a manner unsubstantiated, not supported by any observable behaviour. It is an open question who was using who in this lurid tale – at least, who was hoping to use who. The President, naturally, had much more to offer to Miss Lewinsky than she could conceivably have offered to him. Qui bono is a useful guide in reality as well as in mystery books.”
The Middle East: Prior Claims?Written by The Indignant Bystander / Francis Shimandle
A Lebanese-American named Sharon Nader Sloan recently published his thoughts on Palestinian claims that “Palestine is their land, and that Jerusalem is their capital, and that Israel is occupying their land.” He further notes that Palestinians believe that since West Bank is theirs, that “to resist occupation they have right to send suicide bombers into crowded bus stations, pizza parlors, etc., and kill innocent men, women and children. And all Arab and Muslim countries support them in their claims and actions against Israel.”
This Lebanese-American also concludes that although idea that West Bank is occupied Palestinian land has been accepted by almost everyone, it is, in fact, “the greatest lie everperpetrated”. And he proceeds to refute both claim, its justifying of terrorist acts on Israel, and supposed support for it by other Arab and Muslim nations, with some convincing historical information.
First of all, where was Arab support for Palestinian statehood before Jewish state came into existence? For 19 years before Israel was formed, Jordan occupied entire West Bank, including Jerusalem. There was no Arab demand for Kingdom of Jordan to stop ruling occupied territory, no clamor for formation of a Palestinian state, or Jerusalem being its rightful capital.
So, if all Arab hatred for Israel is based on love and support for their Palestinian brethren, and wanting them to reclaim their own state, where was that support before Israel’s formation?
Truth is, there never was a Palestinian state. And in recorded history, Jerusalem has never been capital of any country other than ancient Israel and modern Israel. How, then, can there be a claim that Jerusalem is capital of a state which never existed? One of problems is that so few of us in Europe and U.S. remember enough world history to see how events can distort reality and lies, repeated often enough, become accepted as facts.
Many, including some Arab and Muslim journalists and scholars, question even notion of a Palestinian people. Four elements distinguish a people - language, religion, culture and cuisine. As an example, Chinese, Japanese and Koreans are all Oriental. Yet, they are different people, because they each have distinct language, different religions, different cultures and distinctly differing cuisines. People called Palestinians speak same language, follow same religion, exhibit same culture and eat same cuisine as other Arabs. They are, in fact, Arabs who happen to live in region called Palestine.
Palestine is not, and never has been historically, name of a nation, nor name of a people. It is a region. Siberia is a region, too. There is, however, no country named Siberia, no people named Siberians. The Sahara is a region, as well, not a country. Arabs living in that region are Libyans and Moroccans.
Because Palestine is a region and not a nation, Britain was able to partition it and gave half to Arabs living on one side of Jordan River, which became Kingdom of Jordan. Because it is a region, United Nations was able to divide rest of it between Jews and Arabs living there. Had Arabs accepted that U.N. resolution, there would have been a newly created Arab state called Palestine. They rejected compromise, however, and went to war to destroy Israel. They lost. There is no Palestinian state.
David built city called Jerusalem. His son, Solomon, built holy temple within it. The commonwealth called Israel lasted about 1,000 years, with one break, 400 years after David. The invaders from Babylon occupied Israel for 70 years, until Cyrus Great, of Persia (!), helped people of Israel regain their land, rebuild temple and rule for 600 more years. The Romans invaded and ruled Israel, then Crusaders reigned. The Ottoman Empire ruled next, then British Empire, and finally, Israel returned to its homeland and built modern Jewish state.
In all that time, it was never, ever, a Palestinian state. Whence, then, all discussion and controversy about an occupied Palestinian land?
Those who refer to themselves as Palestinians certainly have right to live there, freely and in peace. But does right to declare it a Palestinian state come from mere fact that they are occupying region? Imagine California and its Mexican-American population. If this community, greater in number than Palestinians in West Bank, were to claim that U.S. is occupying their land since they live there, and demanded other citizens leave so they could form their own country, how would our government respond? What if Washington said they could live there, but not claim independent sovereignty, and they began sending suicide bombers, snipers, mortar fire, and so on, into rest of country?