The Impeachment of the President of the USA - Part II

Written 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, inrepparttar long run, to hell whateverrepparttar 126060 good intentions, which pavedrepparttar 126061 way there. As far as I am concerned, President Clinton is a condemned man on these grounds only. Butrepparttar 126062 lies one chooses andrepparttar 126063 victims he chooses to expose to his misbehaviour - reflect his personality, his inner world, what type of human being he is. It isrepparttar 126064 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 aboutrepparttar 126065 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 foreseerepparttar 126066 outcomes of his actions. He has a sense of special, unwarranted entitlement, he judges his environment andrepparttar 126067 world, at large, erroneously. In short : he is dangerously wrong forrepparttar 126068 job that he has acquired through deception.”

DC : “Through elections …”

AC : “Nay, through deception brought about by elections. He lied torepparttar 126069 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,repparttar 126070 product of spin-doctors and opinion polls, which had no common denominator with reality. This is gross deception.”

DC : “But now thatrepparttar 126071 American people know everything – they still prefer him over others, approve of his performance and applaud his professional achievements…”

AC : “This isrepparttar 126072 power of incumbency. It wasrepparttar 126073 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 hiderepparttar 126074 truth, to evaderepparttar 126075 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 inrepparttar 126076 extreme.”

AC : “Do you agree thatrepparttar 126077 President ofrepparttar 126078 United States is party to a contract withrepparttar 126079 American People ?”

DC : “Absolutely.”

AC : “Would you say that he is enjoined by this contract to upholdrepparttar 126080 dignity of his office ?’

DC ; “I think that most people would agree to this.”

AC : “And do you agree with me that fornicating inrepparttar 126081 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 torepparttar 126082 institutions of this country and to their standing ?”

DC : “I assume that you mean to say fornication in general, not only inrepparttar 126083 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 onrepparttar 126084 circumstances andrepparttar 126085 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 torepparttar 126086 American public and put at his disposal solely forrepparttar 126087 performance of his duties. Moreover, his acts constituted adultery, which is a morally reprehensible act. He acted secretly and tried to concealrepparttar 126088 facts using expressly illegal and immoral means – namely by lying.”

DC : “I tookrepparttar 126089 pains of noting down everything you said. You said thatrepparttar 126090 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 torepparttar 126091 other a delightful stimulus. Of course, this applies only to consenting adults and when life itself is not jeopardized. Then you mentionedrepparttar 126092 age disparity betweenrepparttar 126093 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 raiserepparttar 126094 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 torepparttar 126095 word consent, nor torepparttar 126096 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 onrepparttar 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 sincerepparttar 126059 West Bank is theirs, that “to resist occupation they haverepparttar 126060 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 althoughrepparttar 126061 idea thatrepparttar 126062 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 bothrepparttar 126063 claim, its justifying of terrorist acts on Israel, andrepparttar 126064 supposed support for it by other Arab and Muslim nations, with some convincing historical information.

First of all, where wasrepparttar 126065 Arab support for Palestinian statehood beforerepparttar 126066 Jewish state came into existence? For 19 years before Israel was formed, Jordan occupiedrepparttar 126067 entire West Bank, including Jerusalem. There was no Arab demand forrepparttar 126068 Kingdom of Jordan to stop rulingrepparttar 126069 occupied territory, no clamor forrepparttar 126070 formation of a Palestinian state, or Jerusalem being its rightful capital.

So, if allrepparttar 126071 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 beenrepparttar 126072 capital of any country other than ancient Israel and modern Israel. How, then, can there be a claim that Jerusalem isrepparttar 126073 capital of a state which never existed? One ofrepparttar 126074 problems is that so few of us in Europe andrepparttar 126075 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 evenrepparttar 126076 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 speakrepparttar 126077 same language, followrepparttar 126078 same religion, exhibitrepparttar 126079 same culture and eatrepparttar 126080 same cuisine as other Arabs. They are, in fact, Arabs who happen to live inrepparttar 126081 region called Palestine.

Palestine is not, and never has been historically,repparttar 126082 name of a nation, norrepparttar 126083 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 ofrepparttar 126084 Jordan River, which becamerepparttar 126085 Kingdom of Jordan. Because it is a region,repparttar 126086 United Nations was able to dividerepparttar 126087 rest of it betweenrepparttar 126088 Jews andrepparttar 126089 Arabs living there. Hadrepparttar 126090 Arabs accepted that U.N. resolution, there would have been a newly created Arab state called Palestine. They rejectedrepparttar 126091 compromise, however, and went to war to destroy Israel. They lost. There is no Palestinian state.

David builtrepparttar 126092 city called Jerusalem. His son, Solomon, builtrepparttar 126093 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 Cyrusrepparttar 126094 Great, of Persia (!), helpedrepparttar 126095 people of Israel regain their land, rebuildrepparttar 126096 temple and rule for 600 more years. The Romans invaded and ruled Israel, thenrepparttar 126097 Crusaders reigned. The Ottoman Empire ruled next, thenrepparttar 126098 British Empire, and finally, Israel returned to its homeland and builtrepparttar 126099 modern Jewish state.

In all that time, it was never, ever, a Palestinian state. Whence, then, allrepparttar 126100 discussion and controversy about an occupied Palestinian land?

Those who refer to themselves as Palestinians certainly haverepparttar 126101 right to live there, freely and in peace. But doesrepparttar 126102 right to declare it a Palestinian state come fromrepparttar 126103 mere fact that they are occupyingrepparttar 126104 region? Imagine California and its Mexican-American population. If this community, greater in number thanrepparttar 126105 Palestinians inrepparttar 126106 West Bank, were to claim thatrepparttar 126107 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, intorepparttar 126108 rest ofrepparttar 126109 country?

Cont'd on page 2 ==> © 2005
Terms of Use