Thursday, May 28, 2009

One Thing I Was Able To Tease Out Of My Friend At the Embassy

I brought up the whole Monica Lewinsky scandal, and he confirmed what I always thought - observers outside the US thought the reaction to it was weirdly out of scale. Tabloid attention, maybe even a word in congress condemning Clinton's behavior, but impeachment? Nobody out of the reach of Fox News even understands how that happened.

Proves to me that news bias CAN be dangerous.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

...sorry to disappoint you, but this is hardly a cloak and dagger accomplishment. I'm guessing you weren't that old during the Lewinsky scandal? Because how could you not know this? Europe has always been mildly amused by American's 'prudery'. For them the Lewinsky scandal was just another example. The French went pfttt. For the French, it was par for the course, not to mention for the Italians as well. But I can hardly believe that you think had to 'tease' it out of your friend. Just read any newspaper from the time. Goodness, what other tidbits did you trick your deep throat source into giving up? You're being played like a fiddle, but when you wear your lefty bona fides on your sleeve, it's just a bit of child's play :P

Danielk said...

Ah my mysterious friend, it was less detective work than followup. It was confirmation.

My recollection from newspapers of the time is that they covered the whole ugly mess as though it somehow really mattered. To this day I'm not sure why it mattered politically. Any insight? Feel free to play me like a harp.

Anonymous said...

...it mattered politically because it was pretty stupid for an American president to use his power and prestige to get some sex from an intern roughly half his age adn to do it in the Oval Office. Any elementary, secondary, higher ed school teacher knows the rules and the penalties. Any corporate director knows the rules and the penalties. Any married man,for that matter, knows the rules and the penalties. So, is it actually possible that you don't get it? Yea, I didn't really think that either. The real answer is that because this was Bill Clinton, democrat extraordinaire, you ask, why the fuss?

So he got some blow jobs and sex from some White House intern who thought it was be cool to 'do' POTUS. Heck, anyone would feel that way. So what that his wife was sleeping a few hallways away. Big deal, happens all the time. So what that he used the Oval Office carpeting and the little lassie's dress to sop up the extra. What is all the fuss from these right wing nut cases? This is a personal matter, not a political one. He may be president, he may have done it on company time and on company property, he may be representing all of us no matter what he does or where he does it, but it's not business of anyone but Bill and Hillary and Monica. It was a mere, regrettable indiscretion, and we ought to extend the same discretion.

Really, if you want to be snarky, be snarky about something that's defensible. And regarding the issue of impeachment which you don't even address, ask Lewis "Scooter" Libby what constitues perjury and why that is relevant to a conversation about impeachment.

Danielk said...

I don't know if it's a good idea to impeach presidents on the basis of stupidity.

And if you really feel that way about Scooter, I trust you were the voice of reason when that trial went down, yes? You were the one saying, "stop defending Scooter! What he did was WRONG!"

Anonymous said...

...nice try at deflection.

Here's how liberals argue, always in this order (A) Scream moral equivalency (B) Change the topic


Happens all the time. You've started as expected and (B) would soon be to follow.

Listen Danielk, I'm not going to sully your blog any more. I'm not a troll looking to disuade people from reading this. Who's to read it anyway. But the writing is good. I came here from a complimentary (about your blog) posting link on a right wing blog who said this was a regular stop for him. I've read your stuff with interest. This item seemed a bit naive. I made a comment, you upped the ante.

So I'll close out on my account here by saying perjury for one should be perjury should all. You could ask yourself if my comments were in any way a defense of Libby. But the answer would always be no, as I think you realize. But apparently I did touch a nerve, probably because my analogy is correct. It's quite simple. Clinton lied under oath. We all know he did, you just want to pretend that because it was a a trivial matter, that somehow mitigates the seriousness.

Perjury is perjury. If Libby can be convicted of it, you're simply hypoticrital if you argue that Clinton shouldn't face the same penalty.

I would argue that both were petty transgressions. And I'd be right. But, pettiness doesn't change the charge. Except to a partisan like Danielk.

Danielk said...

GWK, are you quitting AGAIN?

I wish I knew who you were, if only to check my theory about how you felt about Scooter at the time. Alas, I'll never know. By the way, about changing the subject: I didn't even bring him up!