nUmfej^Birttalign
inion
•«
i
'4
"JS
Page 13 A • Monday, August 31, 1998
ol of worn
led out
fifteen wi
its conclusion
d out.
end, the
i sorority imjj
, said those
MANISHA
PAREKH
rday. 1
artu
would rec
'o one is defending Bill Clin
ton the husband. No one
really can.
fcere is a man who has repeat
edly broken his marriage vows,
(■raying both his wife and his
daughter. Here is a man who has
Mowed his wife, the one person
Inosi affected by his many li-
®ms, to defend him, while he
■od quietly in the background. iBB
Here is a man who let his wife go on national tele
vision to proclaim his innocence and her faith in
him, when he was in fact guilty.
;■{ is impossible to defend Bill Clinton the husband
because there is no defense for his infidelities. Bill
Hilton the husband is not the kind of man a wife
could trust. Bill Clinton the husband is not the kind
of a man a woman would want to marry. In fact, Bill
piton the husband is the kind of man who would
become Bill Clinton the ex-husband.
nted
:uss any
eirrusht
was cha
iororit
“"^■However, those decisions are for Hillary Clinton
®' s to make. Hillary Clinton married Bill. America only
to ^Wcted him president.
n lit is important to emphasize that fact, because as
bore politicians clamor for Clinton’s resignation or
I impeachment proceedings, they forget that infi-
ity is a problem between a man and his wife, not
a president and his country. We did not marry Bill
Hnton; Hillary did, for better or for worse.
|Wedid not elect Bill Clinton the husband; we
pected Bill Clinton the politician, Bill Clinton the
lemor of Arkansas and Bill Clinton the president.
tiaugfcHWe elected Bill Clinton, a man who has admit-
■, time and time again, that he has been unfaith-
y'si ful to his wife. The electorate knew that fact in
?d toelimirAz. The electorate knew that fact in 1996. And
e Bid Day the electorate knows that fact now.
iboutthewrHSo what has changed?
enluckylklClinton’s detractors continuously point out that
dthisdeci! Hnton lied under oath about his relationship with
Sunday." Monica Lewinsky during the Paula Jones investiga-
’srushhailn, thus committing perjury. They claim that ac-
? rushniteldtng to the Constitution, Clinton must resign or
|)e impeached because he has broken the law.
However, in their haste to judge, they overlook
Iveral facts.
First, it is not clear whether Clinton actually lied,
hile it might be a question of semantics (exactly
w “sexual relations” was defined in the Jones law-
it), the question remains. Clinton’s critics claim it
es not matter that he may not have broken the let-
rof the law; he broke the spirit of the law.
' Let when it comes to defining the spirit of the law,
perican juries are the definers, not lawmakers. So,
ttagine a panel of 12 unbiased Americans.
The prosecution, Clinton’s critics, has presented
scase: Clinton misled the American people in such
way that it was as if he lied. Therefore, according
the spirit of the law, he has committed perjury.
The defense presents its case: here is a man
hose marriage has survived a number of rocky
fears and problems. He loves his wife very much,
lit he has a problem with fidelity, a problem that
not all that uncommon in the United States. Dur-
tg a lengthy deposition, that man is asked
rhether he had sexual relations with a young
roman at his office. The man, fearing for his mar-
age and family, says no.
How many people on that jury would convict the
an? How many people on that jury would decide
F/
that the defendant should lose bis yob because he
was unfaithful and after the affair was over, he tried
to keep his wife and daughter from knowing about it?
Some of Clinton’s critics accept this explanation.
They admit that in that position they might do the
same thing. However, they feel Clinton should have
apologized to the American public for his actions.
Why?
Clinton is not the one who took a marital problem
and turned it into the scandal du jour. That was Ken
neth Starr’s doing. Clinton owes an apology to only
two people: his wife and his daughter. The American
people have no place in the Clinton marriage and the
American people do not deserve any apology for
Clinton’s marital
problems.
America did not
marry Bill Clin
ton, Hillary did.
However,
there are still
those who want
Clinton to resign
or to be im
peached. For
them, it is a sim
ple case of a presi
dent who com
mitted perjury
and must leave
office, according
to the terms of the
Constitution. Ap
parently those
critics are not fa
miliar with the
Constitution.
According to a
CNN analysis, im
peachment is not
a legal question.
Hence impeach
ment is under the
control of the
House of Repre
sentatives, not the
courts. Therefore,
impeachment is
only a question
of what the
American people
want. This con
cept of impeach
ment is further
supported by the
Constitution’s
vague definition of
impeachable offenses.
According to a Newsweek poll, 62 percent of
Americans approve of Clinton’s performance as
president. Only 24 percent of Americans believe
that impeachment proceedings should begin. It
sounds as if the critics that truly matter, the Ameri
can people, have made their decision. They may
not like Bill Clinton the husband, but they want to
keep Bill Clinton the president.
Any other decisions about Bill Clinton are up
to Hillary.
Manisha Parekh is a junior psychology and
journalism major.
I
DAVE
JOHNSTON
n 1992 Bill Clinton told Ameri
ca it was time to fire the presi
dent because George Bush, the
incumbent commander-in-chief,
had lied to the American people.
Bill Clinton won election by con
stantly playing Bush’s “read my
lips” pledge.
Now Bill Clinton admits he mis
led the American people, and
what’s good for the goose is good
for the gander.
It is time for Bill Clinton to resign. At this point,
even an impeachment would be better for the
country than allowing
Clinton to continue as
president.
When the secretary of
defense and the chairman
of the joint chiefs of staff
have to suffer through
questions about the
similarities between re
cent air strikes and the
popular film Wag The
Dog, it is past time for
Clinton to move on.
This is not a “private
matter.” Normal citizens
have to reveal details of
their sex lives for
many reasons; di
vorce hearings, cases
concerning abuse
and cases concerning
sexual harassment.
In one of these
settings, Clinton felt
he was not held by
the same con
straints as a nor
mal citizen.
His actions can
not be defended because
“it was a private matter,”
rather they must be condemned
as contrary to the laws and
courts defined by the constitu
tion he swore to preserve, pro
tect and defend. Or perhaps that
oath was misleading as well.
The issue is not sex. In fact,
the issue is not illegal land
deals, drug use in the White
House, perusing over one hun
dred FBI files, perjury or
even obstruction of justice.
The issue is trust.
Clinton has admitted a string of deceit; “I did not
have relations with that women,” “I did not have an
affair with Gennifer Flowers,” and his fallacious testi
mony regarding gifts he gave Monica Lewinsky. Clin
ton was elected because the public no longer trusted
George Bush; now they have no reason to trust the
words or actions of Clinton.
Public reaction to the recent air strikes proves
the lack of trust in Clinton.
Some polls suggest two out of three citizens were
suspicious of the timing of the attack. When a world
leader erases 600 lives and the majority of the Ameri
can people doubt his actions, something is wrong.
Clinton has gone from serving as the nation’s
leader to becoming the national misleader. He has
squandered the public’s trust.
Americans are raised believing in assumed inno
cence, so the nation was willing to wait for the final
outcome of the Ken Starr investigation. Even after
Starr’s unparalleled success, citizens were not yet
ready to toss Clinton out on his ear.
Now, it is a different story. Clinton admitted he
lied to each and every citizen in the country. His cab
inet, his supporters and a United States grand jury
were all deceived by the nation’s highest official.
When he admitted his deception, Clinton lost
any credibility he had with the public. It does not
matter whether he lied about sex, international ter
rorism or taking the last of the ice cream — the fact
is he intentionally misled the courts, he lied to his
friends, he lied to the country and the world.
Ken Starr has quietly accepted more unfound
ed slander than anyone since Richard Jewell.
Starr is markedly nonpartisan. This is the same
man who helped remove Republican Bob Pack-
wood from office.
Starr has been very thorough in his investiga
tion. He has compiled an impressive stack of
Supreme Court victories while the high court hand
ed him only one defeat. His record is outstanding
for any lawyer, especially one going up against the
leader of the free world.
Starr has been forced to draw out his investiga
tion because of the huge obstacles Starr has had no
maneuver.
Clinton could have save the American people
millions of dollars. He could have told the truth
seven months ago. The grand jury members would
love to go home and return to their jobs, but Clin
ton has forced them to spend months sifting
though whatever information they can glean.
Clinton has not been forthcoming with informa
tion. Starr has had witnesses skip the country, com
mit suicide and choose jail time rather than testify
before the grand jury. Starr has done an amazing job
considering what he has to work with.
No one should buy Clinton’s defense of “technical
accuracy.” The allegations run much deeper than
trysts on the Oval Office carpet. Clinton also told the
jury he never gave Lewinsky gifts. Gifts that the FBI
handed over to Starr. Clinton urged Lewinsky to turn
the gifts over to White House staff so they could not
be subpoenaed. Facts which reek of both perjury and
obstruction of justice.
Grand jury leaks report about one-tenth of
Starr’s questioning of Clinton related to Monica
Lewinsky. This is not about sex.
This whole scandal proves that character does
matter. Now that Clinton lacks credibility, he can
not lead effectively. This is not about sex, lies,
money, drugs or Ken Starr. This is about the 600
people killed in recent air strikes. This is about
Saddam Hussein, welfare. Social Security and the
business of running the country.
No matter what Clinton does, his actions will
not be viewed as those of a president, but as those
of a dishonest man looking out for himself. His ac
tions and motivations will always be called into
question. And they should be.
Clinton should do the nation a favor, do A1 Gore a
favor and he should preserve, protect and defend the
constitution by stepping down from office.
Dave Johnston is a senior mathematics major.
hotos
r ashington political antics
[till tame by comparison
LISA
FOOX
1 arley
lie
rhile
Ameri
cans ob-
jss over the in-
jpropriate
pons of their
psident and his
pdency to mis-
Bd those around
p, the rest of
Se world is hav-
a good laugh at “the leader of
§efree world’s” expense.
Even New Zealand, a country
imous for beautiful scenery,
eesy actresses like Lucy Law-
Iss (Xena, of course) and semi-
'omographic films like The
'mo, can’t contain its humor.
Due to the entertaining nature
fa country with 30 billion sheep
nd two million people, they real-
should not point fingers. In
fact, about three weeks ago it was
lection time, and New Zealand
politics makes Bill Clinton look
ante in comparison.
First, there is the Natural Par-
y, hell-bent on legalizing mari-
Uana. Their politicians not only
dialed, but actually inhaled
diole forests of this free-grow-
tigdrug. They accuse anyone
v ho denies using marijuana as
Wright liars.
Another popular party’s main
platform is electing a cat as their
prime minister. The only problem
is Socks, while perhaps an ade
quate politician, might be too
clean for the often dirty game of
running for office.
The most amusing party sup
ports the admirable goal of a
peaceful country. To ensure peo
ple are in harmony, they plan to
fly a plane continuously around
the northern part of the nation,
filled with people practicing
yoga. Supposedly this will allow
the country to reach a state of
goodwill.
Apparently, the southern re
gions, filled only with farmers
and skiers, do not need the
added karma.
One final note: New Zealand is
located just off the coast of Aus
tralia. While it is often assumed
by naive Texans to be in Europe,
it is not. It cannot be, because the
Europeans have the European
Union. Their karma is complete.
New Zealand antics are remi
niscent of the pranks of American
college students. These campus
politics are often more bizarre
than anywhere else.
A prime example is the Pail
and Shovel Party that took over
the University of Wisconsin stu
dent government in 1978.
The group’s name originated
from its idea of taking the universi
ty’s budget and changing it all into
pennies. They then wanted to give
students shovels and pails, dump
the coins on the local mall and let
everyone help themselves.
The party’s other ideas in
cluded spending hundreds of
dollars on toys for students to
play with during registration
and changing all students’
names to Joe Smith to help pro
fessors who have trouble re
membering names.
The Pail and Shovel Party’s
most notable accomplishment
came when they spent $5,000 to
create a partial replica of the Stat
ue of Liberty to place on their
frozen lake.
So while Bill Clinton is having
a bit of a rough time with his
public image, there still remain
two options. He could convert the
U.S. budget into pennies or start
renting planes. Although there
just don’t seem to be enough
yoga masters available to combat
his little problem.
Lisa Foox is a senior journalism
major.
MPS THE. PRESIDENT
LOST CREDIBILITY,
YES OR HO?
VYfV> HE FoRTWPN\ING
enough? will the
B0ONMH6 ECCHONM
fwtewrcfcser
THIS ?..
HILLARYS
STILL
TICKED OFt
Renters should
take precautions
I would like for every student at
Texas A&M University to know my
situation so they can avoid the
same scenario.
I just got back from small claims
MAIL CALL
court in Bryan, where my room
mates and I were suing our former
landlord for our security deposit.
He won in court because the
judge did not believe three college
students, and we lost our deposit.
Do not let this happen to you.
Fill out a move-in inventory and take
pictures before you move in to
rental property.
Talk to previous tenants to find
out if your landlords are honest.
We, as students, enter another
world when moving to the Bryan-
College Station area, so make sure
you know what you are getting into
before you throw your money away.
Jason Fuchs
Class of ’99
*
:>
» *•
4 *
is
.-■x
>1
i
I
-s,