On Tue, 05 Jan 1999 17:41:07 GMT, chuckhoffman@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>In article ,
> remove the dot and y wrote:

>> I think we should teach our children that witch hunts
>> for political purposes aren't acceptable.

>I don't know if you are old enough to remember Watergate but I certainly am:

I am too...

>The Democrat proceedings against Richard Nixon began for purely political
>purposes. In the beginning, the break-in at the Democratic National
>Headquarters in the Watergate Hotel was a third-rate political dirty trick --
>nothing more or less than what both parties had been doing to each other for
>years. The Plumbers simply had the misfortune of getting caught.
>
>The cries of righteous indignation by the Democrats and their saber-rattling
>exacerbated Nixon's (admittedly not-too-bright) coverup of the surrounding
>events, the abuse of power, etc., and the attempts to use Federal agencies to
>combat political "enemies." It was only after this that some embarrassed
>Republicans joined in the call for impeachment.
>
>Nixon resigned when it became clear he did not have the votes for acquittal
>in the Democrat-controlled Senate which included, at that time, such notable
>left- wing radicals as Alan Cranston, Howard Metzenbaum and Edward Kennedy.
>
>Bill Clinton refuses to resign because it is clear there are not enough votes
>to convict in the Senate with a thin Republican majority.

Hmmmm, I think the two impeachment occurrences were
QUITE different in their origins, the seriousness and extent
of the offences, the potential effect on the stability of the
government, and on the extent of the partisanship with which
they were persued. The Nixon-Agnew corruption directly
affected the integrity of the government - the unproved
allegations against Clinton, even if proved, amount only
to an attempt to cover up a silly little affair... This is the
best $40,000,000 and five years of a special prosecutor
could dig up against Clinton. The same money/effort directed
against almost any of our previous presidents would most
probably have produced more of substance as a basis for
impeachment... Heck, representatives like Bar of Georgia
were looking to impeach Clinton before there was ANY basis,
no matter how weak, for impeachment... This has been a
partisan hatchet job from the very beginning. To find the
Nixon and Clinton impeachment attempts comparable is just plain silly!

And, could it be that Clinton refuses to resign since no
allegation against him has been proven, and to resign
would be to give in to the long-term, purely political
efforts of "'Bublicans" to get him out of office?

>Let's keep the facts straight and put a little historical perspective behind
>this issue.

Please do....!