[lbo-talk] Re: Hitchens

[C. G. Estabrook]

Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice, both of
which he was guilty of.  To let him off because you don't like some of the
people who otherwise would cheer is nuts -- and we can see that more
clearly now, when it seems that the results of his conviction would have
been better than what actually happened.  It would also have been
worthwhile to rescue the hoary device of impeachment for later use. --CGE

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Doug Henwood wrote:


> C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> 
> >I think Hitchens' position on the Bush wars is contemptible, but he was
> >right about the impeachment.  Clinton was guilty as charged and should
> >have been removed.
> 
> That's nuts. Clinton lied about a blowjob. Who cares? I'm sure every 
> president would be theoretically impeachable, but why single him out? 
> Bush's crimes are far worse than lying about a blowjob. And if he'd 
> been impeached, it would have been a great victory for the Christian 
> right, which deserves nothing but defeat. It was so wonderful to 
> watch Weyrich's reaction - admitting he was wrong about the corrupt 
> elite leading a moral majority. The majority is corrupt too, he 
> admitted. Now if that corrupt majority would only own up to it, 
> instead of revering the commandments.
> 
> Doug
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>