Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

The GOP's Bill Clinton Double Standard

Posted by Bob Geiger at 11:00 AM on July 5, 2007.


Bob Geiger: The same GOP senators who fought to impeach Clinton because of the Monica Lewinsky affair remain silent or call for a pardon of Libby, whose crimes amount to treason.

Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) was aghast. He was indignant as hell about how having a high public official involved in something like perjury and obstruction of justice can damage the very foundation on which our nation was built -- and he had the harsh words to show for it.

"By his words and deeds he chose to place himself above the law. By his words and deeds he has undermined the rule of law in America to the great harm of this nation," the Kansas Republican said. "By his own words and deeds, he has undermined the truth-finding function of the judiciary, at great harm to that branch of our government. By his words and deeds, he had done great harm to the notions of honesty and integrity that form the underpinnings of this great republic."

And here's the Brownback kicker: "We have lost many things over the past few months: trust in public officials, respect for the rule of law, confidence in the truth of the White House's public statements. But perhaps the most tragic loss has been the steady erosion of our societal standards."

That's Brownback in his closed-door impeachment statement on President Bill Clinton, that was read into the Congressional Record on February 12, 1999.

You didn’t get all excited thinking he was commenting on that Scooter Libby thing, did you?

I can understand if you did. After all, Libby was convicted of those same charges and sentenced within federal guidelines to a 30-month prison sentence, only to have his friend George W. Bush decide on Monday that anything over, well, zero days in jail was "excessive" when it comes to a White House crony.

But then again, Brownback is hardly alone in the hypocritical silence being shown by the very same Republican Senators who in 1999 voted guilty on both the perjury and obstruction of justice charges against Clinton. The vote took place on that February 12, with the Senate acquitting Clinton of both articles of impeachment -- the perjury charge got 45 guilty votes while the obstruction-of-justice article resulted in a 50-50 split.

Of the 25 Republican Senators still in the Senate and who voted that day to convict Clinton on both articles of impeachment, not one of them has issued a public statement on the Libby sentence commutation in the three days since it occurred.

Not one.

There's not even a statement of support for Bush's lawless decision -- except from Fred Thompson who, while no longer in the Senate, has his sights set on convincing people that he's fit to be the next seedy Republican to occupy the White House.

All of this struck me as rather strange, so I thought I would go back and look at what some of them had to say about the rule of law, integrity and all of that stuff when it involved a Democrat and not one of their own.

And you're not going to believe this: What seems to be OK with them now, wasn't acceptable back in 1999.

Here's Wayne Allard (R-CO) on President Clinton:

"The Constitution is what preserves the rule of law, and guarantees that we remain a nation of laws, not of men.

"I hold the President to a higher standard because he is the chief law enforcement official of the nation. If he is above the law, then we have a double standard; one for the powerful, and one for the rest.

"The sworn oath is central not only to our Constitution, but also to the administration of justice. Our legal system would not function without it."
And John McCain (R-AZ) seems to think that swearing to tell the truth is a pretty darned important thing to abide by:

"All of my life, I have been instructed never to swear an oath to my country in vain. In my former profession, those who violated their sworn oath were punished severely and considered outcasts from our society. I do not hold the President to the same standard that I hold military officers to. I hold him to a higher standard."
Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) gives a moving statement about how we should hope that history looks back kindly at how we observed the rule of law:

"I was reminded as well, however, that the laws of our Country are applicable to us all, including the President, and they must be obeyed. The concept of equal justice under law and the importance of absolute truth in legal proceedings is the foundation of our justice system in the courts.

"A hundred years from now, when history looks back to this moment, we can hope for a conclusion that our Constitution has been applied fairly and survives, that we have come to principled judgments about matters of national importance, and that the rule of law in American has been sustained."
And George Voinovich (R-OH) made a good case for impeachment no matter the circumstances -- are we listening Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid? -- when he said "I sincerely believe that this country can survive the removal of a popular president who has forfeited public trust. But, our country cannot survive the abandonment of trust itself."

Imagine how well we could survive the removal of a president who's about as popular as Ann Coulter at a Democratic National Committee mixer.

So given all of that and the equally strident statements made in 1999 by so many of their colleagues, it's odd that there's not one similarly scathing statement about George W. Bush deciding to effectively pardon a convicted criminal just because he's a loyal Bushie -- oh, and also to keep him from coming forward with the truth about the outing of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame.

It could be that the Senate is in recess and that all of their press secretaries are vacationing in Nepal and simply can't get to their laptops. No, it can't be that, because they seem to be finding time to comment on other issues that, perhaps, they consider more pressing. Kit Bond (R-MO) has released three statements since Monday but they have titles like "Bond Attends New National Guard Facility Ribbon-Cutting" and "Bond: Good Vision is Fundamental to Learning." Judd Gregg (R-NH) is all atwitter this week over his support for "Granite State Ocean And Fisheries Research" and Dick Lugar (R-IN) is incredibly excited about the "…first E-85 ethanol pump in Washington, D.C."

But maybe it's just possible that all of these Republican Senators are a bunch of cynical, hypocritical cowards who simply don’t have the guts to speak with what little conscience they have on this issue.

I think I'll go with that one.

Update: Wow, a lot of you are really curious about the 25 Republican Senators (who are still in the Senate) who were so harsh on President Clinton in 1999, only to turn a blind eye to the Libby commutation. Here they are.

Digg!

Bob Geiger is a political writer, specializing in coverage of the United States Senate for AlterNet and other Progressive web sites. You can reach Bob at geiger.bob@gmail.com and read more from him at BobGeiger.com.


Notes From The Senate All-Nighter
Bob Geiger: The rhetoric is flying in the Capitol.
July 18, 2007.
Leahy: Bush is "Contemptuous of the Congress"
Bob Geiger: Judiciary Committee Chairman rips Bush stonewalling
July 10, 2007.
No Joy This Fourth of July
Bob Geiger: How far we've fallen under Bush.
July 4, 2007.
The GOP: Grand Obstruction Party
Bob Geiger: When you have no ideas, block those of others
June 28, 2007.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
what?
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Jul 5, 2007 11:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You mean you were surprised by this???

They've been silent this far... they will be silent quite a bit farther.

Its not about HAVING morals or ethics... its about being percieved as the part of morals and ethics. Huge difference.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thanks for the tour down memory lane
Posted by: eddie torres on Jul 5, 2007 12:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Senate statements of these arch-conservatives in a previous impeachment scenario just go to show how principle and the rule of law are irrelevant when it comes to party loyalty: they will uniformly rally around The Bush and The Angler if Democrats waste their resources on an impeachment effort.

Geiger's piece also raises this question: If Republicans catch sight of their own PR, will they self-destruct like matter and anti-matter colliding?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Double? Try TRIPLE standard.
Posted by: elgeck0 on Jul 5, 2007 2:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
According to Reuters, the White House is now accusing the Clintons of hypocrisy with regard to the Libby case. My grandmother used to call that "the pot calling the kettle black."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ANYONE...
Posted by: Roverton on Jul 6, 2007 9:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... seriously comparing Clinton's tryst with a war crime is either a sociopath or an emotional child. They are not to be taken seriously. They're mentally ill.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Call the Orkin man...
Posted by: realist on Jul 6, 2007 11:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anybody remember newly-selected President George W. Bush saying the White House was going to need "a good fumigating" once the Clintons left office? What a joke! But now we've got a really serious infestation, and Bush is commuting the sentences of the cockroaches.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

GOP HYPOCRITES
Posted by: fg on Jul 6, 2007 11:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
. . . but sexual dalliances are worse than treason LOL.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: GOP HYPOCRITES Posted by: gathaiga
Here's another kicker on the double standard front
Posted by: lessbread on Jul 6, 2007 4:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Guess who was Mark Rich's attorney? Scooter Libby.

My Reasons for the Pardons, Bill Clinton, NY Times, February 18, 2001

[snip]
...
The pardons that have attracted the most criticism have been the pardons of Marc Rich and Pincus Green, who were indicted in 1983 on charges of racketeering and mail and wire fraud, arising out of their oil business.

Ordinarily, I would have denied pardons in this case simply because these men did not return to the United States to face the charges against them. However, I decided to grant the pardons in this unusual case for the following legal and foreign policy reasons:
...
(7) the case for the pardons was reviewed and advocated not only by my former White House counsel Jack Quinn but also by three distinguished Republican attorneys: Leonard Garment, a former Nixon White House official; William Bradford Reynolds, a former high-ranking official in the Reagan Justice Department; and Lewis Libby, now Vice President Cheney's chief of staff;
...
[/snip]

I hardly expect the dunce in chief to pen a letter like that for the NYT...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

gathaiga
Posted by: gathaiga on Jul 7, 2007 6:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Libby is small potatos. The true criminals are Bush, Cheney, and their corporate puppetmasters and the nutless wonders who claim to be "Dumocrats"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]