The Clinton scandal? The real scandal is that there is no scandal. President Clinton has done nothing most other American Presidents have not done. Without a doubt that also includes lying to Congress. What is really happening is the new American monopoly media is merely trying out its muscle using Clinton as the target, and that is a scandal! It's a media scandal. That's very scary!
I am scared by the outrageous scam against President Clinton that U.S. mainstream media has been conducting about his private sex life. I am scared because it is the first time in our history that a President in office has been attacked not for political activities but for his private life. I am scared because this media attack is across the board in all major media. I am scared because lying to Congress about sexual activities is considered a reason to impeach an otherwise popular President. I am scared by the allegation that accepting a campaign contribution from an American branch of a foreign organization or corporation is in the case of Clinton designated as "contribution from a foreign nation." I am scared by the fact that members of Clinton's own political party are going along with the scam.
I am scared by the implications of this for future American politics and I am doubly scared when I consider the possible reason for the obviously silly scam that has been tested on the American people by this media effort to use such a method to discredit a popular President!
I am scared despite the fact that I didn't even vote for Clinton. I voted for a third party because Clinton was such a "good Republican," pushed through NAFTA and GATT and didn't fight items on the Republican's "Contract with America." Now the very people he has aided choose the most unlikely reasons possible with which to impeach him. Why?
Is it a test to discover what the power of the media now is, now that the Telecommunications Bill has given U.S. media monopoly power over TV, radio, newspapers? Are they testing this new power in order later to use it for far more important reasons? Is Clinton just a guinea pig and this a "lab test"?
Let's look at the issues on which Clinton is being attacked:
The President's private life
Way back in George Washington's presidency the courts decided that the private life of an official could not be attacked. Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury, was taken to court on ethics because of an affair he had at that time with a married woman. The court's decision was a decree that no government official, elected or appointed, could be politically attacked on the basis of his private life activities. This has been the law ever since. How does it happen that this rule has now been rescinded for President Clinton?
If presidents' mistresses can be a danger to the State and a reason for impeachment, General Eisenhower would certainly have been impeached. His mistress, during the Cold War in fact, was a prominent Communist member of the USSR, in that she was the wife of the Soviet's #1 military general! In the eyes of Americans, she could have been considered a spy for the enemy! That certainly at that time could have been considered a reason for President Eisenhower's impeachment. Yet there was no such move; the press kept its silence until Eisenhower was out of office.
What would the uproar have been if that were Clinton instead of Eisenhower? Furthermore, we know well that most American presidents have had mistresses while in office, including President Bush. Kennedy's sexual activities make Clinton look like a schoolboy; furthermore Kennedy shared a mistress, long-term, with America's #1 Mafia boss, and that was not mentioned until he was out of office.
What would have been done to Clinton if he had done that?
Lying to Congress
President Johnson lied to Congress in order to enlarge the war with North Vietnam. As a result, many thousands of American young men were killed in Vietnam. He lied about Laos and Cambodia, declaring we were not fighting there when we were illegally attacking these countries. Yet there was no effort at impeachment.
What if Clinton had done that?
Over the years we have charted lies to Congress by presidents, legislators and military generals to the point that lies to Congress seem a part of the normal American political process.
So Clinton lied when "illegally" questioned about his sex life when by earliest U.S. law presidents should not be questioned about their private lives. Does this innocent lie equate with treason against the state, the reason for a president's impeachment? Of course it does not!
Once the TV and all the rest of mainstream media would have laughed at such ridiculous political gestures. Now our U.S. media plugs "The Clinton Scandal" across the spectrum in spite of the fact that Americans declare themselves opposed to this "news" while legislators of both parties feel obligated to go along with the scam, though it is not public opinion that forces them to do so.
So what is happening? What is going on that we the public do not know about? This is what we should all be asking ourselves.
There are a couple of things we can assume:
1) Legislators depend upon corporate campaign funds in order to keep their "temporary" four- or six-year jobs. So when corporations blow the horn to attack, they believe they must attack.
2) Because the Telecommunications Bill, written, reporters declare, by the corporations themselves and pushed through hurriedly by the Republican Party, gives corporations unlimited control of all media in any or all areas of the U.S. and the right to buy up all of it, we now have a mainstream media monopoly in this country. The corporations own it all, and can do their will as they own everybody-every TV network, newspaper chain, radio network with minuscule exceptions.
What do they have against Clinton? According to financial newsletters I receive, they fear that he may pass populist legislation especially now in that last months of his term in office. Remember, Clinton tried to do so at the beginning of his term. He failed and switched (rather abruptly it seemed to me, after the death of his best friend and aide Vincent Foster).
Corporations, funded largely by the stock market, fear populist legislation that might remove monies from them and waste money by giving some to the public to aid the taxpayers who furnish these monies. They believe that Clinton, elected on a populist platform, might once again try to fulfill those campaign promises before leaving office.
Standard campaign procedure, especially for Democrats, is to catch the voters with a populist platform, then if elected, take a pro-corporate stance. Clinton initially broke the rules by attempting to put his campaign promises into practice. By doing so, he proved he was not a real team player but a bit of an amateur at the Washington game. Consequently the financial mahouts have distrusted him ever since.
Is this all there is to the hate-Clinton stance of financiers and old-line political adepts, or is there an added reason for concentrated media-politico attack? Is the media blitz actually being used to test public gullibility, to discover how much the media can get away with if it spins even wilder stories to convince the all-too-gullible American public to back those schemes?
We have an economically illiterate American public. It responds to populist appeals. Our government acts on business needs of necessity. It conceals that fact with populist cover stories, the falsity of which are never revealed except by economists who deal with international finance. These international economists, so-called on the jackets of their books in public libraries, are rarely read by our voting public whose information comes from a media that never snitches the facts. Anyone who doubts that that statement is a fact should go read the amazing facts.
The ploy against Clinton is so untenable that it would not have been taken seriously in the 18th century. Now at the end of the 20th century it should have brought forth nothing but merry guffaws from public and politicians alike. Instead, it is taken seriously. That is why I am scared. If it works, I'll be doubly scared, scared for the future of our political process, scared for the future of constitutional democracy itself if corporate media gains the power to create what one savant predicted when he said, "If America ever becomes a dictatorship, it will be because the people voted it in." I would add "unknowingly voted it in."