Hypocrisy on the Left

I caught an excerpt on the radio from the latest interview of Bill Clinton on "Larry King on Life Support" today. It hasn't aired yet, but the excerpt has been released. Larry, in one of his classic softball questions, asks Bill, in the wake of the revelations about Sen. Larry Craig, if he feels vindicated by the scandal since Craig had been so critical of Clinton during the impeachment hearings. Of course, Bill took the "high road" and answered in the negative, adding that he had learned long ago not to harp on the shortcomings of others. Indeed.

But here is the point that the hapless Larry King and his liberal brethren in the left-wing news media don't get-or want to obscure. Let me remind the reader. Bill Clinton was not impeached because he was playing "hide the baloney" in the White House with Monica Lewinski. Bill Clinton was impeached on charges of committing perjury and obstruction of justice in his efforts to cover up the affair once it began to come to light. This occurred during the course of a sexual harassment lawsuit brought by Paula Jones. Regardless of the merits of Jones' charges and regardless of what we may think of Ms Jones, the case had gone to court, and the president and every other witness was obligated by law to tell the truth under oath. That is the foundation of our system of justice, which cannot survive if we cannot count on witnesses to testify truthfully. If the president of the United States (the chief law enforcement officer of the land) does not tell the truth under oath, then who will? In my own law enforcement career, I had occasion to testify in courts and grand juries hundreds of times. I never committed perjury. I demand the same from my president.

But apparently, the mainstream news media would rather rewrite history and have us believe that the impeachment proceedings were all about adultery. They were not. When Clinton denied his affair with Lewinski under oath, he committed a crime.

In another sorry example, Diane Sawyer, in an interview with Special Prosecutor, Ken Starr, relayed the question that "so many of her friends" wanted her to ask- if he himself had ever committed adultery. Of course, Starr missed his chance to hit the ball out of the park. He merely answered in the negative, instead of reminding Ms Sawyer that the case had nothing to do with adultery and everything to do with perjury and obstruction of justice. His own sex life was not the business of Ms Sawyer-nor "her friends".

So now the media is having a field day with the Craig fiasco. That is all well and good. Craig is a pig who is making himself a laughing stock and dragging down the Republicans with him. He richly deserves being run out of office. Is he a hypocrite for having criticized the actions of Clinton while living his own secret life? Perhaps. If he was blasting Clinton for the adultery, then he is a hypocrite. If his criticism was focused only on the perjury and obstruction of justice, then that may be a different matter. Personally, I am not up to date on what his comments were during the impeachment proceedings. I am willing to keep an open mind on this point.

My main point is that the media is all too willing to give short play to the scandals involving Democrats, while jumping all over Republican scandals. I say we shouldn't ignore any of them, and we should give them equal weight.