By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Original Sources
The word from Mullah Mohammed Omar, leader of Afghanistan's Taliban army, tossed in his 2 cents about the Clinton-Lewinsky affair. They say forget impeachment and stone Clinton to death. The group's weekly newspaper, Harakat ul Ansar, quoted Omar as saying, "Clinton is a confessed sinner and a bad person.''
Ruling out the possibility of holding negotiations with Clinton, Omar was quoted as saying ``It is absolutely not possible to negotiate with such a person and he should be removed (from power) and stoned to death. He is of bad character.''
In strict Islam it is a capital offense to have sex outside of marriage and it is punishable by stoning. Clinton has confessed to an inappropriate relationship with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
Afghanistan's ruling Taliban army has imposed a strict form of Islamic law on its country since taking over the capital of Kabul in 1996. The Islamic law is basically the Law of Moses that called for stoning those involved in adultery.
What I find interesting in this situation is that Omar called for the stoning to death of Clinton, not Lewinsky. The problem in the New Testament, for example, when the self-righteous scribes and Pharisees brought a woman "caught in the very act" of adultery they said to him, "Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?" Of course, these religious rulers were trying to trap Jesus. But Jesus answered saying, ""He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." If the woman was caught "in the very act" the scribes and Pharisees obviously also knew who the man involved was. But he was not brought to Jesus. Only the woman was brought to him. Jesus did not repudiate the law. According to law, the woman's sentence would have been stoning. But, so would the man's sentence be stoning. Apparently Jesus knew very well that the scribes and Pharisees were also adulterers. Perhaps the man involved in the case was one of them.
Makes you kind of wonder what Jesus would say to America today about Clinton-Lewinsky. The Clinton spin is that "everyone does it" and the country should just forget about it. Well, of course, everyone doesn't commit adultery. Everyone doesn't get involved with an intern on the job in a government office. And, of course, Jesus didn't condone the adultery. When the guilty scribes and Pharisees, condemned by the their own conscience, sneaked off one by one, Jesus asked the woman, "Where are your accusers? Has no man condemned thee?" The woman answered, "No man, Lord." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."
Clearly, Jesus would not participate in a one sided application of law. He did not condemn her to stoning, but on the other hand it didn't say to her, "Well, obviously the scribes and Pharisees are also adulterers and so what you did was OK. He said, "Go and sin no more."
It's interesting that the people of America, while continuing to give Clinton a "favorable opinion" rating which ranged from 57 percent in January to 58% percent in the first week of August, only gave Lewinsky a "favorable opinion" rating of 30% in January to an 18% approval rating in August, according to the Gallup poll. It would appear that the public believes that it is more reprehensible for an unmarried 24-year-old to have sex outside of marriage than for a 52-year-old married man with a child to have sex outside of marriage. Kenneth Starr, who is merely conducting the investigation on the subject, searching for information on whether or not the President committed a felony, had a "favorable opinion" rating of 24% in January, six points lower than Lewinsky and a whopping 33 points lower than Bill Clinton.
While "stoning" in modern America may, at this point, be only verbal, it is interesting to contemplate what kind of results we would get if we asked America: Would you approve of stoning Kenneth Starr? Monica Lewinsky? Bill Clinton?
Apparently the people polled believe that somehow Kenneth Starr is more to blame for the mess we are in than either Monica Lewinsky or Bill Clinton. Also, although the Gallup poll doesn't break down the poll for men and women, I strongly suspect that most of his supporters are women.
What seems even more revealing is a question that asked if the people think Clinton is "honest and trustworthy." 34% indicated they thought he was in the early August polled. 43% say that Clinton "shares" their values," and only 40% say that he "shows good judgment."
That almost has to mean that the 43% who supposedly "share" Clinton's values are people who see no problem in committing adultery on the job and then lying to the whole nation about it.
The Taliban, of course, have been labeled as "terrorists." Lest people be confused and think the Taliban and Osama bin Laden are one and the same - they aren't. While Osama bin Laden came from Saudi Arabia to help the Taliban, the Taliban is the group, which America once labeled "freedom fighters" when they were battling the Russians. And why were they fighting the Russians? Well, according to the Taliban's website (It's amazing who has websites these days) "The Taliban have announced themselves, 'O Muslims can you only see the power of America? This is why you are allying us with them. Can you not see the power of Allah? He is the creator of America. Justice is that you declare openly that the aid of Allah is with the Taliban. The nation which has defeated the barbaric Russians, how can the Americans defeat them?'"
It was to the Taliban, dubbed brave freedom fighters ten years ago, that the USA gave Stinger missiles. Now, because once they received large amounts of American aid, weapons and training, The Taliban in the article are trying to convince other Muslims that they really aren't tools of the evil Americans, and that, actually, they did in the Russians all by themselves - with Allah assistance. So much for loyalty among those we send weapons to.
Off hand it appears to me that those people in the White House who have spent months demonizing the "Christian Right" has little to worry about from the Christians. They need to keep an eye on those non-Christian folks that are being praised and who religions are being taught in public schools. In the name of "multi-culturalism" our children are being taught all kinds of non-Christian religious philosophy and the cultural norms are be foisted on us a little at a time in the name of liberal tolerance and political correctness. Those who claimed America is a Christian nation have been labeled as right wing extremists.
At least you have to admire the Taliban for their consistency. They don't change their views on their moral code based on polling data or the fact that the perpetrator of the adultery happens to the most powerful man in the world who, if annoyed, can shoot off missiles to their country. What's good enough for some peasant couple in Afghanistan who commit adultery they believe is good enough for the American president?
It does create a problem, however, in finding the right cubbyhole to put folks in. Is the Taliban what they claim to be, a group of religious scholars intent upon preserving a strict moral and religious code - sort of Amish Muslims - or are they, as the Clinton Administration tells us- terrorists?
Recently a young reader commented that she was "surprised" that I had said Richard Nixon did not know in advance that the "plumbers," a group who had been tasked to find and stop leaks of data deemed part of the secure material which would, if known, help America's enemies. And, most of the history revisionists who claim to be reporters today regularly write that Nixon was forced to resign because he was behind the Watergate break-in.
That was not true. In fact, the Nixon tapes of Oval Office conversations clearly proved that he did not know in advance about the break-in and used some rather strong language (that he was also criticized for) when he found out about it.
In fact, Nixon tried hard to prevent the tapes from being made public, largely because many discussion were taped that did have to do with information which would be helpful to America's enemies, and because of his occasional swearing on those tapes. But, perhaps his greatest reluctance to hand over the tapes to Sen. Sam Ervin, Jr., (D-NC) Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, known to Americans today as Watergate Committee, was his comments about the Congress. His statements about the Democrat Congress, and Sam Ervin in particular, were to say the least not complimentary.
The turmoil in the country was not caused because of any accusation that Richard Nixon sent the "plumbers" into the Democratic headquarters in the Watergate Hotel. It was caused by a huge debate being raged over whether or not his attempts to cover-up the misdeeds of young, over-zealous aides was an impeachable offense. He did, indeed, find out about the Watergate break-in and was angry over it, which was revealed on the Nixon tapes. However, he lied after the fact to protect his young aides.
So, at issue was his lie about it after the fact. What was tearing the country apart was the question "Is a lie an impeachable offense." A history professor in Arkansas, who was running for Congress against Rep. John Paul Hammerschmidt, said lying certainly WAS and impeachable offense. Today the issue is not just lying being an impeachable offense. The entire nation has concluded that, since everyone lies in America today over everything, lying is no big deal. But some people believe that lying under oath ought to still be an impeachable offense. Nixon's lie was primarily to the media. He denied any knowledge of the break-in, even after he found out about it, during press conferences. He also refused to testify as demanded by the Ervin committee, citing executive privilege.
At that time, the young Arkansas history professor, a young man named William Jefferson Clinton, said as part of his campaign against Hammerschmidt, "I think it's plain that the president should resign and spare the country the agony of this impeachment and removal proceeding," Clinton said. "I think the country could be spared a lot of agony and the government could worry about inflation and a lot of other problems if he'd go on and resign." At issue was the fact that Rep. Hammerschmidt said after the president's revelations he was not sure whether Mr. Nixon's actions legally were impeachable.
Clinton said there was "no question that an admission of making false statements to government officials and interfering with the FBI and the CIA is an impeachable offense."
When the articles of impeachment were drawn in the Nixon case, one of them was because Nixon cited executive privilege in refusing to personally testify before the Ervin committee. Because he would not testify and because he refused to release to the committee the tapes of his conversations with his aides in the Oval Office, he was accused of "obstructing justice."
Nixon believed that making public conversations held between himself and his aides would not only cause him problems, but would make it impossible to have a private conversation in the Oval Office. The Democrats went to court and a liberal Supreme Court required the Republican President the release tapes that had been made in order to have an accurate historical account of his presidency. To this day, those tapes are not in the Nixon Library. They are still in the possession of the Congress.
On May 22, 1974, Richard Nixon responded to the House Judiciary Committee concerning its Subpoenas Requiring Production of Additional Presidential Tape Recordings and Nixon's personal dairy.
Nixon said in part: "On April 30, 1974, in response to a subpoena of the House of Representatives dated April 11, 1974, I submitted transcripts not only of all the recorded Presidential conversations that took place that were called for in the subpoena, but also of a number of additional Presidential conversations that had not been subpoenaed. I did this so that the record of my knowledge and actions in the Watergate matter would be fully disclosed, once and for all.
"Even while my response to this original subpoena was being prepared, on April 19, 1974, my counsel received a request from the Judiciary Committee's counsel for the production of tapes of more than 140 additional Presidential conversations--of which 76 were alleged to relate to Watergate--together with a request for additional Presidential diaries for extended periods of time in 1972 and 1973.1
"On May 22, 1974, the White House issued the texts of two letters from James D. St. Clair, Special Counsel to the President, to John M. Doar, counsel to the House Judiciary Committee, replying to the committee request of April 19, 1974, and discussing separately the subpoenas for materials relating to the milk support price and ITT antitrust decisions. The texts of the letters are printed in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (vol. 10, p. 539).
"Reference was made in Mr. St. Clair's letters to two "definitive papers" prepared by the White House on the milk support and ITT subjects, the texts of which are printed in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (vol. 10, pp. 20 and 28).
"The subpoenas dated May 15 call for the tapes of the first 11 of the conversations that were requested on April 19, and for all of the diaries that were requested on April 19. My counsel has informed me that the intention of the Committee is to also issue a series of subpoenas covering all 76 of the conversations requested on April 19 that are thought to relate to (Pg. 451) Watergate. It is obvious that the subpoenaed diaries are intended to be used to identify even more Presidential conversations, as a basis for yet additional subpoenas.
"Thus, it is clear that the continued succession of demands for additional Presidential conversations has become a never-ending process, and that to continue providing these conversations in response to the constantly escalating requests would constitute such a massive invasion into the confidentiality of Presidential conversations that the institution of the Presidency itself would be fatally compromised.
"The Committee has the full story of Watergate, in so far as it relates to Presidential knowledge and Presidential actions. Production of these additional conversations would merely prolong the inquiry' without yielding significant additional evidence. More fundamentally, continuing ad infinitum the process of yielding up additional conversations in response to an endless series of demands would fatally weaken this office not only in this Administration but for future Presidencies as well.
"Accordingly, I respectfully decline to produce the tapes of Presidential conversations and Presidential diaries referred to in your request of April 19, 1974, that are called for in part in the subpoenas dated May 15, 1974, and those allegedly dealing with Watergate that may be called for in such further subpoenas as may hereafter be issued.
"However, I again remind you that if the Committee desires further information from me about any of these conversations or other matters related to its inquiry, I stand ready to answer, under oath, pertinent written interrogatories, and to be interviewed under oath by you and the ranking Minority Member at the White House." Sincerely, RICHARD NIXON
On May 22, 1973 Nixon issued a statement that telephones were taped of a number of Henry A. Kissinger's National Security Council staff members and phones of some journalists to find out who was leaking information about sensitive national security operations to the press. He said in that statement that, during the spring and summer of 1970, he was disturbed by bomb threats and campus demonstrations that reached "critical proportions" and by deteriorating relations between FBI and other intelligence agencies in the federal government. To address the problem he approved a covert operation, which was adamantly opposed by J. Edgar Hoover, then director of the FBI, to find out whom was doing the leaking.
I thought of those times when the media and the White House started putting pressure on Kenneth Starr to "find out who was leaking" information to the press about the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. The obstruction of justice, if it is defined as it was in Nixon's administration by Democrats, we see daily emanating from the Clinton White House makes Nixon's "plumbers" look like rank amateurs. And, Nixon was concerned about national security issues. Bill Clinton is concerned primarily, as he himself said in his 4-minute speech on August 17th, about personal embarrassment over his true relationship with intern Monica Lewinsky.
As the Watergate incident, and the feeding frenzy and determination to oust Richard Nixon from the White House, consumed more and more of the public, and the president's, time and energy it became clear that Nixon would eventually be driven out of office. On August 9, 1998, he told the public that he no longer had "a strong enough political base in Congress" to justify further efforts to vindicate himself. "I have never been a quitter," he said. "To leave office before my term is completed is opposed to every instinct in my body. But as President I must put the interests of America first. America needs a full time president and a full time Congress, particularly at this time with problems we face at home and abroad. To continue to fight through months ahead for my personal vindication would almost totally absorb the time and attention of both the President and the Congress in a period when our entire focus should be on the great issues of peace abroad and prosperity without inflation at home. Therefore I shall resign the presidency effective noon tomorrow."
By the time of his funeral in April 1994, history had clearly begun to vindicate him. I never liked Nixon and never voted for him. But I recognized in 1974, as I have mentioned previously, that he was pilloried for behavior, wiretapping suspected enemies of the state, that was not only common, but praised when it was done extensively by John F. Kennedy and his Attorney General, brother Bob Kennedy. The rules changed when it was Richard Nixon, not John F. Kennedy or Lyndon Johnson in the White House.
The media and his defenders claim that Clinton's lies and obstruction of justice are "private" matters and therefore should just be ignored by the American people, whereas Nixon's lies and obstruction of justice were terrible because they involved affairs of state.
Actually, Nixon at least had an honorable motive. He really was motivated by a real concern for America and what was happening to it. Clinton, on the other hand, is motivated entirely by a desire to cover-up personal lust and immorality. History will not only not vindicate Bill Clinton, it will crucify him.
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus warned, "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged." (Matt 7:1-2) In 1974 history professor Clinton judged Richard Nixon by a judgement that he, his spin-doctors and most of the talking heads on TV now claim would not be fair.
What goes around comes around, even for the Bill Clintons of the world.
To comment: mmostert@originalsources.com