I protest.

The "crimes" of Bill Clinton.

A few days ago, one "CP" left a comment on The Better Man calling me an idiot and accusing Clinton of "rape and humiliation of several women." I replied there and in email, to which he replied that I had "really told him" and again called me an idiot. Having a hobby of teaching pigs to sing, I sent him another email, requesting solid proof of his accusations of Clinton and asking him just what it's so important to him that Clinton be a criminal. I suggested in parting that

It's not idiocy to prefer proof before making a judgement. It is, however, extremely foolish to believe uncritically the statements of those with extreme political agendas and a willingness to do anything at all to advance those agendas.

In other words, if you think you hear truth from Limbaugh, Coulter and all the rest (those two being only the most extreme examples), then you really, really need to seriously think about where you're getting your information.

To which he replied at length, but I'll let him speak for himself:

Murder??? I don't remember saying anything about murder. Oh, you must mean Vince Foster, Ron Brown, several Arkansas state troopers and a couple of ladies rumored to have been Monica's predecessors. No, I am sure this was all just an odd string of coincidences.

Rush Limbaugh? I find him to be just slightly more opinionated and narrow minded than you. Ann Coulter? Have never listened to her, but I'll have to check her out.

Clinging tightly? Not quite. I am neither Republican nor conservative. You jump to an amazing number of conclusions based on a single statement. Feel proud, though - you are an exemplary Clinton apologist.

If the current president, or any republican president, were to be accused of even a small fraction of the Clinton shenanigans, I am sure that you & those of your ilk would be shrieking from the roof-tops, demanding resignation. (Remember Newt Gingrich?)

So, my dear Frank - I do not fit the mold you not-so-eloquently placed me in. I do check facts, more thoroughly than you, it would seem. I am independent in my views and associations, I do not buy into the drivel that seems to masquerade as intellectual honesty.

Finally, you "brave man", I write anonymously to possibly protect you and those like you. You see, once upon a time, a gentleman, (and I use the term loosely), with whom I had shared a similar internet conversation, came to my home and attempted to physically persuade me to see things his way. Let's just say he left my property in a different vehicle than the one he came in.

You seem like a nice guy. My "idiot" comment was uncalled for - I sincerely apologize. I would hope that you could re-examine the facts, even the ones you don't like, and arrive at an independent conclusion. But, then again - you have too much invested in your position, yes?

And now my reply, posted here just because I spent some time on it and thought it was worth more attention than a single email.

When someone uses argumentum ad hominem ("you're an idiot") rather than actually trying to address the substance of that with which he disagrees, he should expect what he will get, that is, to be lumped in with the mindless horde of limbots, dittoheads and freepers. That having been said, your apology is accepted.

You, on the other hand, should, as it were, mind the log in your own eye before attempting to remove the speck from mine. Given that one can never prove a negative and that I therefore cannot prove Clinton's innocence of your accusations of "rape and humiliation of several women," do you care to actually provide evidence, or at least a pointer to a (nonpartisan, please) source of such evidence?

Given Ken Starr's ten-year crusade, one would think that something would have been found that would stick. All that was found was a semen-stained dress, an affair, and a President that lied about said affair. Due to the hysteria of the Right, that resulted in a failed impeachment and a collossal waste of time and taxpayer money.

Rape is very serious, and to my knowledge no one outside of the fringe Right has even accused him of that crime.

Assertions are not evidence, and to date assertions are all that exist. Well, along with numerous distortions and outright lies on the side of the ultraconservatives. I still find it astonishing and perplexing that the Right so loathes Clinton.

If you're not a conservative, you certainly are echoing their opinions. That Clinton is a criminal is Conservative dogma these days. I can only go by what I see, and what I see is someone parrotting the ultraconservative line. You can call yourself "independent" all you like but until you stop with the unsubstantiated assertions and actually start providing evidence, I cannot take you seriously.

For myself, I do indeed think that Clinton is the better man and was by far the better President. I'm also convinced that history will agree resoundingly. I suspect in fact that history will condemn Bush, although it remains to be seen of just what his legacy will consist. If anything, Bush has made Clinton look better by contrast.

As for "shrieking from the rooftops," I don't form my opinions of politicans based on something as ultimately trivial as adultery. I don't give a good god damn what politicians stick their dicks into, as long as it's not the backside of the American public. Politicans, including Presidents, have affairs, it is the way it has been and is undoubtedly the way it will continue to be, for good or ill. (My objection to Newt was not his infidelity but his hypocrisy.) Unfortunately, George W. Bush is raping not some woman but the entire country, in the name of taking care of his friends the ultrarich. And meanwhile the working poor (not to mention those well below the poverty line) are taking it in the ass.

Worse, he has arrogated to himself powers that the Constitution does not give him. He has tried to place himself above the law with respect to the torture of prisoners and has denied American citizens of their Constitutional rights in cases such as that of Jose Padilla. And don't even start with the "terrorist" bullshit, because Padilla is a United States citizen who, theoretically at least, is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. So at this moment they have held an innocent man in a cell for more than two years, at the say-so of George W. Bush.

And then there are the lies that got us into the morass in Iraq, but that's an entirely different set of issues. Just let me say that I knew before the first bomb fell that it was a huge, huge mistake. Now Al Qaeda is back in business and our entire military is bogged down in an unwinnable situation.

For the record, I make just slightly under 100,000 per year as a software engineer in Southern California. I'm not one of the working poor but my parents were and I would very happily pay quite a bit more in taxes to see that those in need have the help they require. Unlike, for example, George W. Bush, who by his own admission doesn't even know any poor people and doesn't understand them.