TAKING A STAND FOR INTEGRITY IN LEADERSHIP 

As someone who initially supported William Jefferson Clinton in his bid for the presidency, this editor feels an urgent need to call for the initiation of impeachment proceedings against Clinton under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution for the United States of America. Many Americans supported Clinton because he seemed a preferable alternative to incumbent President and ex-CIA Director George Bush. At that time few Americans knew just how closely Clinton might be tied to the more corrupt operations of the Central Intelligence Agency, nor could we foresee just how dangerous a Clinton presidency might become.

Article II. Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

In any discussion regarding our Constitution, it is striking just how often reference is made to the thinking of past generations and just how seldom the Constitution has been reinterpreted in contemporary terms. Perhaps this is natural, because the thinking that brought this great document into existence, and the political will that has made it an enduring reality, are difficult to equal. The seminal words of Madison, Jefferson and the other Framers echo in our psyches, and we hesitate to engage in the presumption of a contemporary discussion.

Nevertheless, for any document to remain a living part of our culture, each generation must interpret that document and affirm it in contemporary terms. Otherwise our Constitution becomes merely a quaint milestone of history, not something to which the living can refer with weight and authority.

With this in mind, it is refreshing to read Mark Helprin's excellent piece, Impeach , which appears in the October 10, 1997 edition of the Wall Street Journal. Mr. Helprin is a heavyweight, an award winning scholar with impeccable credentials, a contributing editor to the Wall Street Journal, a former Guggenheim Fellow, and currently a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute. He challenges us to take a stand, to exercise our collective rights in accord with our Constitution, to implore our Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings against President William Jefferson Clinton:

Here we stand in a clearing of the most difficult century of human history, wanting our deserved rest, and standing with us may be the most corrupt, fraudulent and dishonest president we ever have known.....The task is to address the question of President William Jefferson Clinton's fitness for office in light of the many crimes, petty and otherwise, that surround, imbue and color his tenure. The president must be made subject to the law.....When that moment arrives it will signal the rejection of flattery, the rejection of intimidation, the rejection of lies, the rejection of manipulation, the rejection of disingenuous pretense, and a revulsion for the sordid crimes and infractions the president has brought to his office. It will come, if it does, in one word. One word with will lift the fog to show a field of battle clearly laid down. One word that will break the spell. One word that will clarify and cleanse. One word that will confound the dishonest. One word that will do justice. One word. Impeach.

While many letters from the public, printed in the October 16, 1997 edition of the Wall Street Journal, support Mr. Halprin's contention that impeachment proceedings should begin under the tenets of Article II. Section 4 of our Constitution, some readers attack Mr. Halprin. These attacks fall into two general categories.

The first group accuses Mr. Halprin of playing a cynical partisan game, citing the desperation of conservatives given Clinton's 65% approval rating and good economic times. Nothing has been proven these people say, and besides how would the infamous peccadilloes of Roosevelt and Kennedy have played given a more aggressive press; only the naive could expect any elected president to be without moral flaws. The second category of attack goes further, citing the old adage, "A good man does not make a good king." So what if a president lies, cheats, manipulates, misuses FBI files, uses the IRS to quell his enemies, and deals with the tyrannical government of Communist China as though she were our ally--times are good and Clinton gets the job done.

The problem with these arguments is that by insisting on moral relativism and by reducing all issues to the bottom line--times are good--no value is given to the high purpose that marked the creation of this great nation. Our Constitution is about limits.. It recognizes the American People as true sovereigns, endowed by our Creator with unlimited liberties and rights. We the People have surrendered only limited power to the federal government through the mechanism of our Constitution. And what defines us as Americans is the quality of the limits we impose on that government. No one expects absolute virtue in our leaders, and a certain amount of corruption is inevitable in any human endeavor. Nevertheless, if we acquiesce to a government that runs by fiat, if we permit the existence of a secret government that functions outside the control of the People, if we tolerate a leader who dares to put himself above the law, we fail to establish appropriate limits. We become little better than the Italians who sanctioned Mussolini because "he made the trains run on time," and perhaps no better than the Germans who turned a blind eye to Hitler and his SS because he successfully manipulated national pride and made sure that every German child had free access to the opera, concerts, and other cultural amenities. The limits we choose establish a minimum standard, and without such limits the bar moves lower, one notch at a time, until we arrive at a point where we elect a president whose character has a distinctly criminal hue.

Many courageous people have come forward these past few years in an attempt to expose the criminal hue of Clinton's character and to interpret our Constitution in contemporary terms. We are talking about Sarah McLendon, the octogenarian matriarch of journalism, who publicly challenged Clinton in a White House press conference about his involvement in illegal CIA drug smuggling and money laundering at Mena, Arkansas during the 1980's. We are talking about former Arkansas Deputy District Attorney Jean Duffey who went before the cameras in Obstruction of Justice to expose Clinton's cover-up of the murder of two teenage boys after they accidentally discovered the CIA drug running operation at the Mena airport. We are talking about former FBI agent and CIA asset Terry Reed in his book Compromised, who tells the story of how he and his wife were targeted for execution by their own government when they decided to curtail their involvement in the clandestine world of Bush, Clinton and CIA international drug running. We are talking about Dan Gifford and Amy Somer who staked both their personal and their professional fortunes to make the acclaimed documentary, WACO: The Rules of Engagement, which exposes the despicable murder of men, women, and children at Waco, Texas by Clinton's FBI. We are talking about the stand taken by former CIA agent Richard Nuccio, highlighted in the October, 1997 edition of George Magazine article, "Big Brother's Little Helper," where he exposes Clinton's threat to block congressional oversight of CIA activities.

The 1947 National Security Act created the CIA with one unfortunate side effect. It has fostered what Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan calls a "culture of secrecy" in which much of the government's activity has become classified. The TOP SECRET stamp is now used not only to protect national security but to cover up political embarrassments and misconduct. We must ask: Should actions of the state be shielded from scrutiny of the people or is the state accountable for the actions it carries out in their name? It's a question that was dear to the nation's founding fathers. This administration's answer would have astounded them.

Indeed, some videotapes like The Clinton Chronicles--which show that the number of Clinton associates who have been murdered, or who have at least died suspicious deaths, number in the scores--have now been around so long that they are in danger of showing up on American Movie Classics!

So if in the future we pretend innocence, if we attempt to claim, like all those "good Germans" of the 1930's and 40's, that we couldn't have known the true nature of our government under President William Jefferson Clinton, our tradition of a free press and our mostly unfettered access to the facts will make our lie apparent. The problem is not that we do not have access to information that would justify the initiation of impeachment proceedings, rather the problem is that the information is smothered by a blanket of complacent journalism. The criminal hue of Clinton's character does not make it into our six o'clock news reports. Most of us can, if we choose to look the other way, go about our daily lives with only a subliminal awareness of our crime of omission.

I would plead with all Americans to pay due heed to the mountain of evidence. This is not about petty matters like using the White House phones to solicit funds--a red herring if there ever was one. It is indeed about "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" that threaten the security and good name of our nation. Be willing to shoulder the burden of bringing these matters into your conscious awareness. Begin to share the information you have gathered with your friends , relatives, and co-workers. Do not be afraid to be labeled a "conspiracy nut," a "right-wing extremist" or a "professional malcontent." Simply present the evidence, responsibly and well, avoiding partisan polemics, and such labels cannot stick. As a nation we Americans have got to come to terms with the fact that our leaders are no longer operating in a manner that can even remotely be construed as "in our best interests."

With regard to whether or not anything has been "proven," only strong evidence is sufficient to begin impeachment proceedings. Once such proceedings are initiated by Congress, all evidence is put to the test, either to dismiss it or to prove it is true. In contemporary terms, perhaps we need to reinterpret the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" in light of what sociologists call "elite deviance"--that condition when a nation's rulers act as if they are above the law. In the beginning we need ask only one question, "Is there sufficient evidence to suspect that William Jefferson Clinton may be unfit to serve as our President because he suffers from the condition known as 'elite deviance'?"

Only if we are able to achieve a critical mass of Americans who are no longer willing to remain silent, and only if we eschew partisan politics in recognition of the fact that both Republicans and Democrats have good reason to hide their shameful involvement in CIA drug running, corrupt fund raising, influence peddling and other dubious activities, will we be able to hold our heads high as guardians of the liberty our forefathers fought and died for. Only in this way can we affirm our Constitution in contemporary terms and return it to a position of power and relevance in our lives.