OK, America, it's time to wake up.

We've had our brushes with schoolyard excuses from the White House and every Clintonmonger he can enlist. It wasn't a lie, it isn't a lie, and even if it was a lie, it's not that serious, right? That's the official White House and Democratic party line, isn't it? All this is just about sex, right? A little private affair between two consenting adults, that's all.

Well, let's take this in segments. To begin with, Clinton lied multiple times regarding the situation, including baldfacedly and with passion to we the people. You'd have to be from another planet not to recognize that truth, whatever the spinmeisters try to drum into your heads. Even members of Clinton's own party have continually admitted as much. So why did they do all this soul-bearing? Because they know that even they couldn't float the concept that Clinton didn't lie. You saw it, or heard about it on the news, if you're not a hermit. And, if you have an ounce of common sense and information, you realize that he lied. Even he plainly admitted that he had withheld evidence in the Jones civil proceeding (I did hear that, didn't I?) in his 'attack apology.' (Nixon brought us the non-denial denial, and Clinton follows up with the attack apology.)

So, the Clintonmongers tried to shift the field from that obvious truth; perhaps a little misdirection would get them out of the hole that their Liar-in-Chief dug for them all. Let's see, there was the 'doesn't fit under the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors' argument. Let's examine that one last time, with thanks for some help from Ann Coulter's new book. She is a Constitutional lawyer (in other words, she has spent the majority of her career as an attorney in studying the Constitution). In it, one of the first myths she dispels is the question of 'high misdemeanors.' It turns out that there is such a term; it comes from British law stretching to well before America was even a dream, and was still in effect during the time of the framing of the Constitution. The phrase most likely was adapted by the Founding Fathers wholesale from its meaning under British law, as it was understood at the time. And, under that meaning, this type of situation is EXACTLY what was meant by the term 'high misdemeanor.' As a matter of fact, Coulter presents British case law predating the Constitution in which officials were...I believe the term is 'impeached' there as well...for high misdemeanors defined as philandering and adultery. So spare me that tired line...it just ain't true.

Then there was the introduction of the concept of moral relativism, or, again more appropriately, moral recidivism, in which it's OK if you screw up. Now if that isn't the most lawyerlike defense I've ever heard! OK, we can't prove he's innocent, so let's just get everyone to forgive him instead. Let's get them to forget about justice and the legal system, about how everyone, from the most worthless peon to, yes, even the President of the United States, is supposed to be treated equally under the eyes of the law. Remember the Preamble? (That phrase rings a little too much like Remember the Alamo for my taste.) Seems to me it was George Bush who advanced the idea of a kinder, gentler nation, not El Jefe Mentiroso. (Sounds like a cigar, eh?) Again, spare me the 'grey area' defense.

There is very little grey area, if you look at it ethically. He had sex with a woman who is not his wife while married, no matter how he defined or will define it; you know that and I know that. If it's not sex, why the hell is it referred to as 'oral sex?' So sex is only intercourse now, huh? Yeah, right. You and I both know that's a line, whether you want to admit it or not, unless you're a Puritan.

Clinton is, by all accounts, an intelligent man. Is there anyone out there foolish enough to advance the argument that he 'just didn't know what he was doing?' He knew exactly what he was doing with Lewinsky, and he also knew that he had to cover it up, and so he did so using that wonderfully political phrase, 'plausible deniability.' So he didn't directly say to Lewinsky or Currie or whoever, "I want you to lie." But he damned well implied the same thing. Read the grand jury testimonies.

Then he compounded it not only by lying about it once or twice or three times, but multiple times, through multiple approved spinmeisters, for eight months! He cost you and I, the American public, somewhere on the order of 8 million dollars with his series of lies for the 7 months during which Ken Starr's investigation focused on Lewinsky and he didn't 'fess up! Is any of this beginning to bother anyone out there? Aren't you insulted that he would think he could get away with such BS lines, that he and his band of advisors would expect their plain lies to float with the American public? And that he EXPECTS to be treated differently under the eyes of the law?

And when did he finally admit to it? When physical evidence forced him to. Do you seriously think that he would have made any kind of similar speech on August 17 unless he had been forced to a grand jury which had the smoking gun? If you do, then you're exactly what Bill Clinton is looking for; the perfect audience, who will buy whatever tripe he feeds them. Maybe it was just a smoking cigar after all.

Face it. He lied, and he lied, and he parsed, and he lied, and then he parsed some more. He committed at least one high crime (perjury, obstruction of justice, abuse of power, take your pick) and at least one high misdemeanor, according to the term from which it was derived and according to the Constitution. He should have resigned on August 17, or better yet come clean last January, when he had a chance. But he didn't, and he won't. You will never hear those two immortal words come out of Clinton's mouth: "I lied." But whether he says them or not, no matter what he does, you and I both know the truth (or, more accurately, the lack of it). Now the question is, are you prepared to admit that? Because once you do, there's nothing that can possibly justify Clinton being allowed to stay in office.

I know, you like the guy. So if you liked Charlie Manson, would you want to be one of his victims? If you liked Jim Jones, would you stand in that Kool-Aid line? Face it; Clinton in four days took more lives than both of those mass murderers combined, under the guise of 'national security' and with the clear intention of 'wagging the dog.' Can't you see how strained and hurried his foreign policy is? He's running around to every place of strife in the world, looking for that magical ingredient that'll buy him back into Camelot.

Unfortunately, it just won't work because, among other things, no one can trust him, neither the American public nor foreign leaders. Whose interests do they think Clinton is serving in his little armtwisting displays, like the Wye accord? Benjamin Netanyahu said it plainly enough, when asked what he thought of the U.S. role in the Palestinian/Israeli peace process: "There are only two parties" involved in the peace process. Guess what? Neither of them is us, no matter how much Clinton wants to pull off a Camp David accord. The Wye Accord would have been more aptly named the 'Why? Accord.' Face it, he ain't Jimmy Carter, and he never will be. He's the joke of the century, if not the millennium. There isn't a single one of those peace efforts that is a success.

This is the man you're defending? Let's get real, folks. It's time to tell the pollsters what they can do with their polls.

- The Watcher (The day that Clinton gets away with this crap is the day America ceases to exist.)