According to a CNN report, [http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/20/impeach.opeds/index.html], practically every editorialist in the country, in nearly every newspaper in the land, is writing that Clinton shouldn't be removed from office, and that a trial should never take place. Let's just have us a little censure party instead, they say. This is plainly another example of the leftist bias of the print media.

I lived in Annapolis, Maryland for a couple of years, and was required to read the Washington Post almost every day of that time. Aside from the fact that I was surrounded by Redskins fans, this was the thing that I hated most about living there. I was subjected to two years of the most liberal paper in the country, and the standard left-wing, propagandistic drivel was all their opinion pages ever published. Editorial balance was a fantasy. It got to the point where I just wouldn't ever read the editorials because I knew what they were going to say before they said it.

So CNN includes a picture of the front page of the Washington Post, with 'Clinton Impeached' as the banner headline, apparently as an example of the newspapers stepping up to defend the Liar-in-Chief, yet never even quotes it in the article. I wonder why? You'd expect that the Post would support him, in the strongest terms possible.

Next in line is the Atlanta Journal-Constitution...which, according to the CNN article, actually called for Clinton's resignation, then flip-flopped when things started getting serious. All of a sudden, they wanted the Senate to just forget about a trial. "For the good of the country, end it now." Huh? For the good of your own political expediency, you mean. How can a newspaper with our country's premier document in its title, show so little concern about that document?

And, of course, the liberalistic L.A. Times weighed in on the left-wing parade. "Impeachment is a legal means of taking out of office a president who threatens the well-being of the republic. Even Clinton's most committed enemies ... can't claim that standard has been set." Wanna bet? An average of 230 or so men of the House of Representatives would disagree with you, many of them passionately. They can, and they have. Remember those two little articles of impeachment? Sorry, you can't rewrite that part of history, no matter how hard you try.

"Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have covered themselves with glory. Mud is more like it," was the observation of the San Francisco Examiner. The mudslinging has been all Democratic. The Republicans have continuously fought off the transparent Dem attempts to mislead them in the defense of the Constitution; and, meanwhile, based on *evidence* provided to them, came up with the articles of impeachment, as their OATH and DUTY required of them. Ask a Dem what those two words mean and you'll get a questioning look in response, or a diatribe on moral relativism.

As for moral relativism, it's rationalization in sheep's clothing. According to this 'doctrine', *anything* can be rationalized. Sort of like confession for unbelievers, with no penance. But I digress.

"The country deserves better than this, from its president and its Congress," says the San Jose Mercury News. Yeah, you're absolutely right. Democrats in Congress should find a little moral and intestinal fortitude and denounce the Liar-in-Chief (well, I'll give them the intestinal fortitude--some of them must be hung like elephants to tell the blatant lies they did at the House impeachment proceedings).

And so Clinton should follow the example of Bob Livingston, and put his country before himself. Oh, sorry, I forgot; there is no honor in this White House.

- The Watcher (Please pass the next portion of mud. You know you're gonna do it anyway. I will be happy to show it for the self-serving BS that it is.)