CAMPOS: A tale of two presidents

By Paul Campos, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published June 25, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

Exactly a decade ago Washington's social elites went into a pearl-clutching swoon over Bill Clinton lying to the nation - and, far less forgivably, to themselves - about the details of his sex life.

The comedic climax of the whole absurd business was reached when Sally Quinn published a long article in The Washington Post, explaining why the whole town, meaning Sally Quinn and her friends, was so unutterably appalled by the president's behavior, when most of the rest of the nation frankly didn't give a damn.

It was, Quinn explained, because, quoting her colleague David Broder, "he came here and trashed the place, and it's not his place."

Here's my favorite passage from Quinn's unintentionally hilarious essay (the whole thing has to be read to be believed): "Muffie Cabot, who as Muffie Brandon served as social secretary to President and Nancy Reagan, regards the scene with despair. 'This is a demoralized little village,' she says. 'People have come from all over the country to serve a higher calling and look what happened. They're so disillusioned. The emperor has no clothes. Watergate was pretty scary, but it wasn't quite as sordid as this.' "

Justice demands it be noted this stern sermon on sexual ethics was delivered by a journalist whose own floundering career was revived when - to put it as delicately as possible - she struck up a warm friendship with her employer, who at that time was married to another woman.

Still, 10 years is a long time, and all of us have said and done regrettable things, and one really should let bygones be bygones, if not for the following remarkable fact: A decade after Sally Quinn and David Broder and so many others found it unendurable that Bill Clinton had lied (under oath, we were reminded again and again) about his sex life, the presidency is occupied by George W. Bush.

In just the last week, President Bush has achieved the following milestones.

* Maj. Gen. Anthony Taguba accused the president of the United States of committing war crimes. Taguba is the man the Pentagon appointed to carry out an investigation into what he discovered was the systematic torture of prisoners by the U.S. military, on direct orders from the Bush administration.

Here is his judgment: "The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account. The commander in chief and those under him authorized a systematic regime of torture."

A United States Army major general has concluded the president is a war criminal. Taguba's quoted statement refers specifically to the cases of 11 Guantanamo detainees who were tortured before they were finally released, without ever having charges filed against them, or indeed being told why they were "detained" in the first place.

Shortly after completing his investigation, Taguba's superiors forced him to retire.

* Meanwhile, Congress is in the process of passing a bill that will legalize felonies committed by the Bush administration, by placing the warrantless wiretapping the administration undertook in direct violation of federal law beyond the reach of the judicial system.

As law professor Jonathan Turley puts it, it's the kind of thing that "any criminal would love to do."

But the Bush administration isn't run by just any criminal. Even after getting a bill passed that makes the felonies they were committing legal, a Bush administration spokesman made it clear that the administration reserves the right to ignore this new law, if the president believes doing so is necessary to keep the nation "safe."

And what do Sally Quinn and David Broder and the rest of the Washington elites who 10 summers ago were shouting to the heavens that Bill Clinton was unfit to remain president have to say about any of this? The answer seems to be: exactly nothing.

Paul Campos is a professor of law at the University of Colorado. He can be reached at paul.campos@colorado.edu.

Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News

Comments

June 25, 2008

1:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

Rangerjoe1 writes:

Give it up Campy, written just like a CU freshman Conspiracy nut cases.
June 25, 2008

6:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

taoistblockhead writes:

As long as the hypocritical power mongers in DC get theirs in terms of treasonous war and oil profits the elites from both wings of the one corporate governing party (otherwise known as Fascism) will continue to turn a blind eye to an illegal and immoral administration intent in driving America and the Constitution over the cliff. Bush, Cheney, Rice, Addington, Yoo and their neocon cohorts are insane criminals. Reid, Pelosi, Conyers and Congress Critters such as Mark Udall are complicit enablers of a rogue government. Bloodthirsty warmongers consumed with power, greed and an illusory empire. Conspiracy indeed.
June 25, 2008

6:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

HolierThanThou writes:

There's no conspiracy here. What Campos illustrates is the culture of Washington's elite. It goes towards explaining the mess we are in.

Ever wonder why so many people are trained to feel guilty sex? Ever wonder why people are repeatedly told by commercials to feel guilty about their bodies and their natural needs?

That nonsense is designed to control you with automatic guilt, as if you owe atonement to someone but can't quite figure out who that might be. It's part of a culture to convince you that you don't deserve to feel good about your life or yourself unless you toe the line to make up for your defects. "You're inferior. So follow instructions and don't question us" is their message. This is not a conspiracy. It's worse. It's a culture.

If you are an American then there is no shortage of things to feel guilty about but sex isn't usually one of them. They use sex because it gets your attention and keeps you distracted. Distracted from what?

The goal of the elites is to keep you distracted from the fact that they are demonstrably incapable of leading anyone. They're cruel, capricious, and incapable of loving another human being much less an entire nation. They're irresponsible and refuse to be accountable for the consequences of their bad decisions. So, they throw sex at us. It's like a monkey in a cage with a handful of feces but, these monkeys are running the show.

If you're happy with having your face covered in monkey dung then continue voting for them. If you believe that America can do better then try voting for someone who stands some chance of empowering you. Better yet, if you want to serve the people then step up and volunteer. There's is no shortage of good work to do.
June 25, 2008

7:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

ItsJustme writes:

Welcome back PC. It's good to see you've reverted back to parroting the far left's talking points. This general's "judgment" is in fact his "opinion" based on a "study" by Physicians for Human Rights. Maybe you should read it, especially the limitations of the study. It admits that it is not scientific and is based on the "detainees'" statements. Here's an excerpt:
"It is possible that allegations of torture and ill-treatment
made by the former detainees were affected by recall bias and/or intentional exaggeration or misrepresentation for personal and/or political gain. PHR could not independently investigate and corroborate all statements made by the former detainees in this report, nor assess the consistency of the detainees’ accounts. Due to logistical and security reasons, PHR was unable to obtain either 1) corroboration from any of the former detainee’s family members concerning post-detention health and functioning, or 2) prior medical records to determine prior history."

At least admit that there may be an agenda here, PC. And maybe read the actual report, not just this general's opinion. And stop implying that this is the general's report. It isn't. It's a preface opinion to the PHR report.
June 25, 2008

7:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

taoistblockhead writes:

More Notes from the Conspiratorial Underground - Secret Energy Task Force Meetings and the mapping of the oil fields in Iraq. A neocon administration driven by a PNAC blueprint intent on imposing American empire whenever and where ever possible. A figurehead immoral president doing the bidding of his fascist corporate masters. A spineless Congress invested in war profiteering. The gutting of our Constitution via an abstract and phony war on terror.
June 25, 2008

7:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

Roader writes:

"Still, 10 years is a long time..." but not TOO long to remember:

Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy
HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros
Sec of Commerce Ron Brown
Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbit
Secretary of Labor Alexis Herman

…all Clinton Administration cabinet-level indictments. Campos, along with other lefty columnists, use Clinton's dalliance with Ms. Lewinsky as a red herring, “forgetting” the shear number and gravity of all the other Clinton Administration scandals.

Paul, if you’re going to tell a tale of two presidents, you might consider mentioning the milestones of both.
June 25, 2008

8:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

iamwoman writes:

The die hard conservatives love to bring up the Clinton oval office antics, but consistently ignor Bush's continuing abuse against our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Clinton's mistakes only hurt his family and the Democrats. Bush's errors and arrogance are killing thousands and have placed this country and it's citizens in jeopardy for decades to come. Why Bush hasn't been impeached is a black eye to this country and it's ideals.
Your column today was a small beginning towards showing the double standard that has been pervasive in Washington for far too long.
June 25, 2008

9:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

olsonmt writes:

Sex is a trivial matter. Lying under oath is not. The very foundation of our legal system demands people tell the truth regardless of the actions on trial. That should be a non-partisan tenet we can all agree on. It is worth the time and space here to examine the Bush administration, but remember Bill Clinton wasn't impeached for a knobber. He was impeached for lying under oath. That is an important distinction.
June 25, 2008

10:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

Konyok writes:

Apples and oranges incoherence.
Professor Campos so dearly wants to shoehorn Taguba's comments into a compare and contrast between Clinton and Bush and doesn't quite know how to elide the pertinant facts.
In choosing l'affaire Monica as the Clinton template Campos is using a personal dilemma that elicits a certain amount of sympathy. Bush is condemned as a "war criminal" because abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib was either neglected, tolerated or encouraged. A discrete "smoking gun" is notably absent. Not content with that, Campos then cites Taguba's criticism of the passage of the FISA bill by the Democratic majority in congress as the crowning glory of Bush's criminality.
I would think that a more appropriate Clinton analog to Abu Ghraib would be the attack in Waco. How was responsibility apportioned?

But, most interesting of all is Professor Campos' choice of judgement criteria - the reactions of Washington's social elites. This narrative that Clinton is a victim and Bush escapes his just desserts ... because Sally Quinn wrote an essay 10 years ago?

The Professor again betrays his class consciousness.

Well, at least no dumb sports analogies ...
June 25, 2008

10:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

Ted_in_Vegas writes:

For being a law professor, Campos certainly does know much about precedent.

In wiretapping INTERNATIONAL calls, Bush was following the precedent established in 1799 by President John Adams and followed by EVERY president since - the monitoring of international communications. It is well-established that internal communications - those both starting and ending within the US - have an assumed protection of privacy but external communications - those either starting or ending in foreign nations - have no such privacy.

Why shouldn't have Bush done the same as 42 of the previous 43 presidents?
June 25, 2008

10:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

Konyok writes:

Ted,

Don't forget that President Clinton expanded the Echelon program.
June 25, 2008

10:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

Bookem writes:

BFT...

I have to agre with you. It shouldn't be any surprise to any one on the right or left: There is no difference between the 'Republicrats' or the 'Democrans'.

Both parties desperately want to create fear and then say they are ones who can make it all better. The groupd that does it best wins elections.
June 25, 2008

10:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

Bookem writes:

BFT...

I have to agre with you. It shouldn't be any surprise to any one on the right or left: There is no difference between the 'Republicrats' or the 'Democrans'.

Both parties desperately want to create fear and then say they are ones who can make it all better. The groupd that does it best wins elections.
June 25, 2008

1:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Ted_in_Vegas writes:

Like I said, Konyok; EVERY president since John Adams (1797-1800)...
June 25, 2008

1:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

Konyok writes:

What is even more interesting to me is that Professor Campos, a tenured professor of law at CU, writes at length on the the most facile of comparisons, but completely ignores the important legal question that he raises.
What does it mean to criminalize policy?
How does that fit into the constitutional framework?
Does this notion ultimately gut representative democracy and place all power in the hands of judges?
It's a pity that Paul almost always goes for the cheap thrill and rarely delivers anything interesting.
June 26, 2008

11:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

Ted_in_Vegas writes:

Excellent observation Konyok!
June 27, 2008

1:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

it all comes down to a choice between incompetence and infidelity.

I'll take infidelity all day long.

http://www.dems.gov/index.asp?Type=B_...{D68CD0B2-1442-4804-9F6B-AF67DE7FF585}&DE={FDD09C4F-E958-4E13-A92B-179C2FAC6FEA}&Design=PrintView
June 30, 2008

10:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

rjnova writes:

Campos tries to make the case for Bill Clinton, unquestionably the most immoral low life and disgraceful president this country has ever had, against President Bush. Certainly nothing surprising there. But where does he come up with the people did not give a damn about a 21 yr old intern doing Clintons calling under his desk? Everyone but his liberal Democrat supporters called him what he is—a shameless womanizer. Even his much heralded economy was a stock market bubble like the subprime mortgage bubble of today. Both are prime examples of what damage the Congress and govt can do meddling with the economy. Now Obama wants to take it another step further. God help us.

Then Campos digs up this discredited Gen Taguba who sounds like he suffers from a head wound. He furthermore does not sound like an American. Must be another example of affirmative action at work. Calling the President a war criminal is ingratiating himself with the Leftists and Democrats. He uses the exact same words as European Socialists, who are involved in a conspiracy to slander Bush. How is it the Democrats are so lock step in their attacks they do not have enough sense to change the wording.
Campos and his cohorts are a laughable bunch. Neither the military nor this president has done anything approaching torture and certainly no war crimes. It is ridiculous to compare harsh treatment, loud rap music and unkind words to beheading and murder of innocent women and children. President Bush is right to be fighting them there rather than here. All these Bush haters are going to be seen for what they are---haters without a viable alternative. And they cannot avoid the fact they are doing this country great harm attacking the President at every turn trying to reverse this perception. We need to show a united front against radical Islam and they would rather try for political gain than fight this enemy at every turn we can. That has to approach disloyalty.

Campos concludes criticizing Congress for giving the President a Bill that absolves the telephone companies and gives them immunity for past eavesdropping on terror suspects. Even the Democrats are not stupid enough to be caught in an election year looking any more unpatriotic than they are.
June 30, 2008

3:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Americans4Liberty writes:

Ron Paul Speaks Out Against War With Iran

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blo...

Ron Paul gave a speech on the House floor last week condemning the “virtual war resolution” soon to be considered by the House of Representatives. This bill, introduced by Rep. Gary Ackerman [D-NY] already has 208 co-sponsors, and will be voted on after the 4th of July holiday. Rep. Doug Lamborn, Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, Rep. Tom Tancredo, and Rep. Mark Udall are co-sponsors of H.Con.Res 362.

It is time for Americans to join together and stop this insanity. Please take the time to understand your representative’s position on this resolution, and let him or her know that the American people do not want another war in Iran. Below is an unofficial transcript of Dr. Paul’s speech:

—–

“In the last several weeks, if not for months, we have heard a lot of talk about the potential of Israel and/or the United States bombing Iran. And it is in the marketplace. Energy prices are being bid up because of this fear. It has been predicted that if bombs start dropping, that we will see energy prices double or triple. It is just the thought of it right now that is helping to push these energy prices up. And that is a very real thing going on right now.

But to me it is almost like deja vu all over again. We listened to the rhetoric for years and years before we went into Iraq. We did not go in the correct manner, we did not declare war, we are there and it is an endless struggle. And I cannot believe it, that we may well be on the verge of initiating the bombing of Iran!
June 30, 2008

4:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

Ted in Vegas: "For being a law professor, Campos certainly does know much about precedent.

In wiretapping INTERNATIONAL calls, Bush was following the precedent established in 1799 by President John Adams and followed by EVERY president since - the monitoring of international communications. It is well-established that internal communications - those both starting and ending within the US - have an assumed protection of privacy but external communications - those either starting or ending in foreign nations - have no such privacy.

Why shouldn't have Bush done the same as 42 of the previous 43 presidents?"

Ted, your own memory is a bit spotty, so perhaps you should think before insulting Campos. I suppose you just "forgot" that after passing the Alien and Seditions Acts, Adams used that legislation to jail AMERICAN NEWSPAPER EDITORS simply for criticizing him! Under the guise of being "unpatriotic," of course.
July 1, 2008

12:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Ted_in_Vegas writes:

Umm, mytwosense, your knowledge of political history is spotty, at best.

The Alien and Seditions Act was separate from the reviewing of international communications; if anything, it was the reviewing of the international communications that led to the mistaken desire to bring the A&S act. However, think about this; the A&S Act ended and yet the following 41 presidents STILL reviewed international communications as needed.

Home › Opinion › Opinion Columns & Blogs

CAMPOS: A tale of two presidents

By Paul Campos, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published June 25, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs