Bill Clinton now appearing in school text books..............

[mark]

..............OK, enough on Iraq. Nobody seems to care about that anymore.
This should be a good one to discuss...

...my friends, it's only been 7 years since Clinton was in office & he's already appearing in school history text books. The book focuses on his "Impeachment" days.....

See below: ( hope the link is safe )

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1151AP_Clinton_Textbooks.html

From the story:

The most commonly used texts give straightforward recaps of Clinton's toughest days, with some flavor of how it affected the nation. Absent are any the lurid details of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky that spiced up daily news reports and late-night talk shows as the scandal and impeachment played out in 1998 and early 1999.

Further down in the story:

The House impeached Clinton on charges of lying to a federal grand jury and obstructing justice to conceal his affair with Lewinsky, a White House intern. Although he was acquitted in a Senate trial, Clinton was branded as the second president impeached for conduct in office.


Clinton is lucky in a sense..... the books gives no details about the Lewinsky affair, the stained blue dress, & the other things not mentioned in the press & since this is a family website, I won't touch either.

My question for you is....should the history books tell the real reason Clinton was up for impeachment...or.....should this part of his legacy be removed?? ....................see ya mark

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it should be included as the reason for the impeachement. But I think that it could be "tactfully" included.

[stinkerbelle]

i think it should be included ...also and how the repugnicans were so offended... history should detail how the repugnicans cripled clinton when he attempted going after binladen and called it "the tail wagging the dog" and said things like "he is trying to divert attention" and how the blood of thousands of 911 victems are on their hands because they chose to be holier than thou...history should show how the repugnicans started droping like flies when they were exposed to the same scrutiny that they held clinton up to "he who is without sin should cast the first stone" ...i hate to think how history will view good old Dubya ,katrina ,the lie called iraq ,n.s.a spying on citizens,patriot act,cronism,cuting student aid to pay for a taxbreak for the rich,the list goes on and on.......i shudder at the thought

[Chuck]

I agree with stinkerbell, all but the repugnicans comment as most know I can't care for smug comment designed solely to upset other members. Nice post just try to refrain from nasty comments pretty please.

I believe it should be shown as history was. Not how it was seen by others.

Clinton was not impeached because of his involvement with other or another women. He was impeached for lying to a grand jury. He was impeached for perjury.

It is not illegal to have an affair nor is it an impeachable offense. But the information that lead up to the actual offense should listed. It is history and if told, should be told accurately.

[kdown]

repugnicans comment

No problem here. I just consider the source.

Chucks got it right. Lying to a grand jury IS grounds for impeachment.
It should be included in text books

[kdown]

Ya gotta love the following...........

In 1974, during the height of Watergate, a young Congressional candidate said, "Yes, the President should resign. He has lied to the American people, time and time again, and betrayed their trust. He is no longer an effective leader. Since he has admitted guilt, there is no reason to put the American people through an impeachment. He will serve absolutely no purpose in finishing out his term; the only possible solution is for the President to save some dignity and resign." The speaker? Bill Clinton.

[Stella]

Hey!! After all, it was the 70's !!!

[Chuck]

We are talking about 2 different things. Nixon was guilty of a few more infractions. Nixon would have not only been impeached but also would have been removed from office.

But generally Nixon only lied, spied and trained Manuel Noriega. We know now that is an acceptable practice and really should have never seen the headlines. (sarcasm)It is adultors we really hate.
(Sarcasm)
http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/dictators/manuel-noriega/

Oddly enough it was George H.W. Bush that ask President Nixon to resign. This was done in a memo in 1974.

Dear Mr. President,
It is my considered judgment that you should now resign. I expect in your lonely embattled position this would seem to you as an act of disloyalty from one you have supported and helped in so many ways. My own view is that I would now ill serve a President whose massive accomplishments I will always respect and whose family I love, if I did not now give you my judgment. Until this moment resignation has been no answer at all, but given the impact of the latest development, and it will be a lasting one, I now firmly feel resignation is best for the country, best for this President. I believe this view is held by most Republican leaders across the country. This letter is much more difficult because of the gratitude I will always have for you. If you do leave office history will properly record your achievements with a lasting respect.

H.W. Bush was appointed the Head of the Republican party by Nixon. Bush could not ask this to Nixon's face so he did it in a memo. The Next day Nixon resigned.
http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/presidents/george-hw-bush/

[tkcomer]

If you were to put in all the shady, illegal and stupid things the presidents have done, you’d have to have a separate class. Hmmm, that might not be a bad idea. Depends on how it is written. Some people re-elect presidents that lie to the people. And like it.