My war against The Economist

And a more just war there never was: let's take a trip in the way-back machine. Remember this?

My favorite bit:

. . . the issue is now strikingly simple. It rests entirely on whether Mr Clinton is telling the truth—and not just a partial truth, but the whole truth. If he is, and Miss Lewinsky’s apparent accusations turn to dust, then he can and should survive. But if he is not, he must go. And the test of this does not rest on the issue of whether, in lying, he has committed the “high crimes and misdemeanours” required for impeachment. It rests simply on whether he has lied, even one jot, about whether he has had a sexual relationship with Miss Lewinsky. For if he has, his already fragile credibility will be utterly destroyed.

Or is it this?

. . . nub of America’s great experiment with government is that the president must be able to be disconnected from his office, dealt with like an ordinary man. His office should not put him above the reach of the law.

Or is it this?

A government headed by a man who is reckless—and, worse, whose recklessness and moral weakness are indulged—is running on empty, because it has no claim to the public trust.

Or is the money quote the pitch at the end?

. . . if there is a shred of truth to the story he is so vigorously trashing, he should not be allowed to get away with it again. He should go.

Your assignment, if you can bear it, is to read the main article, here, and reflect on the lengths to which The Economist went to posit possible acts of wrong-doing and illegality by Clinton and his lawyers. Ah, the self-satisfied "he-has-it-coming-to-him" flights of supposition will take you back to another era when -- with a Democrat in the White House -- the "liberal" media didn't quite turn over rocks as much as imagine for us what might be under them.

In tomorrow's class, we'll compare and contrast with how The Economist has treated Dubya.

Stay tuned.