|
Air Force Two Notes By Michael Hutchison
Main Characters:
Supporting Characters:
Villains:
Real People:
A word on this scandal and its process for Fanzing's many non-American readers: Air Force Two deals in current American politics. I thought this would be fun, since comics like Suicide Squad always mixed real political events with fake. Unlike S.S. scribe John Ostrander, though, I had the advantage of writing a story and publishing the same month, so that I could tie it in with the most timely events. As the story took shape over two months, I've had to rewrite and rewrite due to the ever-changing events in American politics. Looking over the visitors to Fanzing, I notice we have many, many international readers who may not be familiar with all of the events and/or may not understand how our political process and impeachment works. Actually, I'd be willing to be that the majority of Americans don't truly understand this scandal and the impeachment process; if they did, so many wouldn't be covering their ears and saying, "I wish it would all go away!" But given that you all can use computers and know how to read, I'll assume that Fanzing's readers are a cut above the man on the street. I'm going to touch on the very basics, but I'll assume you know about our three-branch system, checks and balances and stuff like that. As of this writing, impeachment (the first step in the removal from office, a function performed by the House half of Congress) has not been voted on. Impeachment does not require breaking the law. Of the three impeachable offenses by Richard Nixon (the last President of the U.S.A. to face impeachment), one was simply "lying to the American people." Perhaps it's a sign of how disenchanted Americans are two decades later, but if that was still an impeachable offense Bill Clinton would be facing dozens of documented accounts of that beginning before he even took office. And before anyone complains of my getting politically biased, I should point out that the previous sentence is fact, not opinion. Whether we should care about lying, that's opinion and I will not weigh in on it here. Impeachment is merely the removal from office for suspected or proven wrongdoing. In Clinton's case, he still insists that he did do nothing wrong, although he's apologized for something many times over. He's skating on very thin ice, socially admitting to many embarrassing peccadilloes but legally admitting to nothing. As of December 5th (when I'm writing this), almost all Democrats and about five Republicans would prefer some form of censure, as it would stand more chance of passing. It would also mean that they (the Congress) would not have to stand and be counted, and thus wouldn't be accountable to the voters. The only problem with this move, and this is what's currently debated right now, is the fact that censure is basically being made up. It's not part of the Constitution. According to the Constitution, if there's wrongdoing you either impeach or don't impeach, period. Either he did something wrong or he didn't. In fact, an impeachment in Congress that is voted down by the Senate (i.e. doesn't result in removal from office) would BE a kind of punishment. Nonetheless, censure is becoming popular because nearly everyone in America, supporters and detractors alike, thinks Bill Clinton deserves a grade-A spanking. All of this, of course, may be resolved before this issue of Fanzing is over. But should Congress be put to a vote, impeachment may pass by a slim margin. Once impeached, the process advances to the Senate where punishable offenses and removal from office are discussed. This is where the procedures become more about legalities. One more thing about this process, which isn't often discussed but plays a prominent role in "Air Force Two," is that Clinton WILL face criminal charges no matter which way impeachment goes, unless the allegations of perjury are proven to be false. Many people in America don't realize that impeachment isn't a criminal proceeding, it merely facilitates his prosecution for the crime(s). And for those of you on Mars who don't know what the scandal is about: I know, here in the U.S.A. we're all sick of it. But some people may only have heard a smattering of this. Besides, admit it: some of you still think this is a sex scandal about the President's personal life! Back when Clinton was still governor, he allegedly invited a woman named Paula Jones to his room, dropped his pants and invited her to perform oral sex. This sounds like a bizarre practice, right? Not the way you'd go about it even if you were going to, right? And to be blunt, Paula is rather unattractive (or was before plastic surgery and makeovers). Most Americans on the right and the left found it hard to believe that Bill Clinton would do something like that. So, the prosecution in Paula Jones' sexual wrongdoing suit has to prove that, as hard as it first may have been to believe, Bill Clinton's a guy who habitually asks for and/or receives oral sex from unattractive women who are not his wife. This is done by looking for evidence that this is the case and questioning people who may be able to verify or disprove that Clinton does this. Jumping ahead a bit, he admitted in August that he has asked for and received oral sex from a woman who is not his wife on many occasions. Her name is Monica Lewinsky and she is also kind of skanky (or was before the makeover). Thus, the possibility that Paula Jones was not making this all up skyrockets. The lawyer sought testimony from Clinton, who has (we now know) repeatedly asked for and received oral sex from an unattractive woman who is not his wife (Monica Lewinsky). Yet, in videotaped testimony, he said there was nothing between him and Monica Lewinsky. The lawyer sought testimony from an unattractive woman who is not Clinton's wife, Monica Lewinsky, who has (we now know) repeatedly performed oral sex on Bill Clinton. Yet she said there was nothing between her and the President. In both cases, they swore to tell the truth and then lied under that oath. This is called perjury. Monica has admitted that she committed perjury. Clinton has denied it by sticking to highly arguable definitions of the words he was saying. It's akin to asking if he's watching TV and he says, "No, I'm sitting in front of the TV and the TV is on and I'm looking in the direction of the TV." But he knows he's watching TV. Well, aren't they just keeping a private issue private? No. The truth about his receiving oral sex from Lewinsky hurts his chances of being found innocent in the Paula Jones case. Lying about it makes it look like Paula Jones has no grounds for charging him. This directly affects the prosecution or dismissal of the sexual harassment case against Bill Clinton. This leads to the current perjury scandal, which is a different scandal from the Paula Jones sexual harassment court case. Clinton is charged with the aforementioned perjury. He is charged with encouraging Monica to deny it even under oath ("suborning perjury"). He is charged with lying to staff members and his own legal counsel, knowing that what they were thus repeating in court was a lie. So what is there to debate about? Basically, some think that lying under oath is okay if it's about sex, even if that truth has weight in another case. More to the point, there is a growing movement of people who believe it's not that big a deal to lie under oath. So why am I writing a story about Al Gore? Why am I writing a story which dabbles in politics, which could engender some unhappiness amongst those whose politics are more to the left? I should mention that I had much more respect for the Gores, all politics aside, when I began this story over two months ago. As more and more stories of alleged financial misconduct by Al have been building, one has to admit that it would be pretty major if it weren't overshadowed by other scandals. And just a week ago it was revealed that Tipper Gore choreographed a photo opportunity amidst hurricane relief efforts! She walked past many people needing assistance in order to dig through a pile of mud (which had been left standing in the road just for her arrival); they even pre-arranged for her to dramatically wipe her brow at a certain moment. Then she retired to stay in a tent (despite the fact that people were sheltered in buildings, not tents). Of course, she went back to her room in the luxury hotel to freshen up before staying in the tent. Please note, neither of these things are political. They are not right-wing or left-wing actions. They are simply disingenuous acts by people who I'd thought to be two of the more upstanding members of the Democratic Party. It was because I had a better image of Al Gore at the time that I thought his inclusion in this story would be okay, as his character was clean enough to not engender any outcry at his portrayal in the story. Frankly, I don't trust myself to write a story featuring Bill Clinton in the same role that Al Gore played in this one. There would just be too many jokes that I couldn't let go unsaid! I'm not afraid to dabble in political events because I'm not advocating anything politically. I'm not pushing any right-wing or left-wing issues. Clinton should not be thrown out because he's a Democrat. Clinton should be thrown out because he's lying scum. And as lovers of comic books and superheroes, I think we all believe, as Nemesis does, in the rule of law. Superheroes don't play politics. They don't let a person get away with crimes because he's an important leader or because he's essential to an agenda. Deep down, no matter what our politics, we all have a thirst for justice. It's only in the real world that we start hemming and hawing and making excuses for those we favor. So, before you judge too harshly, consider that every superhero in "AF2" may be a Democrat or a Republican and it wouldn't affect how they view Clinton or Gore. One more thing about the portrayal of real people in fiction: Writers at DC have been given a surprisingly large amount of leeway in the portrayal of real politicians, especially when they're Republicans (NOT charging bias, I'm simply saying that there aren't many examples of Bill Clinton in DC Comics saying anything remarkable). Witness Nixon in Watchmen, Reagan in Chronos last month, Dan Quayle firing a weapon in Hawk and Dove, Reagan in Dark Knight Returns, Nancy Reagan being a Manhunter android, The Reagan-Bush Memorial in Gilgamesh II…and Reagan authorizing the existence of the Suicide Squad (an action which, given the sliding timeline, has now fallen under Clinton's term). You can't exactly say that DC treads lightly in the potentially slanderous portrayal of politicians. Here, I've tried to confine my portrayals to things I know to be true…with only a few exceptions. In the case of the Gores, I've written them as a pretty unremarkable typical married couple. In the case of Bill Clinton, many of those bits at the end are based on things he's done which we know to be true because we even have some of them on videotape.
The only really debatable part is the scene where Bill arranges to have the Dibnys videotaped when they stay in the Lincoln bedroom. Given that Clinton has some pretty hefty legal bills to pay and isn't exactly the most ethical person (by a long shot), I feel comfortable in making what is, after all, a joke. While I've gone out of my way to avoid actual political issues…and while Bill Clinton being a liar and a lech should be as much a fact as saying "he is currently President of the United States"…I have no doubt that a few people will get their noses out of joint. The long explanations by Amanda, Nightshade and/or Chiller may be interpreted as preachy. Frankly, Chiller is Chiller and I'm me. The things said by Amanda Waller (a Democrat) and Nightshade (a politician's daughter) should be close to the way John Ostrander might portray them. As for the re-invented Chiller, I didn't like the old brainless character and wanted to make him 180 degrees different. I tried to make Chiller into one of these "character actor" types who tries to understand every nuance of a person and become them. I hope you realize that he's a lunatic and the things he says in his plotting are not necessarily true. Nonetheless, Tom Clancy fan that I am, I tried to come up with a plot which would sound like it just might work. That required some discussion of the options and what he'd do in certain situations, hence the wordiness of those scenes. So, if you're going to write in and complain, I'd appreciate some intellectual discourse as to why I should not have written certain things. Letters saying simply "you're mean" or "how dare you" will not warrant much reply. Final Note: When I started this story, I hadn't realized that the wedding of Wally West (The Flash) two issues ago had ended with his wife being erased from time and everyone forgetting about the wedding. I'd assumed this was a little thing that would be cleared up by the time my story ran. Thus, the conversation Ralph and Sue have with Wally doesn't make sense. They're remembering a wedding that hasn't been restored to the timeline. While I'm sure Waid will resolve that eventually, by then we'll be halfway through 1999 and past the time of my story. I thought about whether I should remove that funny conversation or not. Nahhhhh! It's just fan fiction, in the end.
Pinky and the Brain are © Warner Brothers
All other characters are ™ DC Comics This story is © 1998 by Michael Hutchison.
|