Each of us is responsible for our own moral fiber.
You said:
"Bill Clinton may be the toast of Harlem, N.Y., but the corrosive effects of his political chutzpah are still poisoning Washington. Look no further than the shameful performance of Gary Condit, who's decided to end the stonewalling tactic. "
Condit is not ending the stonewalling tactic. To me, in retrospect, Clinton's performance was light years more innocent than that of Condit.
Condit's evasive robot-like answers to Chung's proddings revealed more than he could have uttered.
This man "knows something" and may be responsible for the disappearance of this young woman. You fail to allow for that in your comparison to Clinton.
Clinton is not the scapegoat now, and his behavior while reprehensible is not significant with respect to the enquiry of the disappearance and possible murder of Chandra Levy. To bring up Clinton for comparison is to distract one's thinking from the central issue which is the lack of character of one Gary Condit.
As my family watched the interview with an open mind, we were all astounded by Mr. Condit's defensive posturing and his memorized responses.
As a result of watching that interview I conclude that a congressman, who probably was a philanderer, now looms in my mind as a larger than life caricature of someone who "is on the lam". He was not truthful to Connie Chung, and he probably has been as tricky with the various law enforcement agencies that have been handling him with 'kid gloves'
Is he a murderer? Is he responsible for the disappearance of Chandra Levy?
The thought is there.
Please don't distract my thinking with odious comparisons to Mr. Clinton. I don't care how many women Bill Clinton
screwed. I know that Bill Clinton is not a murderer. |
