Ron,
Nice job muddying the waters with that "book of saints / morality" red herring. After reading your moving defense of our fine President, I am almost compelled to agree with you: He is not responsible for the consequences of his actions. (NOT.)
For the record, none of us who now cast the first stone, as it were, ran for president. That is an important point, and one which you conveniently overlook. None of us campaigned, ad nausium, asking for the votes, the trust and the confidence of his fellow citizens. None of us, therefore, is subject to the same standard of worthy conduct and good judgement.
Also for the record, I freely admit that I do not care for Mr. Clinton, and care even less for his politics. So what? Does that mean that I can't criticize the man for behaving irresponcibly? Does that mean that he can scoff with utter impunity at the laws of our country? The last time I checked, suborning perjury was still a criminal offense. That hasn't changed, has it?
Were you this forgiving when President Nixon had his little legal problem, by the way? Somehow, I suspect you were not. I took the liberty of accessing your profile, and found a link to the ACLU among your "favorite links." The ACLU, Ron?? Could it be that you are just a tad biased, yourself, Ron? Perhaps? Just ever-so-slightly?
As you have probably already concluded, I think our over-adventurous C-in-C is only getting what he has comming (pardon the pun.) And it couldn't happen to a more deserving individual. I am only sad that this mess promises to do substantial damage to the office of President, and consequently, to the country.
RB |
