Well, as you know, we disagree.
The "political decision" was to bring this suit in the first place.
Somehow it is "appropriate" (or maybe "telling" is a better word) that while Republicans continually make accusations like the ones on this thread, Congress is busy passing a huge pork appropriations bill that somewhat less hypocritical Republicans like Paul Gigot are calling sinful.
Even this whole business about "perjury" is, frankly, ludicrous. The fact that someone doesn't want the details of their sex life in headlines, and may lie to keep them out, is hardly equivalent (as some people trying to pretend, either from stupidity or for political reasons) to the lies of Watergate or IranContra or, to be bipartisan about it, the lies that Lyndon Johnson told during the Vietnam years. For Starr to pretend that this is a matter of "great import" for the health of the Republic is every bit as dangerous as Filegate (the one Clinton "scandal" that does disturb me--it is also ironic that the Republicans voted to keep the name of the FBI building despite the fact that Hoover was by far the worst single official offender of the violation of privacy in our history) could have been if it had been allowed to continue, and, in fact, is even more so because it shows no signs of ending. And, for that matter, any number of other lies that politicians and (dare I say it) private executives tell about their businesses all the time to the public, their shareholder-owners, and even sometimes to their own boards and employees.
Sorry, Duncan, I still don't buy it. |
