<<OK, conservatives think its honorable to kiss and tell. Good to know. Ill put that in my little black book.>>
I think it's honorable to 'fess up and take responsibility for your actions and for the consequences of those actions. If your actions cause pain for others, maybe you shouldn't have taken those actions. Not confessing caused pain for other people, including the general public. The act of adultery does result in people being hurt. If/when Monica was finally cut off, she would have been hurt. Other people that didn't get the jobs that Monica got as a result of her attentions to Clinton were hurt. Those people were hurt, as were the people that were hurt as a result of Clinton's "confession", due to Clinton's actions. He is responsible.
Now, do Starr and others have responsibility for anything? Of course. Without commenting on the possible contents of the Starr report, he is still responsible for the results of his investigation. Was that investigation proper? Should he have stopped short of the gory details? I don't know, and I won't comment until the report comes out, but even if it was the "right" thing to do, he still bears the responsibility for the pain caused, the same way that Truman was responsible for dropping the bombs on Japan - he thought it was the right thing to do, and felt justified, but the people still died. No I'm not comparing the morality of the two situations, only pointing out that you can cause pain and still consider that the correct thing to do. If it turns out that nothing was proven, maybe Starr will apologize to all the people that were hurt by his actions, and explain why he felt compelled to act as he did. It would be the honorable thing to do.
We need to keep Clinton's responsibility for his actions separate from Starr's responsibility for his - they could both be wrong. |
