Has anyone else picked up this story besides Salon?
Not to my knowledge. Even the most rabid Clinton media supporters are ashamed to dredge up 30-year old history from a time before he was even elected to Congress to try to smear him.
One thing we are forgetting in all this: Truth is truth, no matter who says it.
Burton was excoriated yesterday on a talk show for calling Clinton a "scumbag" when Burton wasn't pure as snow himself. But so what? Does what Burton did or didn't do change whether Clinton is a scumbag or not? The fact is, Clinton is a scumbag for what he did, and that fact doesn't change no matter how morally challenged the person saying it may or may not be.
Whether Clinton lied under oath is a question to be determined from the facts. Even if every person in Congress had lied under oath, boinked girls their daughter's age, stuck cigars you know where, etc., that wouldn't change one bit whether or not Clinton lied under oath, whether the man in charge of all U.S. law enforcement committed felonies while in office, whether the Commander in Chief of all U.S. armed forces, while at his post of duty, committed adultery and had sex with a subordinate.
It's the same Clinton strategy all over again. (As they say, it's deja vu all over again.) Whenever Clinton doesn't like a message, he tries to villify the messenger, hoping that will draw attention away from the message.
Sorry, guy. A lot of us are willing to remain focussed on the facts, look at what you do, no matter how much slime you or your associates may try to throw at the messengers. |
