>>Personally, I find
it all too [absurdly] amusing, how one man vendetta of another man's humanistic
shortcoming can preoccupy the center stage for so long<<
He lied to protect himself. He lied under oath. He stated his understanding to his secretary -- clearly witness tampering, but I guess not in your book, since he didn't say exactly --"will you lie for me to the grand jury?" it wasn't tampering.
Should I trust him with matters of national security? Should I trust him with economic matters? Should I trust that he did no wrongdoing in whitewater, filegate, etc? Not on your life.
People are angry about what he has done. I am glad Starr has worked hard to box him in on this issue. Get him out of office.
This has been a sideshow -- I'll grant you that, but who made it? Nobody but Mr. Clinton.
Maybe it's no big deal to you to lie directly to millions of people -- which is exactly what he did, on national television.
Don't tell me to get real -- this is grounds for impeachment alone.
Maybe to you it's no big deal for a president to have sex with somebody the age of his daughter, a suboordinate.
I beg to differ ... If he weren't in the office now, he would be subject to criminal prosecution for perjury and witness tampering. A woman here locally was just sentenced to 3 years.
It is not just about sex. It is about law. Are presidents and government officials subject to the same set of laws as the citizens?
That was the intent of the framers of our constitution. When rulers are above the law everything goes to heck in a hurry. |
