<<Stealing a loaf of bread also doesn't justify life imprisonment >>
Absolutely correct, but not an example of ends/means. "Stealing is not justified just because you are hungry" would be an example, and I think you would still disagree (correct me if I am wrong). IMHO, being hungry is a good reason to get a job or ask for help. If you are starving and you steal, is stealing good? It would still be wrong, but letting yourself starve would also be wrong. If you decide that stealing was appropriate, you must also be willing to pay the penalty when you get caught.
How does that relate to Clinton? There is no justification for what Clinton did with Monica. They were both wrong. The coverup was wrong. Any lying or abuse of power was wrong. I can't see any motivation that would justify Clinton's actions.
That being said, your other point relates to the appropriate punishment or the consequences of Clinton's wrong actions. Your analogy there is fairly appropriate. Many people would disagree, since they see his "crimes" as far more serious than do you. The problem is, the Constitution only provides one punishment - castration, er, I mean impeachment. If there isn't enough support for that punishment, than Congress should not punish the President. If he should choose to "make things right" by offering to resign, or do community service or pay a fine or whatever, that's fine with me. I haven't seen enough evidence yet that would convince me that impeachment would be appropriate.
Of course, there's still Whitewater, travelgate, etc. |
