When you attack the motivation behind the claims I begin to have problems. The attacks originated with the WH, and were part of the typical Clinton smear campaign. If you look at Clinton's motivation for lying, it's all about power and control. Why would you consider his claims to be more credible than theirs?
Sorry to interject, and I'll try to be polite. But, as far as smear campaigns go, Clinton doesn't seem exceptional. At least for election campaigns, his seemed fairly clean compared to the '88 Willy Horton deal.
On Paula Jones, and Kenneth Starr's early involvement, were sexual harassment cases a normal part of his legal practice? Even if the "Arkansas Project" stories are a White House plant, which, sans evidence of such, is a bit of a smear in and of itself, Starr's office has not been shy about the strategic leak. Plus, smear-wise, you have a lot of "colorful language" in his report that seems a bit excessive.
Cheers, Dan. |
