No offense, but the motives of the anti's are irrelevant. The issue is not their motives, but BC's actions and motives. If we can't stick to the actual issues, the entire debate ends up where you pointed to in the rest of your post - a discussion about policies. Impeachment absolutely must not ever be used to resolve policy disputes (in my humble, quiet, soft-spoken, understated opinion)!!!!!!!!
That is, I guess, Iran/Contra was OK, even if the Boland amendment was a duly enacted law, and George Bush lied under oath. That's one way to look at it. And again, I won't argue that Bush should have been impeached, but he wasn't called on any of it.
Congress should hold hearings, and if Monica is the only issue being discussed, it should be dropped.
Cool. I missed this the first time around. What are the odds on that? (that being if it turns out to be just Monica, it gets dropped) Do you consider the current perjury / obstruction of justice / conspiracy charges to be "Monica" issues or not? I can't quite tell.
On another post of yours, j_b, you brought up the White House travel office affair as some kind of political dirty trick, comparable to the Arkansas project dirt digging or Willie Horton. It certainly wasn't a shining moment for Clinton, another early blunder like nannygate and gays in the military. But my recollection of the news is that, while nothing criminal was found, the WH travel office was supposed to be a mess, with very lax accounting. Nobody cared, though, it was just money from the press and the press liked them. A first-class political blunder, and certainly reprehensible on a personal level but hardly a political dirty trick. Mr. Dale had his moment of infamy, which was unfortunate, but he was exonerated and now has a slew of new friends. And he doesn't have $6 million in legal bills, with the clock set to run a lot longer. How that compares to the anti-Clinton industry, or the relentless smearing in Vince Foster's name, I don't know.
Cheers, Dan. |
