A good analogy, and I see your point, but I don't think that it is comparable to what Kenneth Starr has done. There is a fair bit of evidence that Starr has paid and/or bribed witnesses, threatened witnesses, harassed witnesses, avoided standard procedures, etc etc etc. Starr should most definitely be tried for obstruction of justice at the very least. I was happy to hear that Susan McDougal intends to fight back for what Starr did to her, and I feel confident that eventually the truth will be known to all.
I hear so many conservatives shrieking that Clinton should be treated like any other person who'd committed a crime. By God, I wish he had been! This entire case would have been thrown out ages ago.
The Republicans have taken up the cry that this is not about sex. In a sense, they're right -- it didn't start out that way. It started as a partisan effort to find dirt on Clinton in order to get revenge for his unpardonable sin of being the people's choice for President of the United States. As soon as Starr uncovered sex-related dirt on the President, it became about sex and nothing else, until Clinton was forced to testify and then ALLEGEDLY committed perjury, at which point the Republicans gladly seized on perjury as being "what this is all about". You people who continue to say that this has never been about sex have very short memories. Before the supposed perjurious testimony, what in the hell DO you think it was about (other than Starr's ego and power trip, of course)?
Keep in mind -- Clinton is NOT going to admit that he committed perjury because he does not believe that he has (neither do I, for that matter). And those of you continuing to gleefully hope for his removal are in for a sad disappointment.
Rose
|
