Uh, thank you, I think. Personally, I don't see a lot of point in argument by assertion (you believe this, I believe that) past a certain stage. Then I get people like Ish, with his allegedly non-sarcastic question about "you're stupid, and we're not". I also don't see much point in arguing legal points in a matter I don't really follow from a legal perspective. Starr wants to indict Clinton, that's his business. I don't think a criminal conviction is as guaranteed as the anti-Clinton people here make it out to be, but beyond that, I'm not a lawyer.
Really and truly, I have no personal affection for Clinton. I was pretty down on him politically, too, before I read the Jacob Weisberg article, nytimes.com. I just think the personal animosity is overdone. I also think that the context of the Jones suit is relevant, as is the relative magnitude of Iran-contra and Watergate in regards to what the basic offense underlying it all is. Others differ, as is their right. I also find it strange to argue with people who like Drudge and the WSJ editorial page about the "biased" NYT. |
