Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Did Slick Boink Monica? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (9824)	3/5/1998 4:01:00 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20981

When I heard that Carville "sex, sex, sex" comment, I thought he was quoting Hillary talkin' about Bill.

To: Grainne who wrote (9824)	3/6/1998 11:20:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

>>Of course, what I find hilarious is that in his rude and crude smear campaign, spinmeister Carville is referring to Starr, not Clinton. So did yesterday's lead editorial from the Washington Post: Diversionary Flares Thursday, March 5, 1998; Page A20 IN THE six weeks since the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke, the president's aides have been frantically launching diversionary flares to shift the public's attention from Bill Clinton's conduct. Most of these flares have sought to illuminate the flaws -- real and imagined -- of independent counsel Kenneth Starr. As White House spokesmen have shrouded Mr. Clinton's own behavior in the most general -- and least-informative -- denials, they have issued shrill denunciations of everything from Mr. Starr's budget, to his party affiliation, to his other legal work. It is all an effort to portray the most powerful man in the world -- a man who refuses to tell his own side of the story -- as a victim, and it would be merely silly were it not working so well. Of course, the independent counsel has, in part, himself to thank for its success. When the White House stuck out its foot last week, he seemed only too eager to trip over it -- hauling Sidney Blumenthal before his grand jury to answer questions about the White House's efforts to smear him and his staff. It was a move that lent credence to all the portrayals of Mr. Starr as an overzealous prosecutor with an ax to grind against the president. It was the kind of favor that only an enemy could have done for Mr. Clinton. But after a spectacularly bad week in which he seemed to us, as to others, to have stumbled into the hands of his critics, Mr. Starr appears to be back on track. Instead of investigating who in the White House may or may not have been digging up and peddling stories meant to discredit him, his staff and their joint effort, he has returned to the basic question of whether President Clinton lied and, either directly or through aides and associates, encouraged others to lie in the Monica Lewinsky case. In the midst of all this distraction, it is worth remembering what this investigation is supposedly about and why it remains important. The investigation is not about the president's private affairs, as his defenders constantly claim. It is, rather, about whether someone conspired to corrupt a civil suit in federal court in Arkansas. The allegations, if true, are important not because of some prurient interest in the president's sex life but because they address a fundamental issue of fairness in the administration of justice. One can believe or not believe Paula Jones, but she is surely entitled -- as are we all -- to have her case heard without having it marred by allegedly perjured testimony paid for with jobs. We continue to reserve judgment on the facts of the Lewinsky matter; but if the president did urge Ms. Lewinsky to lie under oath, this would be no insignificant matter that should be ignored because the underlying conduct is sexual in nature. It is critical, therefore, for Mr. Starr to stay focused on resolving the main issue authoritatively and quickly, rather than meandering off again into some examination of the White House's public relations strategy. It is even more critical for the president to finally step up to the plate and face the questions that he has so embarrassingly dodged since the scandal began. This course is, needless to say, a tough sell at a time when Mr. Clinton is enjoying the highest approval ratings of his presidency. The attacks on Mr. Starr are working, so there seems little reason to change anything. But Mr. Clinton owes an accounting that only he can give. The approach the White House has adopted instead -- keep mum, attack Mr. Starr, belittle the offense, shift the focus to anything you can think of but whether the president lied -- is harmful, not just shifty. The faster the country can get at the truth and decide what to do about it, the better. That's what matters, not the peripheral fireworks the White House would rather become the issue instead. That's why it's good news if Mr. Starr in fact is back at work. washingtonpost.com