I apologize for taking so long to respond. It's been a darn busy week.
1. Why is it ok to end the career of people in of the armed services for sex harassment, lying or inappropriate behavior, but not the President? It's not O.K. to end their careers for such offenses. As a matter of fact a debate is under way within the military as to whether crimes of the heart should be punished by courts martial.
Whether there is a debate now is irrelevent. The president himself backs the status quo. The question is still valid.
The issue has to do with perspective. To whom is it "ok to end the career of people in the armed forces" for alleged sexual misdeeds? To many of the brass in the military, yes. To many Americans, absolutely not. As for lying, yes anyone under military law should be disciplined for lying. But that doesn't necessarily mean an end to their careers. (I know something about military law.) As to the validity of the questions, my concern was with the fairness of the questions. I tried to deflate the notion that these were airtight. I believe they were.
2. Why is it so wrong to pry into the lives of the President yet it's ok for the Administration to pry into over 900 FBI files for months? If Clinton did in fact knowingly procure FBI files to smear his enemies, that is an impeachable offense. Let him hang. Too bad Starr mentions nothing about the FBI files in his report.
He procured the files, knowingly or unknowlingly. He had access to personal private info on 900 of his political enemies. Starr, in an obvious non partisan move, is giving him the benefit of the doubt on how the files got there. The question is still valid.
Again the issue of perspective arises. To whom is it "ok" for the administration to pry open files? Not to me. Make that case. Prove that he violated the law in digging up dirt on the Republicans, and I say let him hang. That counts as a high crime. But I bet to both the Republican and Democratic dirty tricksters inside the beltway, and their backers on Capitol Hill, it was fair game. I believe the Republicans probably let this matter drop because many are guilty of the same kinds of shenanigans. To anyone who believes Starr dropped the matter as some nonpartisan move, forget about Intel or Dell, I've got a bridge over the East River I'd like to sell...
3. Why was it ok for Clarence Thomas to be tried on National T.V. Yet it's so wrong to watch a recorded video tape of the Presidents testimony? There's nothing wrong with watching the president's testimony. Unless you are allergic to be being bored to death.
That's not what the democrats said. They said, and the polls were convinced, that it was wrong. Sadly, those polls were not asked during the Thomas hearings. The question is still valid.
To me it was not OK for Clarence Thomas's character to be tried on national television. But a crucial distinction exists: Anita Hill was subpoenaed to speak before a public hearing of the Senate Judiciary committee. Clinton's videotaped testimony was part of supposedly secret Grand Jury testimony. True,
Democrats who relished watching Thomas get scorched while decrying the Clinton tape are probable hypocrites, in the same way Republicans who decried the "high-tech lynching" of Thomas while savoring Clinton's testimony are hypocrites.
4. Why was it ok to watch President Reagan's grand jury testimony and not a word ever said about it? "I don't recall" (get it?) Reagan being hauled before a grand jury. I remember him testifying before Congress in the Iran-Contra hearings. I was 18 back then, so my memory could be faulty.
I don't know that any other president in the great history of the United States of America has disgraced his office badly enough to be brought before a grand jury. I agree with youi on this, Reagan never testified before a grand jury.
In the U.S. you can haul a fire hydrant into a Grand Jury and indict it. Disgrace? Does the secret bombing of Cambodia count in your "great history"? Nixon should have been hauled before a War Crimes tribunal for that one.
5. Why was lying and obstruction of justice wrong for Nixon, but not for Clinton?
Obstruction is wrong, period. But nothing has been proven about the obstruction of justice charge. Just alleged. As for the lying, people lie all the time. Lying about spying on your enemies and hush money and dirty tricks is different from lying about an affair.
Lying under oath is different from lying. Clinton's transgression of lies showed a disregard for the laws and his oath of office. And proof is a matter of degree. Nothing was proven in a court of law about Nixon or even criminally about O.J. So you can twist this argument to any standard you wish. His question is still valid.
That's funny. To me-and most Americans-Clinton's lies showed a banal man trying to weasel his way out of an embarrassing personal situation. Do you really want to compare allegations of lying under oath about a sexual relationship to operating a secret slush fund, bribery, breaking into offices, massive coverrups, a shadow government, as in the case of Nixon, or double homicide, in the case of O.J. Grow up and lighten up, my friend!
6. Why was it ok to end the career of Senator Packwood for kissing woman, then look into his private diary, but it's wrong to do this with the President?
Sen. Packwood kissed a woman against her will. Monica initiated the romance.
But Kathleen was kissed against her will, same as Packwood's misdeed. Paula was summoned and then crudely propositioned against her will. His question is still valid.
So the two ladies allege. But Packwood finally resigned not because of the allegations but because the people in his home state wanted to pull the plug on him. The popular tide turned against him. Clinton still enjoys the support of the majority of the electorate and appears to be growing stronger.
7. Why are we so concerned about what Starr is doing to America's children, but not what the President is?
Intelligent people are concerned about what this whole process and all of the players are doing to America in general.
I think the children issue is valid, not just the entire process.
Who's we, in the first place? America's children are suckled on a steady diet of film and television violence and sex. Why the sudden concern? Anyway, it was the Republican Congress who voted to disclose the details of a man's sex life on national television. The minute details of many adults' sex lives are likely unsuitable for children. Clinton didn't decide to tell the nation about it. It was his enemies, and I have a hunch they'll pay dearly for that maneuver in the long run.
8. Why is the NOW gang so non-judgmental in this issue. And why are they ignoring the sex harassment?
Again, there are only allegations of sexual harassment.
As there were against Sen Packwood and Justice Thomas.
The only thing Clinton has fessed up to has been an affair. I suspect NOW senses it has a better friend in the White House under Bill-Hill than it could dream of with any of the Republican Talibanites out there. They're not going to do anything to harm him, even if he settles the Paula Jones suit. To think otherwise is naive. So you admit it's liberal politics as usual. The question still stands valid.
I admit its politics as usual. No reason to condemn NOW for actions committed by every single interest and lobbying group in the Capitol. Please see my comments at the bottom.
9. Why is Linda Tripp the embodiment of evil for exposing this administration for what it is. Yet deep throat was a hero? Linda Tripp betrayed the trust of a 22-year-old woman in order to help a prosecutor get the sexual goodies on a president. It sounds like a bad Hollywood screenplay. Deep Throat betrayed the trust of the president to help two obscure journalist expose the criminal malfeasance of a president. It WAS
an excellent Hollywood screenplay. And a pretty good book. People like heroes who take risks for a greater good.
I think Linda Tripp is a hero for finally exposing this president as an irrefutable fraud, just as deep throat did to Nixon. Monica is really a disposable non-entity here. Or as Clinton says, "that woman". The question is still valid.
The tapes speak for themselves in depicting Tripp as a manipulative, vindictive slimeball who vociferously attempted to add fuel to the fire of scandal. At her core she's an ugly human being. She's absolutely no hero. In the end she didn't even risk her job, because she knew she could sue to get it back.
I think his questions are mostly on target and point out the gross hypocrisy of the left.
The hypocrisies you obsess upon are endemic to the American political system in particular and politics in general. If you want to save humanity, join the priesthood. If you want to represent the interests of the citizenry in the rough-and-tumble, give-and-take world of civic discourse, run for office, and bring plenty of napkins to wipe the dirt off yourself at the end of the day. May I suggest you read the works of the German sociologist Max Weber. |
