« The Politics Of Iraq Part II | Main | A Second Strategic Failure »

July 15, 2007


I don't think we can blame 9/11 on Ken Starr nevertheless Starr's inability to answer the question directly and without equivocation is telling.

The special prosecutor law was abused by Starr and his Republican supporters for political gain. Talk about the criminlization of politics. There were all the illegal leaks of information from the prosecutor's office none of which resulted in an indictment, and then articles of impeachment for lying about a blow job. Starr's conduct was certainly unethical and probably a criminal use of his prosecutorial power.

Revisiting the Clinton years and what passed for probable cause for impeachment is an exercise that put Bush's conduct as president in perspective.

A straight yes-or-no might have been nice; perhaps this is the little mantra that Starr utters every day to put his own mind at rest.

Or perhaps there's a more realistic answer in his non-denial denial. "I am entirely at rest with the process. The House of Representatives worked its will, the Senate worked its will, the Chief Justice of the United States presided. The constitutional process worked admirably." Did the House and Senate deliberately use perjury induced by entrapment and non-material to an investigation, in order to achieve the ends we see today? Was that the "process worked admirably" by the Republican majority?

Can't help think this was the intention all along, considering how much money, time and media they through at the process; they inoculated against another impeachment of a presumably Republican president -- while undermining the public's perspective of government as an effective entity.

Oops, sorry, accidentally slapped my keyboard and hit Post. Ugh, I think I need more coffee...

9-11 is Starr's fault in the sense that the hunting of Clinton was the overture to the 2000 election, and the plan for the Republican Restoration - back to the good old days of the Cold War, only this time they would do it their way. It wasn't just an attack against Clinton, although Lee Atwater himself recognized the dangers that a white Southern Democrat with the best political skills in a generation posed to Republican hegemony. While there was an irrational fear and hatred of Clinton, does anyone think that if Clinton had been convicted in the Senate, that there would not have immediately been an attack against President Gore in the House, for campaign finance offences, or some other setup, and that the media war against Gore in the 2000 campaign was an extension of the media and legal strategy that was Part II of the Hunting of the (Democratic) President.

thanks for the reference to the "ship of fools" article in the independent.

reading it was like listening to some of my wife's philadelphia family.

the calm confidence born of a long social pedigree

earnestly combined with the most crackpot ideas and comments imaginable

stated without embarrassment and with absolute conviction.

what a state of bliss.

I have always felt from day one (similar to Ishmael's thought above) that the continuously expanding scope of Starr's Spanish Inquisition and resulting impeachment effort was, despite the conservative's irrational visceral hatred of Clinton, as much about Gore as it was about Clinton. Life was to good under Clinton/Gore, the economy was flying high and they saw eight additional years of a Gore Presidency as all but certain if something drastic was not done. The criminal morons pulled off the biggest dirty political bag job trick in history and STILL had to steal the 2000 election to prevent a Gore Presidency.

ken starr has no shame ???

what did you expect ???

I've known that for 10 years

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad