Tracy,

I've been curious about this and now's a good time to ask the question. I'm not sure how you feel about all this.

But my question is that a hugh amount of resources were spent on attempting to convict Clinton of something. Almost anything, as it seemed that some were deadicated to bringing the man down.

We now have a president who is making decisions that have cost at minimum thousands of lives. We have several other "leaders" who have obviously used their position of power for financial gain.

Yet there is no outcry against those currently in power. I'm sorry, but I don't see what was so evil about Clinton. Other then scare tactics that were argued by the minority that was out to get him.





>Everything came under scrutiny after whitewater (1994) and the sexual harrassment suit by Paula Jones.
>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/shadow061399.htm
>http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/resources/lewinsky/timeline/
>
>
>>Hi tracy,
>>
>>>I agree, but lying under oath is of importance. It would get any other citizen prison time and they would no longer be in public office if they once were.
>>
>>Well, lying under oath of course should be punished. However, the underlying problem in my opinion is way more fundamental. Why was his sex life ground for investigation in the first place? Wasn't it the first goal of keneth starr to damage clinton from the start? Why does it matter politically? Why did it come this far? Couldn't he just ignore the issue?
>>
>>FYI, we did have simular issue when a member of the second chaimber voluntarely admitted to a journalist that he visits the red light districts from time to time, while he was married. He was force to give up his position at that time, but the outcome of the discussion that followed is that this is personal and should not have political consequences directly.
>>
>>Walter,