Starr et. al. proved Clinton adm. was honest...

[Jeebo]

I've long thought that Kenneth Starr and all the other Clinton-bashers did us a favor with their seven-year, $73-million witch-hunt "investigation" of the Clintons. I've long thought that what they did actually had the effect of proving that the Clinton administration was a remarkably scrupulous and honest and clean administration. If you spend seven years and $73 million investigating almost anybody, you're going to find more than an extramarital affair between consenting adults who are both over 21 and both college graduates, for heaven's sake! You're going to find more than a stain on a blue dress. The fact that the ONLY thing the Clinton-bashers ultimately were able to go after Clinton for was the fact that he is a heterosexual male PROVES how ethical and honest his administration truly was. The fact that seven years and $73 million of investigating by people who desperately WANTED to find some dirt, ANY dirt, was not able to produce even ONE provable incidence of REAL corruption in the Clinton administration (as opposed to a little flaw in his private sex life) PROVES that there was no real corruption there. So the Clinton-bashers were reduced to insinuation, innuendo, investigation, impeachment over a silly little girlfriend problem, and inane excuses by Clinton-bashing publications such as the Washington Post's editorial that offered the incredibly LAME argument that "just because they didn't find something doesn't mean there's nothing there." What do you suppose a REAL investigation of the Bush cabal would find? It wouldn't TAKE seven years and $73 million, it wouldn't take seven months, it wouldn't even take seven weeks. Because, fellow DUers, we all know that the current regime is REALLY corrupt. And what Kenneth Starr et. al. proved is that the Clinton administration was NOT corrupt. Is there any way we can get this fact out there into the public consciousness?

Ron

[judy]

1. I agree with you, Jeebo

Even though I did not always agree with Clinton's policies, I do agree that if there had been any little sliver of corruption, we would have heard about it 'til our ears were bleeding!

Ah, those were the days...!

[rfranklin]

4. However, the smear worked...

it crippled the Dems enough that Gore, instead of running on the great record of the Clinton years, stood up at the convention and said, "I am my own man." He also had to to draft Holy Joe Lieberman who was a bore to listen to and very hard to look at, just to be sure that the right wing couldn't dig up something to smear him with. They also managed to smear Gore with the same tar that they used on Clinton---"see, Gore lies about everything, just like Clinton." They defined the terms of the debate and were able to put a vicious retarded drunk into the White House. And Starr still goes around trying to justify Clinton's crucifixion, implying that there was something else. That fuck should be strapped to the electic chair and fried with low voltage for a long time. Now, that would be justice.

[judy]

5. It worked because the Dems went along with it...

Gore should have stood up for Clinton, and should have stayed away from Holy Joe. He would then have been elected with a majority so huge, that Bushco would not have been able to steal the election.

Just like in the olden days of the Nazis et al, it only works if people go along with it! I can only hope that the Dems have learned the lesson, but I won't hold my breath.

This doesn't mean of course that I won't vote for ANY Democrat who runs against Smirkolini. I can't help but wish for Kucinich, but I will support anyone else!

[blm]

2. That's the same conclusion that Joe Klein came up with

a couple years ago. He said that no other administration had ever been investigated so thoroughly and what it proved was that Clinton's WAS the most ethical of any White House. No covert dealings or arms tradings, no illegal wars.

[wryter2000]

3. Yup

And whenever a Bushie says to me, "But Clinton lied under oath," I tell them, "The only reason Bush hasn't lied under oath is that no one is asking him questions under oath."

[judy]

6. Ha!

Great response!I'll remember that one!

[Bandit]

9. But the fact is that he did indeed lie under oath.

Just Research Funeralgate in Texas. Bush* lied several times but it was dropped because the person was bought off.

[Cleita]

7. Yes, I would definitely like to see Bush put under the

same microscopic investigation for 9-11 and lying about WMD's. I wonder how corruption free they would find his administration's as compared to Clinton's?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

8. Sort of...

What it proves is that Clinton wasn't guilty of any corruption that the Republicans weren't guilty of as well.

[Bandit]

10. What corruption did it prove he was guilty of?

You seem to insinuate he was in fact guilty of the same stuff the GOP is/was guilty of. I think your insinuations are as corrupt as the republicans were during that whole time period.

[pllib]

11. Greg Palast's book "The Best Democracy Money can Buy"

does intimate about a serious ethical problem related to fund-raising in the Clinton White House, a potentially impeachable offense, that went away because the Republicans had their own pile of corruption that was coming to a head. A deal was made, and democracy was saved. Or was it?

[demgrrrll]

12. Maybe Bill will join Mario Cuomo in his lawsuit. I find it hard to

believe that any rock that could have been unturned was left undisturbed by the VRWC zealots.