Your post is nearly unreadable. Please use the system for quoting, and make a coherent response. Your "interjections" seem basically to be the equivalent of a bunch of mutterings, expressing your displeasure, without presenting any meaningful arguments or facts, and with your responses so mixed-in with my statements, as to make it very difficult to distinguish what your responses are. If you prefer to "interject," then at least make distinctions using bold text, or something like that.
Anyway, the testimonial evidence was Linda Tripp's statement to Starr, about what she knew to be going on, as a result of her conversations with Monica Lewinsky, and the documentary evidence was an audiotape of Monica Lewinsky's stating that President Clinton and she (at the urging of President Clinton) intended to lie to the court. Such lying represents a crime, acting to corrupt the court process and the justice system, and any responsible, legal investigator would respond to it with an investigation.
Notably, Linda Tripp was also demonized, for having reported the crime. Also, there was a brief attempt to characterize Monica Lewinsky as having been a "psychotic stalker," but that was even too incredible (as was the Clinton assertion that his relationship with her, was "ministering to a troubled youth").
Starr's "Party" did not select him for the investigation; the U.S. Attorney General (Janet Reno) did.
It is irrelevant that you "favored knob-polishing in such a stressful job;" lying to a court, is a crime and a corruption of the legal process; that it was the President that did it, is even worse, since the purpose for which the Presidency exists, is, among other things, to make sure that people don't do that. Thus, Clinton's behavior was both crime and professional corruption.
That Starr's report was as explicit as it was, is a consequence of his function as an investigator: in order to demonstrate a lie, it is necessary to demonstrate what the truth is, and how it is different from what was stated as being the alleged lie.
The response of Clinton and his political allies, was condemnably "propaganda," particularly because it was false (representing Starr's interest as "prurient," rather than in accordance with his investigation into the President's criminal activities), and because Starr was forbidden by law, from publicly discussing the case, and thereby defending himself from the cynically false representations of what he was doing. Furthermore, the intent was to defend the President, by destroying Starr - by means of falsely characterizing him - with the knowledge that he would be unable to respond with the truth.
As had been Clinton's habit, such as wrt the numerous "bimbo eruptions" during his tenure, his response to criticism, was simply to seek to destroy everyone who troubled him with it.
Whether anyone else engaged in "propaganda," is irrelevant; what is relevant, is the truth of what Clinton did, and what Starr did. Clinton violated law and sought to corrupt the justice system; Starr did his professional job and reported the truth. Clinton furthermore lied about Starr, seeking to destroy a man who previously had held an extraordinarily honorable reputation, and Clinton did this, in order to conceal his own crimes, and in order to save his political fortunes - again cynically seeking to corrupt a legal process (the impeachment), for his own, personal benefit.
BTW, for all that you suppose the events to have been "petty," a court trial is a contest between two parties. Clinton's attempt to corrupt the process of his trial, was an attempt to cheat against his opponent, Paula Jones, in that trial - to deny justice and "due process" to her. Furthermore, the questions that he was asked - about which, he lied - were in accordance with Rules of Evidence that he personally advocated, and that he personally signed into law, as President. Even furthermore, as President, Clinton prosecuted and punished (revocation of professional licenses, and imprisonment, at least) Barbara Battalino, for lying - about her personal sexual behavior - to a court, as a defendant in a sexual harrassment lawsuit. On what basis, then, is it arguably "petty"?
Also btw, it is noteworthy that, in addition to his impeachment, Clinton was fined and disbarred for his conduct, and the entire U.S. Supreme Court refused to attend his State of the Union speech, as an act of protest against his Presidentially corrupt behavior. So, not everyone, apparently, regards his behavior as "petty."
I don't know what "misrepresented facts" you allege. It is my understanding that investigations have concluded that there is no evidence that Bush "pressured" U.S. intelligence agencies to alter their reports. If you are referring to WMD's, you can note that virtually every noteworthy U.S. politician publicly advocated concern that Saddam Hussein had WMD's, and so opined all U.S. (and several foreign) intelligence agencies. But Bush knew otherwise? How?
Additionally, artillery shells designed to disperse chemical agents, have been reportedly used (as IED's) in Iraq, so clearly there were WMD's, even if not in the quantities that were expected in the absence of inspections.
Also, for fun, here's a quick quiz:
Who stated that Saddam Hussein was an "imminent threat" since having WMD's?
It's perhaps a trick question, since there are (at least) two correct answers (neither of which, is President GW Bush):
1) 2004 Vice-Presidential candidate John Edwards (merely a U.S. Senator, at the time)
2) Then Ranking-Member, now Chairman, of the Senate Intelligence Committee (with the same access to raw intelligence reports as the President), Jay Rockefeller
Last edited:
