Re: Clinton's fake apologies

[jimg@mentat.com (Jim Gillogly)]

Yes, there's crypto content in this msg... a passing reference four
paragraphs down.

Somebody said:
> The annoying thing about Clinton's recent behavior is that he never
> comes right out and apologizes, but the press always says he does.
Somebody goes on to do the whole Apology Watch number in detail.

It doesn't matter.  One commentator a few weeks ago had a good line
for it: "All mea and no culpa."  But so what?  This whole apology watch
is totally meaningless.  We know he can perform sincere-looking speeches
on demand, and that's largely why we elected him.  If he gives another
one and says this time that he's really <very> <very> sorry and he's
guilty as hell, I couldn't be more impressed.  Or less.  What he says
about it is irrelevant.

This whole "sex scandal" thing is ludicrous also -- we knew he was a
horn-dog when we elected him.  Yes, my sexual morality is considerably
higher than his, but so what?  Sexual abstinence has never been a
criterion for being President, and probably only one President in
living memory <didn't> have sex outside of wedlock... Peter Langston
published a "Know your Presidents" column in the last few days, a quiz
regarding which Presidents had done what to whom in the Oval Office.
Regarding covering up the sex -- so what?  When he said they weren't
having sex back in February, she was denying it at the time, so it'd
take a pretty sleazy character to say he was schtupping her and she was
lying about it.

The fact is that this sex between consenting adults thing is the best
Starr could do with his Whitewater investigation after umpteen years
and witnesses and millions of dollars, and I'm not impressed.  I'm
<much> more impressed with the kind of allegations Softwar digs up --
sweetheart deals for some company to send encryption to China while
sitting on the bulk of the domestic encryption industry, for example.
If he's really done something that involves treason or high crimes and
misdemeanors, let's hear about it and act on it.  But airing soiled
linen in public isn't germane.

If they <do> decide this is now a requirement for high office, I'd like
to see all the Congresscritters who've had sex out of wedlock and
concealed it take one step forward.  Shall we make hypocrisy in high
office impeachable also?

Today Dave Farber noted that if the CDA were constitutional (which it
isn't) Congress wouldn't have been allowed to drool over all these
salacious bits on the public networks.

	Jim