Re: Clinton's fake apologies

["Raymond D. Mereniuk" <Raymond@fbn.bc.ca>]

Michael Motyka <mmotyka@lsil.com>

> It's worse than not impressive: it's PATHETIC. I thought we'd have 425
> pages of real output relating to the last 6 years of "work" and 25 pages
> of Monica. I'd rather finance $600 toilet seats and $1200 gold-plated
> hammers with my tax money than Starr's brand of open political warfare.
> It's simple, partisan, Rottweiler politics. The kind of stuff that makes
> you leave your shoes outside the door when you get home at night.

>From what I have read of Ken Starr's report Washington insider's all 
knew of Clinton's relationship with "That Woman".  Now if Law 
Enforcement (LA) knows Clinton has skeletons in his closet they can 
go to him and tell him he must support lets just say a total ban on 
strong encryption.  Clinton is inbetween a rock and a hard place, he 
must go along with proposals from LA, whether he supports the 
proposals in principle or not.

We have seen some of Clinton's dirty laundry in a segment of his 
life that his attorney wife was not able to advise him.  Now do you 
think Clinton's general standard of morality was any different in his 
life before this scandal in areas where his attorney wife was able to 
pull the strings?  I personally doubt it. 

I see the whole OIC crusade against Clinton as an attempt to bring 
honesty to government.  Ken Starr is just playing the game by the 
rules set out be the Clintons.  If the game looks too rough who do 
you blame? 




Virtually

Raymond D. Mereniuk
Raymond@fbn.bc.ca