This is a decidely left-of-center blog (or it will be when I get some more content written) but, when it comes to the Clinton years, I wasn’t a big fan. He did a nice bit of Wag the Dog-esque bombing, to the detriment of those who recognized that Iraq wasn’t a threat, and paving the way for his successor’s invasion.
More importantly: His impeachment was justified. Claiming in a sworn deposition that he didn’t have “sexual relationship” with Miss Lewinsky came close enough to perjury that he should have been put on trial for it. He was aquited, which was also, in my mind, the right outcome, since “sexual relationship” is such a nebulous term.
Yes, there was a massive amount of media BS, yes the right wing was on a witch-hunt, yes, it was none of Ken Starr’s business, but the fact remains, he received Teh Oral Secks from an intern, then swore that he didn’t have a sexual relationship with her. That’s close enough to perjury to warrant a trial. The correct response would have been something closer to the truth, or “none of your damn business, you panty-sniffing freak” or anything that wasn’t so close to a lie.
Bush should be on trial in the Hague for crimes against peace.
Clinton was right to be put on trial for perjury.
These two statements are not in any way in opposition to one another.
Urbell's Weblog 