When will Republicans apologize for Whitewater?

By Bill Press/CNN

September 21, 2000 Web posted at: 11:11 a.m. EDT (1511 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Remember that great kid's T-shirt: "My Mom and Dad went to San Francisco -- and all I got was this lousy T-shirt"?

Those kids were luckier than we were. At least, they got a T-shirt. We spent six years and $52 million on a Whitewater investigation and got absolutely nothing.

Next to the racist persecution of Wen Ho Lee, the political persecution of Bill and Hillary Clinton is the greatest outrage of our times.

There was nothing to the Whitewater charges in the beginning. There was nothing in the end. Yet, in between, there were no less than three investigations -- each one of which, in turn, completely exonerated President and Mrs. Clinton.

Let me remind you of how long and how ludicrous this whole process has been.

First, there was the review of the law firm Pillsbury, Madison and Sutro in 1993, commissioned by the Resolution Trust Corporation. Their findings: There was no evidence of illegal activity on the part of the Clintons; and (this was an important finding!) no further government resources should be spent investigating this matter. Republicans in Congress, intent on destroying the president, ignored their recommendation. And so....

Next, there were the Senate Whitewater hearings, which then Sen. Al D'Amato, R- New York, opened by declaring: "This is worse than Watergate". So much for objectivity. Yet, two years later, the D'Amato Committee published a 650-page, bipartisan report concluding -- surprise, surprise -- the Clintons had done nothing wrong. Of course, it could have and should have ended there, but no. ...

Inspector Clouseau was on the case! Determined to make his conservative Republican sponsors happy, Independent Counsel Ken Starr persisted in his own investigation, turning over every little rock in Little Rock. Along the way, he nabbed a few people for tax evasion, mail fraud and other crimes best handled by a local district attorney. But, in November 1998, he had to admit to the House Judiciary Committee that he, too, came up empty-handed on the Clintons and Whitewater.

And so, like any impartial prosecutor would have done, did Starr do the honorable thing and report his conclusions, thereby removing the cloud from the Clintons' heads? Of course not. Did his successor, Independent Counsel Robert Ray, presented with Starr's findings, immediately clear the air? No way. Between the two of them, they dragged the matter on for another two years -- still desperately trying to find something, anything, with which to hang the president or first lady.

Yet, in the end, even Ray had to throw in the towel. And he did, this week, acknowledging that, after six years and $52 million -- all that time and all that money -- there was no evidence that Bill or Hillary knowingly did anything wrong, or knew that anyone else did anything wrong, in Whitewater. It's about time!

Well, better late than never. At least, it's all over. Right?

No, it's not over. And that's the worst part. Even though the Office of Independent Counsel has been abolished by Congress, Ken Starr's office is still open. Now it's Robert Ray's turn to try and bring down Bill Clinton and -- having struck out on Travelgate, the FBI files and Whitewater -- he's convened still another grand jury to look into the Monica Lewinsky affair.

Enough already! This has gone on far too long and cost far too much money. We don't need another Monica Lewinsky grand jury. And, by the way, what more could we possibly learn about Monica and Bill that we don't already know in excruciating detail? Puh-leeze!

Spare us.

If there were any decency left in politics, two things would happen now: Clinton's Republican enemies would admit they were wrong and apologize to the president, first lady and American people for putting them through all this nonsense; and Ken Starr wannabe Robert Ray would realize the game is up, lock his doors and go home.

Don't hold your breath.

-- (hell@freezing.over), September 22, 2000

Answers

8 years of this and all we can hang the president for is a sex scandal. But the juicy part is that a lot of republicans got caught with their pants down in the process too. Talk about petty politics.

-- (smarty@wannabe.one), September 22, 2000.

Impeaching a president is not petty, the way they did it is. Very cheap and dirty.

-- (rats@and.snakes), September 22, 2000.

While the press goes on and on about 14 people convicted, we rarely hear about who those 14 were. I thought I'd better post this before I forgot where I found it.

The four you have heard of are, of course, Susan and Jim McDougal, former Arkasas Gov. Jim Guy Tucker, and Web Hubbel. None of these convictions were for doing anything that remotely benefitted the Clinton's, and Hubbel was in fact convicted of stealing from his Rose Law Firm partners, including Hillary.

The remaining ten convictions that Robert Ray wants us to believe made this all worthwhile are as follows:

These five household names all testified for Starr in the McDougal Tucker trial:

David Hale. Likely the only one anyone has ever heard of. 'Nuf said about this cock a roach. Robert Palmer - Little Rock appraiser, pled guilty to conspiracy. Chritopher Wade - pled to two felonies. Steven A. Smith - pled to a misdemeanor. Larry Kuca - pled to a misdemeanor.

These two pled guilty in a case against Tucker involving his cable television business:

John Haley - Little Rock attorney, pled to a misdemeanor William Marks - pled to a felony

Two others pled guilty with Hale;

Charles Matthews, two misdemeanors, and Eugene Fitxhugh, one misdemeanor.

Finally, Neal T. Ainley, a former banker, pled to two misdemeanors. He testified in a case ending in a mistrial involving Clinton's 1990 gubernatorial campaign, a case in which White House adviser Bruce Lindsey was an unindicted co-conspirator.

I leave it to you to note the obvious; None of these people or their crimes had anything to do with Bill or Hillary.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), September 22, 2000.

All this tells us is that slick and slickette [bill & hill] got off not paying for their crimes against this Nation.

-- slick (vission441@dot.com), September 22, 2000.

Slick:

I hope I never have to sit before your kangaroo court. You have absolutely nothing to say unless you yourself can provide the evidence that any crimes were committed.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), September 22, 2000.

As an aside, one really entertaining part of the whole Clinton affair was the deafening silence of the feminists. Do you think a republican president could have received oral favors from a 21-year- old intern without the feminists showing up at the White House with pitchforks and torches? Please. What the Clinton administration proved to me is that the liberal special interests are just as shallow and self-serving as the conservative special interests. It has also proven the Americans will tolerate almost anything from a charismatic leader, at least when the economy is doing well. Fortunately, Clinton was able to quell his own party long enough to make some sensible policy decisions like the passage of NAFTA and the reform of the welfare system.

If elected, Gore will be a one-term president. He lacks Clinton's teflon ability and the economy will definitely sour in the next four years.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), September 22, 2000.

They total the time and cost for this together with all the other investigations. The repub will apologize when the clintons apologize for delay tactics costing the tax payers even more money, 18 months and they couldn't find the documents. As the article states, don't hold your breath.

Just because the investigation can't find enough evidence to bring to court doesn't mean the clintons are free of wrong doing. Case in point, Jon Benet parents. Should investigations never take place? Oh I forgot "the republican pigs, our enemies are out to get us, while we're so innocent" Yeah right, and Clinton never lied under oath.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), September 22, 2000.

hail to the puritans-what would america be without them?

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), September 22, 2000.

Shock...

I hope I never have to sit before your kangaroo court. You have absolutely nothing to say unless you yourself can provide the evidence that any crimes were committed.

When you are the President of the United States of America, you are it's moral and ETHICAL leader. You lead the Nation by example. Bill Clintons example is to show our children how to evade law by asking for the definition of the word 'IS' . He has shown us and more importantly our children by his example that ethics mean nothing. Parents who defend this man are the ones who continue to marvel at why our teenage youth are so troubled today with school shootings as one example, blaming it on the evil guns and not the mixed messages they are given by adult role models such as Bill Clinton.

It's a question of ethics and morals first and crimes second. Bill Clinton has shown us all he is moraly and ethicly bankrupt time and time again. We have no written law for ethical behavior but without ethics we will all loose out with society continuing to spiral into the toilet.

-- Have U Ever (Heard_Of@Ethics?.com), September 22, 2000.

Ken, the feminists have been silent for a long time. They only spoke up slightly with contempt for the "stand by your mand" routine. At that time I felt bad for Hillary's humiliation but I know that she asked for it. She knew throughout their marriage that he had a problem (which transcends just one or two indiscretions). She accepted this behavior (for whatever reason - I think she saw white house in her future) and suffered because of it. She paid the price.

As for the intern, that woman epitomizes the current movement (or lack thereof) of women's rights.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), September 22, 2000.

"As an aside, one really entertaining part of the whole Clinton affair was the deafening silence of the feminists. Do you think a republican president could have received oral favors from a 21-year- old intern without the feminists showing up at the White House with pitchforks and torches? Please."

What is there for feminists to defend in the Lewinsky case? Unlike sexual harrassment cases, Lewinsky was the one enticing the president with flirting and flashing her bikini thongue. If anything, that would be reverse sexual harrassment on the president by a female employee.

-- (smarty@wannabe.one), September 22, 2000.

C'mon, Smarty, you are not up on your feminist rhetoric. The real issue is the power imbalance between the two "consenting" parties. Had Clinton been republican the feminist party line would have been simple. "The most powerful man on the planet used his position and office to sexually exploit a college intern." Look at the difference between Clarence Thomas (and unproven allegations) and Bill Clinton (proven sexual liaisons). It was all about the politics of the accused, not the actions.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), September 22, 2000.

"The real issue is the power imbalance between the two "consenting" parties."

YOU Ken are making it an issue. Facts are that Lewinsky made the first advances (proven in court). It is not sexual harrassment from him to her, as in the Thomas case.

"Had Clinton been republican the feminist party line would have been simple. "The most powerful man on the planet used his position and office to sexually exploit a college intern." "

Your republican biased mind making assumptions. IF's don't apply with the reality of what happened. My own biased assumptions, if the president had been republican, would be that the feminists would have not attempted to classify this as a sexual harrassment case when the female is the one initiating the sexual advances. But my assumptions don't apply anymore than yours on the facts.

" Look at the difference between Clarence Thomas (and unproven allegations) and Bill Clinton (proven sexual liaisons)."

Apples and oranges, that's what the difference is. Hill alledged that Thomas made unsolicitated sexual advances and used his power to retaliate at her refusal of those advances. That's classic sexual harrassment going on in any business where men are in higher position than women. Lewinsky was doing the reverse, using her feminine sexual powers to get favors from the president (or whatever her motives really were.) That's also going on in any business where the women is upwardly mobile. The difference is in the first case, it's the man whoo's unethical, and in the second it's the woman.

-- (smarty@wannabe.one), September 22, 2000.

Just because the investigation can't find enough evidence to bring to court doesn't mean the clintons are free of wrong doing.

I'm afraid that legally speaking, it does. Remember in this country, you are innocent until proven guilty. There seem to be a lot of people in this country who are so blinded by their hatred of the Clintons that they've turned it around so that our president is guilty until proven innocent.

At that time I felt bad for Hillary's humiliation but I know that she asked for it. She knew throughout their marriage that he had a problem (which transcends just one or two indiscretions). She accepted this behavior (for whatever reason - I think she saw white house in her future) and suffered because of it. She paid the price.

So when did you become part of Hillarys inner circle? You certainly seem privy to her private life. I didn't realize we had such a close, personal friend of Hillary on this board.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), September 22, 2000.

Smarty-

Good point. For sexual harassment to happen, the victim may not initiate the behavior. Also, the victim of the harassment must make clear, in no uncertain way, that the behavior is unwelcome. If you say to someone "Hey, nice butt!" and s/he smiles and say "Thanks!" they can't later claim to have been harassed.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), September 22, 2000.

Facts are that Lewinsky made the first advances So it's OK if the prez followed through. His little wee-wee couldn't help it. So, we can condone this act. You're right nothing illegal about the exchange of sex for Oh that's right, they got caught before he had the chance to "pay up" with a job offer.

But the real statement that sticks in my gut Lewinsky was doing the reverse, [of sexual harassment] using her feminine sexual powers to get favors from the president (or whatever her motives really were.) That's also going on in any business where the women is upwardly mobile. Yeah women who are upwardly mobile are in that position only because they assume the position. Don't know if you meant it this way but thanks for putting the women's movement back a generation!

In the end (no pun intended), the prez is a scum bag.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), September 22, 2000.

Tar, "private", please. So many books have been written about their "private" lives, go pick up one.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), September 22, 2000.

Oh gee, Maria, I must have missed the book where Hillary talks about how she knew about her husbands affairs and though it hurt her deeply, she just accepted it since she could see the Whitehouse in their future. Which book was that in?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), September 22, 2000.

Tar, But can you read this, "I think she saw white house in her future". My opinion which I'm free to state.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), September 22, 2000.

What I don't understand is how you "know that she asked for it. She knew throughout their marriage that he had a problem (which transcends just one or two indiscretions). She accepted this behavior (for whatever reason - I think she saw white house in her future) and suffered because of it. She paid the price."

Those are your words, right?

So how do you know?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), September 22, 2000.

Smarty,

I did not say Clinton was guilty of sexual harassment. I said the issue was sexual exploitation. Who flirted first is beside the point. The simple fact is the most powerful man on the planet had sexuals liaison with a college intern. Had this president been a republican, the feminists would have accused him of exploiting a naive, younger woman.

If you don't think Lewinski was naive, listen to the Tripp tapes. Clinton played her like a violin. She thought she was in love and he thought he was getting away with tawdry sexual encounters in the oval office. Is this illegal? No. Sleazy? Yes.

Technically, Clinton could beat a sexual harassment rap in court. In fact, this is just the type of legalistic interpretation of his behavior the democrats wanted.

As for Thomas, there were only unsubstantiated allegations. With Clinton, there was the admission of the behavior and lying about this behavior to a federal judge while under oath. That's classic perjury. As to your speculation about Lewinski's "motives," you have no proof. There is no evidence Lewinski ever extorted a single favor from the president.

The simple fact is that the feminist community was largely silent while Clinton stood accused. In my opinion, this behavior would have been different had a republican faced a similar situation. I imagine we'll have a chance to find out if we can only elect a few more sexually impulsive presidents.

Tarzan, lets examine your keen legal mind. If a woman wear sexy clothing it may be interpreted as flirtatious. And if the boss then grabs her, is he immune because she "flirted" with him and initiated the behavior? Is any flirtation a big green light to sexual consent?

Here's a legal fact: Harassment can occur before someone says "no." In fact, legally you still have protection even if you don't say a word. Check the case law on hostile working environments.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), September 22, 2000.

Well Ken, when are you going to apologize?

-- (repubs@are.corrupt), September 22, 2000.

Also add to the mix of "Sexual Harrassment" that others can file that charge as well, because Lewinisky received favored treatment/special privileges and also created a hostile work environment because of such "discriminating" employment practices.

So far, the Clintons' actions have not been found as "guilty beyond all resonable doubt", so they've gotten off scot-free. Remember "Travelgate" and "Filegate"? They are sleazy and have no morals - they have no respect for the high office "they" hold.

SOme of you might think that morals don't matter, but they DO,/b>! Just remember that when you encounter punks who harrass you, or your own children/grandchildren who turn your life into a living hell because you didn't enforce guidelines, respect for others and personal responsibility in their lives.

We are witnessing the fall of our country. What an absolute dishonor to those who sacrificed their lives for us - we are a disgraceful generation!

-- Deb M. (vmcclell@columbus.rr.com), September 22, 2000.

Off bold!

-- xxx (off_now@abcdefg.com), September 22, 2000.

"Yeah women who are upwardly mobile are in that position only because they assume the position. Don't know if you meant it this way but thanks for putting the women's movement back a generation!"

No Maria, I didn't mean it that way. I mean to say that there are still women who DO use their sexual powers to move upwards, they're the ones who chose that unethical route for whatever reason (maybe they don't have the skills but have the looks.) I in noway imply that all women are like that. And the same goes for men concerning sexual harrassment with women in lower position. No one sex has the moral monopoly in business.

And I agree with you and Ken that Clinton's behavior was immoral and exploitation of the situation for his own sexual benefit, but that's not the point I'm trying to underline. I don't want to go back and rehash the entire morality of the Clinton/Lewinsky affair. Clinton was found guilty of the affair and he paid his price. What the original post is discussing is all the money, time and probing ad nauseum on the Whitewater case as well as others that the Clinton's have been found innocent of. That's what I find outrageous. Not a private sexual affair in a president or any politician. Sex don't run the country, and your arguements that the immorality of the sex affair shows that the president is unfit to lead the nation don't hold water in my bucket. Republicans are as guilty of sexual scandals as Democrats.

So lets get back on topic with Whitewater. I don't expect an apology, but I'd be curious to hear your excuses. We'll never change each other's minds on Clinton morals, motives and leadership.

-- (smarty@wannabe.one), September 22, 2000.

Smarty,

Not "innocent" - just not enough solid evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt) to convict him. There's a BIG difference there...

Character DOES count, folks! If character matters for teachers, for policemen, for our military, for our bankers, then for Heaven's sake, it should matter when it comes to the highest office in the United States!

-- Deb M. (vmcclell@columbus.rr.com), September 22, 2000.

Speaking of womens' rights...

Fair use, for educational purposes.

http://www.cnsnews.com

[b]Northern Virginia NOW Chapter Endorsing Bush[/b]

By Jim Burns CNS Senior Staff Writer

September 22, 2000

(CNSNews.com) - "It's time to close the door on the Clinton-Gore administration," according to a spokeswoman for the Dulles, Virginia dissident chapter of the National Organization for Women, which has endorsed Republican George W Bush for President.

The group also endorsed Republican Rick Lazio in the New York Senate race against Hillary Clinton and Republican George Allen in the Virginia Senate race against incumbent Democrat Charles Robb.

"As far as women are concerned, we have laws now. We have rights. But the problem is that the Clinton-Gore administration has not enforced those rights," Dulles NOW President Marie Josie Ragab said Friday.

"It is not possible for any Democrat-connected women's group to say that if a Republican is elected to the White House, that is going to be a disaster for women. Women are in a very good position as far as our rights are concerned," Ragab said.

Ragab claimed that the Clinton-Gore administration has done nothing on the issues of education, women's health and violence against women.

"They certainly have not enforced the laws against violence against women. Only four percent of rapists are punished today. They have not done the job. They have had eight years to do a good job for us and they have not done it," Ragab said.

At NOW's national headquarters in Washington, the organization's president, Patricia Ireland said "there is no longer a Dulles area chapter of the National Organization for Women. By their own choice, the former Dulles area NOW has decided not to be a part of the organization by declining to meet the requirements of a NOW chapter."

According to Ireland, "the National Organization for Women has no part of their (Dulles NOW's) alleged endorsements. Only the national NOW/PAC is authorized to endorse federal candidates. At this time, NOW/PAC has not made an endorsement in the presidential race. NOW/PAC is supporting Hillary Rodham Clinton in the New York Senate race and Charles Robb in the Virginia Senate race."

Ragab said her group split from the national organization in 1998 following the Monica Lewinsky scandal. "We've called for the resignation of Mister Clinton twice. This time, we felt that this was a very important election in the view that some very terrible things had happened to the nation with the Clinton-Gore administration," Ragab said.

Ragab said her group's endorsements have "gotten a lot of applause from around the country" and said she thinks Ireland should resign.

"We think that the national office is a disgrace. They are disgrace to the spirit of the American women's movement that has been very much admired around the world. She (Patricia Ireland) and her clique have betrayed women. They have betrayed the organization and we call for her resignation quite regularly," Ragab said.

According to Ragab, the national headquarters of NOW "have not stood up for the rights of women. They have sided with a man who has been an abuser of women. They have acted against Paula Jones and her civil rights. They have attacked Juanita Broaddrick. They have worked against the impeachment and we think those actions represent a betrayal of what the organization was supposed to be." [Deb's comment: Remember the tax audits?]

George W. Bush is pro-life, and while Ragab says her group is pro- choice, she adds that "we have no litmus test on abortion."

Dulles NOW has about 7,000 members.

-- Deb M. (vmcclell@columbus.rr.com), September 22, 2000.

"Character DOES count, folks! If character matters for teachers, for policemen, for our military, for our bankers, then for Heaven's sake, it should matter when it comes to the highest office in the United States!"

Deb, ofcourse character counts for anyone in public positions. But a sex weakness does not mean a man (or woman) is weak in all other areas of his/her character. If that was the case, then what do you make of all the republicans who were exposed with their own sex scandals? What about all the other presidents in history who also had sexual affairs? If a teacher has an extra-marital affair with another man, and she does not publisize it, does that make her less of a teacher? Are all policemen faithful to their wives?

So Clinton has a weakness with sex and faithfulness to his wife. And G.W. Bush had a weakness with alcohol and drugs. He was an alcoholic. Psychologists and doctors will tell you that once an alcoholic, always one. That means he has an addictive personality, a weakness in his character for a leader, because that shows he lost control over himself and his life. Which weakness in your opinion is more detrimental to the nation as a whole?

The sexual affair, if not blown out of the sky by the puritan moralists and the media, would have stayed where it belonged, at least the juicy details of it, and away from our kids earshot. It was nothing more than a ploy by the opposition to topple Clinton by any means.

Politicians have had extramarital affairs since the begining of times. Which king or queen didn't born a bastard or indulge in affairs? Which president other than Carter in this country wasn't found to have had an affair? Very few.

Sex has nothing to do with Clinton's character as a leader of a nation. Republicans who pushed the issue to the hilts and grasped at straws are the ones with character weaknesses; that of unfair political games and tactics. But then again, both parties are guilty of that at some level.

-- (smarty@wannabe.one), September 22, 2000.

smarty and tarzan still believe that OJ is searching for the killer, since of course OJ was found innocent.

In a book written by George Stephanopoulos, All Too Human, he writes: Hillarys litigator instincts made her hunker down. Whitewater and Rose Law Firm  A pattern began of revealing as little as possible as slowly as possible, which was stupid, because the underlying information was embarrassing but not scandalous.  You may be right, Mr. President, and I know you guys didnt do anything wrong. Thats why I think its best to turn this whole thing over to a special counsel so we can get back to work. That was before Stark came into the picture. But of course the Clintons didnt turn anything over until much of the taxpayer $ had been spent. George also talks of a number of times he needed to defend against bimbo eruptions and Hillarys defense of the prez. But Hillary heard the Gennifer tapes, knew of his reckless behavior ever during the campaigning. On the American Spectator story, When I asked Clinton about the rumors a few days before the stories broke, his abrupt shift to fast-talking, lawyerly, hyperexplanation mode convinced me something was up. I never offered anyone a job, he insisted. But he didnt deny calling the troopers [to offer jobs for silence]. How could a smart woman not know? In concluding, with Clintons second victory he writes: Hillary had paid a higher price, taken harder hits, achieved fewer dreams. And finally on the Monica thing, How could Hillary buy that? How could she not? The alternative was too painful to admit

And of course since George had left the white house, he had heard that as far as Clinton was concerned he was a "nonperson". Why? Because George couldn't vouch for Clinton's credibility any more and buy the party line which was more about Clinton's accusers than his actions. In the end, George was tired of those gut wrenching moments. Now he could speak his mind. An interesting read from a guy on the inside.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), September 22, 2000.

Smarty,

It's not the *sex* so much, it's the lying, the distortions of fact, the twisting of words, to keep his "fat out of the fryer" so to speak.

He is absolutely abominibal and unfit to hold the position. He has used executive orders to circumvent the Congress' power and uses undue influence in the U.S. Supreme Court to influence their decisions to mirror what his opinions are - he has completely short- circuited the "checks and balances" that were instituted to prevent this kind of abuse of power. Unfortunately, the media spin, and the short-sighted, self-serving mindset that seems to prevelant here, has allowed him to do just that. Turn it from a Republic to a rotting, self-serving tyrranny. Rome isn't burning yet, but it won't be long until the overseas barbarians start setting the fires.

He is a sexually addicted, compulsive liar, who doesn't mind using any means available to achieve his own ends. Do I want him, or any of his associates in power - hell no! As for Dubya, I'll take my chances. Hopefully, he won't sell us downriver to the Red Chinese as Clinton/Gore have!

-- Deb M. (vmcclell@columbus.rr.com), September 22, 2000.

First, I am an independent voter, unregistered with any political party.

Second, I find the argument that Republicans should apologize to Bill Clinton rather silly. The vast majority of Republicans had absolutely nothing to do with the Whitewater investigation. I suppose the frantic Mr. Press thinks the Los Angeles taxpayers who fund the prosecutor's office should apologize to O.J. Simpson. (laughter) The Whitewater investigation resulted in some prosecutions. If it brought some criminals to justice, there are some positive results.

What Mr. Press is saying in a rather hyperbolic style is that the investigation was politically motivated. He thinks the people who drove this investigation, presumably Republicans, should apologize because they did not actually convict the Clinton's. The real issue, however; was there sufficient cause for investigation?

Remember, people initially thought the Lewinsky matter was a witch hunt. Clinton started a systematic destruction of Lewinsky's image, characterizing her as a "stalker." Only when the smoking gun of the blue dress appeared did Clinton change strategy. In the end, it was proven that Clinton lied under oath. Oh, this falls well short of "high crimes and misdemeanors," but it is pretty repugnant behavior.

Had the investigation never been undertaken, we would never have learned the president lied. Do I agree with Starr's tactics or the cost of the investigation... no. But I think where there is reasonable evidence of wrongdoing, an investigation is warranted. To advocate the alternative is to suggest we ignore all but the most blatant of criminal behavior.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), September 22, 2000.