In article >, Michel Boucher
> wrote:

> "Bob" > wrote in
> :
>
> >> Considering his peccadilloes are nobody's business but his own, I
> >> would say that lying about that is a misdemeanour at best.
> >> Basically he was telling Ken Starr: **** you, and the elephant
> >> you rode in on.
> >
> > Here's an analogous situation: A youth gets caught shoplifting. He
> > pulls out a gun and shoots the shopkeeper. By your logic, the
> > murder would be a misdemeanor "at best", because it was only
> > covering up a shoplifting offense.
>
> It's not analogous at all. Murder is a capital offense. Lying to a
> nosy busybody of a Republican toady is not a capital offense (if
> anything it's a public service). *If* the questions asked of Clinton
> had had any bearing on national security or his ability to hold the
> office of President, and he lied about it (like Nixon lied about his
> involvement in Watergate), then he should have been held accountable,
> But what he was being asked to do was to expose his personal life to
> public scrutiny for no reason other than the overweening titillation
> of Lucianne Goldberg and Ken Starr who can't abide by the idea that
> Democrats can get themselves laid.
>
> The secret masturbators tied up the work of government for two years
> with their innuendo and persiflage. Nothing was accomplished, the
> point of the exercise was invisible to most people and it seemed
> there was no end to the muckraking they were willing to entertain
> simply to express their overweening and bilious hatred of Clinton.
>
> This investigation was the real crime and those who pushed it through
> the real criminals. They should have been horsewhipped if you people
> had had any common sense. The fact that they haven't been
> horsewhipped or castigated in any fashion by their own kind speaks
> volumes for the quality of political discourse that too often reeks
> out of the right wing of the US Capitalist Partei.


Well said. And probably how history will view it.