I HATE feeling or being seen as a "Clinton apologist"... yet that is continually where I am placed in the pigeon-holes of Ryan's stereotypes.
I can't seem to make anyone (meaning Ryan) understand that the "conservative movement" in this country was so desperate to discredit a very popular President that they would resort to impeaching him over an extramarital affair that was miles beyond the scope of any legitimate investigation that might have been going on. A step that had only ever been taken one other time in our entire history... and an unsuccessful step at that. THAT is what I find unfortunate... just like the liberal left today, the conservative right of the 1990s couldn't make their message work without staining the very dignity of the nation and its highest office for purely partisan agendas.
Think about it... we spent more on the Starr Investigation than we did on veteran's benefits over the same period. And to what end? We didn't remove a President that was unfit for office... we simply made his entire time as President seem more trivial than it already would have, and reduced legitimate national issues to "page 3" status in every major news outlet across the globe.
Was Clinton wrong for having done what he did? Yes. Is the country better off for having witnessed the investigation, impeachment and acquittal? Not even a little bit. This has gotten so out of hand (even 15 years later) that I am mocked for questioning Ken Starr's motives and methods by someone who is willing to make excuses for the same behavior from the other side of the aisle.
If Clinton warranted the level of scrutiny that he received, then I am utterly and completely justified in expecting the same level of scrutiny for people like Gingrich when they are running for office, and I will use the same yardstick with no hesitation whatsoever.
How could I expect less?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment