We are interested in the reaction of Crofton area citizens to President Clinton's brief speech Monday [August 17, 1998] evening. Please let us know what you think. If you would like to have your reaction printed here, let us know. We are, however, still interested in your thoughts even if you don't want them published. To get things started, I'll give you my reaction, which is subject to change with developments. Immediately following it is a response from Gene. Since it references what I wrote, I have placed it after my own. However, you may click here to skip what I wrote and read Gene's reaction first if you wish. If you've read any of my columns, you know what I think of Ken Starr and how the press has covered his "investigation." I am much more concerned about protecting the right to privacy than I am about learning the gory details of a private sexual liaison between two consenting adults. If we don't defend one man's right to privacy, then we can't complain if ultimately our right to privacy is also taken away. I don't consider this to be anyone's business other than that of the first family, unless some sort of force was involved. I am disgusted with the Ken Starr "investigation." It has been a waste of the taxpayers' money, and our national attention. Starr is a highly partisan Republican whose only goal is to destroy his party's political enemies. His investigation has threatened cherished institutions like the Secret Service, and lawyer-client privilege. He has admitted, on the record, to having leaked confidential grand jury information. He has made a mockery of the Independent Counsel law, and of law enforcement investigations in general. I thought the President's speech hit all the right points. He acknowledged his short comings, and specifically admitted that he, in effect, had used weasel words in an attempt to mislead us while still avoiding perjury. I can understand why he would want to do that. I doubt if many of us could stand having our private lives subjected to that kind of scrutiny, and if we had committed the acts that he had, I think most of us would be inclined to lie about it. Having said all of that, I am still hurt and offended by what the President has done. I had hoped against hope that it was not true. As one of his staunchest defenders, I feel saddened by what has happened. I don't think he should resign, or be impeached, but I am worried that he has lost his authority to lead, and that we face two years of a weakened presidency. I am writing this in a rush as I have an evening engagement to make. I will write more later. I will post any comments that anyone makes, if I am given permission to do so. This truly is the real meaning of freedom of the press. Jonathan Inskeep |
My name is Gene. I happen to disagree with you Jonathan. Clinton never apologized to the American People. He acknowledged responsibility but not accountability nor consequences. Blaming the IOC was similar to his remarks regarding the campaign contribution scandal - "we had to combat the Republican juggernaut". Always blaming someone else for his actions. We certainly don't allow our children to use that excuse and I believe Clinton shouldn't be excused either. Ken Starr has more than enough supervision to discount your "Starr is a highly partisan Republican whose only goal is to destroy his party's political enemies". I am sure the Democratic prosecutors on his staff would also disagree. I suggest you read the article at http://www.worldnetdaily.com/exclusiv/980818.ex.bres.starr.repor.html for some facts from the Government Accounting Office. In regards to your allegations of ruining cherished institutions, couldn't most of this have been avoided if Clinton would have told "sooner rather than later"? I can understand your disappointment, just as I was disappointed when Nixon turned out to be a criminal. But ideology shouldn't stand in the way of facts. Thanks. |