posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 03:09 PM
I came across the following on the internet, regarding the release of the Starr report:
Incredibly, Congress released the Starr report and published it on the Internet, with all its explicit details about the affair, for all the world
to see. Public reaction to the scandal was like that of witnesses to a train wreck; shocked and repulsed, yet fascinated.
In a petition to the nation, more than 400 leading historians decried the Congressional investigation as unwarranted and "extremely ominous for the
future of our political institutions." Such action would leave the presidency "permanently disfigured and diminished."
Now, I feel there is a good point made here. If Clinton's crimes were so great they warranted impeachment, why make the sexual particulars completely
public if not just to sling some mud? In their zeal to weaken one of the most popular US presidents, it seems as though the Republicans didn't
consider the damage they would do to the office of the president itself. This broke past precedent and dragged politics to a new low.
So, how can more or less the same group of people now claim that Kerry's anti-war activities were damaging to America? After all, we made our peace
with Viet Nam eventually, a "peace with honor" no less, and communism is dead as a doornail now almost globally except in a handful of countries
(including ironically Viet Nam, where we expended by far the greatest amount of blood in an attempt to combat it). So, Kerry appeared to be simply
ahead of his time.
Were Kerry's anti-war activites really worse than those of the Republicans "anti-president" activities for America as a nation?