Willey and Starr's Harassment of Steele (Re: Rule of Law 101

Max Sawicky sawicky at epinet.org
Mon Feb 8 09:25:37 PST 1999

I don't have time to wade into this -- little thing called the Federal budget is diverting me -- but for what it's worth I think Nathan is mostly right here and his detractors mostly wrong.

I posted this to say that defense of clinton, which Nathan is being pestered with, has nothing what-so-ever to do with the issue, in my view. The new budget is more conservative than anything Ronald Reagan even dreamed about, so I would count myself as second to none in anti-clintonism.

I don't even disagree that the departure of Clinton from office per se would be much of a setback for anyone. But it seems to me that forced removal under the pressure of the machinations of the G.O.P. is a world removed from an outcome where Clinton's guilt was investigated and assessed in any kind of neutral manner.

The real issue is tyranny of a legislative majority (not backed, incidentally, by even an electoral majority), acting thru Special Persecutor K. Starr.

Whatever relative shades of victimization and bimbo-ismo can be ascribed to Willey, Monica, et al. is regrettable but secondary. In war there are casualties, first among them the luxury of moral absolutism.


More information about the lbo-talk mailing list