>
> The language of "supported" and "reluctantly supported"
> of Liebermans moralistic tirade suggests a prior e-mail
> or communication in which Lamont gave Lieberman his
> support, which Lamont takes pains to qualify and explain.
> The e-mail (of 9/16/1998) on the web link thus looks
> like a CYA attempt by Lamont.... SR
But the direct quote in Reitz's article from Lamont's letter:
> "I supported your statement because Clinton's behavior
> was outrageous: a Democrat had to stand up and state
> as much, and I hoped that your statement was the
> beginning of the end," Lamont wrote.
is taken out of the same letter you see on the link to Atrios's blog. Reitz does not indicate anywhere that there was a prior letter from Lamont to Lieberman. The letter on the web link is the letter to which her article refers, and the point of it, contrary to Reitz's first paragraph, was not to "laud" Lieberman but to tell him he should stand up in the Senate and tell his colleagues to can the bullshit and "not turn it into a political crusade and legal entanglement with no end in sight." Of course Lieberman, like all the other Senate Democrats, eventually picked "not guilty" in the final impeachment vote, but not until after having milked the issue dry in an effort to market himself as Senator Prissy-in-the-Middle.
Yours WDK - WKiernan at ij.net
/three for today! said his bit & down he sit.