1 Still angry about Clinton, hunh? Gosh, I share your anger. And I sympathize with the anger you must feel about Newt Gingrich nailing lobbyists on the august desk in the august office of the Speaker of the House... while he was still married to his former wife.

2 You'll get no defense of Gingrich from me -- but he also did not use his position to cover-up his behavior, which did not involve any criminal activity. On the other hand, Clinton committed real crimes.

3 "real crimes" -- perjury and obstruction of justice -- both of which took place in the face of a $70 million dollar investigation of whether he got a blow job in the Oval Office.

I'm still angry at my tax dollars being spent on investigating Clinton's sex life. But since you're not, why weren't/aren't you calling for investigations of Gingrich, chief impeachment prosecutor Henry "I-had-a-5-year-affair-with-a-married-woman" Hyde, Bob "5-or-was-it-7-adulterous-affairs" Livingston (the guy the GOP elected to replace Gingrich), Dan Burton, Bob Barr, Helen Chenoweth, Bill Thomas... do I need to go on with the names of other GOP House members who are convicted/admitted adulterers who called for Clinton's impeachment?

$70 million of our money for a bunch of adulterers to investigate Clinton's sex life.

4 Actually, you seem to have forgotten that the investigation was not about Clinton's sex life. It was began over other issues -- but expanded into perjury and obstruction after it was discovered he lied under oath.

And let's not forget the liberal mantra -- when a superior is screwing a subordinate, the relationship can never be considered consensual because of the difference in power and authority. Not one of those other cases you mention involves that dynamic. Plus, the fact that Clinton gave "special assistance" to Lewinski in obaining employment that was not available to other interns who were not giving him head, you entered into an entirely new area of misconduct.

5 And ben, don't forget, an affair is not illegal -- but lying about it in a deposition is. And since that lie came not as a part of the original investigation, but as a part of a civil suit filed by Paula Jones, you had to significantly distort the historical record to call it an investigation of whether or not he had sex with Lewinski.

6 "...the investigation was not about Clinton's sex life..."

You know, I'd be embarrassed to bring that up. What was it about? Any chance it was a partisan fishing expedition about nothing?

"...an affair is not illegal -- but lying about it in a deposition is"

It doesn't matter to you that a bunch of adulterers, who confessed only when confronted by the media or the courts, were trying to impeach Clinton for lieing about his blow job?

My moral compass points in a different direction than yours.

Its a ludicrous to still be bringing up Clinton's blow job. Normal people are a little more worried about wiretapping without easily-obtained court orders -- it is the Constitution, you know.

7 Ben, you have to be kidding me. Sex had nothing to do with Clinton's impeachment. It was perjury. Sex is what he lied under oath about. Perjury was and is a federal offence and a higher crime than the one that caused Nixon to resign from office.

Clinton was disbarred over perjury not a oral sex with a intern. These are facts. You may not like them, but there they are.

The Dems, in lock step, refused to convict him in the senate of committing a crime, while knowing all along and - in some cases even admitting - he had committed the crime for which he stood accused. They claimed, "The offence did not rise to the level of an impeachable offence." By what standards or precedents did they base their decision on? I think it was their own. They knew, as we all did and do, that he was guilty and they refused to convict him. That’s historical fact.

Interestingly, at some level I think they were right. However, legally, they were dead wrong and steadfastly they refused to do their sworn duty. It cost them (thank God) the presidency in 2000, the congress in 2002 and, I believe, contributed to Kerry’s loss in 2004. It's about integrity and they still don't get it.

8 OH, by the way, the Bush Administration, the republican controlled congress, Justice Roberts, and soon to be Justice Alito comprises the Clinton legacy. William Jefferson Clinton is a true champion of the Democratic Party isn’t he?

9 The Ken Starr investigation began over the Whitewater affair, and spun off in a number of other directions as possible crimes were uncovered -- resulting in a number of public corruption investigations.

In the course of the investigation, it was brought to the attention of the prosecutor that crimes had been committed by Clinton when he lied during a deposition. That those lies were about sex is really immaterial to the fact that they were criminal. Under the independent counsel statute, Starr was obliged to investigate and report what he found.

Once it was established that Clinton committed a crime, the House was obliged to impeach and the Senate was obliged to convict and remove him. Sadly, only one house of Congress did its job, permanently damaging the American constitutional system.

That some of those involved in the investigation had committed adultery in the past (or even at that time) is irrelevant to the criminal and constitutional issues -- though I am offended by their misconduct. But since the impeachemnt was about perjury and obstruction, not oral sex, to claim that they had done the same thing is a blatant lie on your part -- and proof that your moral compass is completely dysfunctional.

By the way -- do you support the charges against Scooter Libby? After all, he was indicted on the very sort of charges that were the basis for Clinton's impeachment -- misstatements that happened after it was determined that thee was no crime committed on the original topic investigated. Surely you do not hold different standards for Republicans and Democrats, do you?

10 Whitewater? What was that? Explain it to me. Better yet, explain it to the 290 million Americans who wonder why $70 million of their money was spent on investigating it so a bunch of adulterers could prosecute Clinton about a blow job.

Now if Whitewater had involved the president's biggest campaign contributors, a man he nicknamed "Kenny-Boy" and a company named Enron who together ripped off this country for billions, I bet Americans could understand it.

Let me invite some of you into the present millenium: "First, in the best tradition of former President Bill Clinton's classic, "it-all-depends-on-what-the-meaning-of-is-is" defense, President Bush responded to a question at a White House news conference about what now appears to be a clear violation of federal electronic monitoring laws by trying to argue that he had not ordered the National Security Agency to "monitor" phone and e-mail communications of American citizens without court order; he had merely ordered them to "detect" improper communications."

Bob Barr and I are wondering why you're obsessing about a mid-90s blow job while our constitution is in danger?
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/1205/28edbarr.html

11 I spent 9 years in the infantry defending the Constitution. I cared and care about things like the freedom to speak my mind and not be spied on by the government.

RWR is more concerned with a decade-old-$70-million-waste-of-our-taxes of an investigation that ended up being about whether an adulterer lied about his adultery.

At least be consistent and call for investigating all politicians' sex lives.

12 Well, Ben, let's see if we can refresh your memory. The Whitewater investigation began with the appointment of a special prosecutor AT BILL CLINTON"S REQUEST to investigate allegations of wrongdoing both by the Clintons in a number of financial dealings that cost the federal government money in an S&L bailout AND the improper removal of documents related to the case from the sealed office of Vince Foster during a police investigation by White House counsel Bernard Nussbaum during the investigation of Foster's suspicious death. That portion of the investigation had to be redone after it was determined that the initial appointment of Robert Fiske was improper, and so Starr took over the Clinton-requested investigation.

In the interim, Paula Jones filed suit over sexual harrassment against Clinton. During the pre-trial phase, Clinton testified under oath that he had not had a sexual relationship with any of his subordinates, including (by name) Monica lewinski. When evidence of this perjury came to the attention of the Starr's office, investigation was mandatory. Clinton then attempted to use his position as president to cover up his crime and obstruct the investigation -- an even more serious charge than that against Nixon or currently faced by Scooter Libby. After all, the use of the Executive Branch to perpetrate a fraud on a court and to frustrate a citizen's attempt to obtain justice is a pretty serious crime, don't you think?

Unfortunately, Clinton made specious claims of executive privilege and attorney-client privilege in an attempt to impede the investigation. Not only was each swatted down by the courts (including the Supreme Court), but they added to the cost of the investigation. As such, it is fair to say that the responsibility for the price of the investigation lays directly at the feet of Bill Clinton and his lawyers.

Clinton ultimately conceded his guilt by accepting non-criminal penalties. Others -- including a number of government officials -- were discovered to have committed crimes and were convicted.

And remember, the issue at hand was not Bill Clinton's sex life -- it was his lying under oath. Bill could have been getting blow jobs from Al Gore (or Al Franken, for that matter) and not have meritted impeachement. Only his intentional false statements and attempt to cover them up made the relationship between him and Lewinski fodder for investigation and impeachment.

13 Ben --

You don't get why I am interested in how history textbooks cover this issue. Did you look at my occupation? I teach history, and threfore have a professional stake in how the historical events of the 1990s are covered in textbooks, just as I do with other events and other periods.

Am I obsessed? Only to the degree that i want to see accurate coverage of historical events in the texts i might have to use.

14 Oh, and since you raise the issue of what "normal people" are concerned about, let me point you this way -- to what the opinion of "normal people" is on the monitoring of communications by terrorists.

December 28, 2005--Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree.

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Americans say they are following the NSA story somewhat or very closely.

Just 26% believe President Bush is the first to authorize a program like the one currently in the news. Forty-eight percent (48%) say he is not while 26% are not sure.

Eighty-one percent (81%) of Republicans believe the NSA should be allowed to listen in on conversations between terror suspects and people living in the United States. That view is shared by 51% of Democrats and 57% of those not affiliated with either major political party.

15 Just as a point of clarity, RWR, I count myself among the 64% that thinks the NSA ought to be able to intercept such communications. They clearly should. It would be really interesting if they had asked whether the NSA should be able to ignore the FISA to do so. Because that's the real issue here. Not whether spying should be allowed, but whether it should be conducted with the appropriate safeguards for American privacy.