Just clarifying something re: the morality of Clinton's impeachment.
There is a tendency to mix the issues. One issue is that Clinton, a
married man, had sexual relations with a subordinate (not an immediate
subordinate, but a subordinate). Then there's the issue of what he
said about it - both under oath and not while under oath. They're not
the same issue. One happened, and then the other. While the amount
of effort put forth to find fault with Clinton may have been
exacerbated because many found the "what" of what he had done
repugnant, in the end, he did decieve the people. And again, while
there may not have been as strong an outcry against him had what he
done been less objectionable, there are two issues. One - "Was it
moral for individuals to put out as much effort in trying to catch
Clinton in regards to his sexual acts as they did?" and the second
issue - "Was it moral for congress to impeach Clinton for those
specific acts he was charged with? (none of them relating to sex)"
Shalom
David Lind
Trickster@postmark.net
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:16 BST