The notion that a perpetual witch hunt, coming up with nothing, devolved to the
level of getting a guy under oath so he could be asked unanswerable questions
about his sex life as basically a means of entrapment ... sorry, it boils my
blood. If I were the supreme being above, Ken Starr would have gotten a
lightning bolt any number of times. I will most likely never, ever again
respect, or suspect as being anything other than devious and underhanded, the
whole operating principal of the right.

So there. Disagree all you want. What's this got to do with sawdust anyway.
Heh, there's a nice hunk o' cherry sitting on the bench right now.

Kirby


Dave Hinz wrote:
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 14:14:11 -0400, James T. Kirby wrote:

Heh, if lying about sex is an impeachable offense (not!),


It wasn't about the blowjob, it was about lying to congress _under oath_.
Maybe that doesn't bother you, and maybe SW standing up, staring into
the camera, and saying "I want you to listen to this...I did not..." while
lying right in our faces, but apparently you're more tolerant than I am
of that sort of thing.