James T. Kirby wrote:

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.

Well, actually, the simple fact that he waffled about it is more condemning
than the fact that he did it. If it were me, my answer would be "That,
sir, is not your concern." Alternatively, "While a gentleman never
discusses such matters, since she has already admitted it I'll make an
exception in this case. Yeah, she blew me, and damn good head it was.
Good cigar seasoning too. You oughta give her a try sometime. Doesn't
swallow though."

Instead he acted like a small boy caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

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.

Don't let Bill Clinton near her.

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.


--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)