Larry Blanchard wrote:
In article , lid
says...

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."


Yeah. I've often wondered what would have happened if he'd just said
"As long as I'm not screwing children or animals, my sex life is none of
your $#@&! business. And I'm not sure animals should concern you."

But that would be too straightforward for a politician :-).

Witness Rumsfeldt the other day. The interviewer quoted him as saying
something and he denied ever saying it - twice. Then they played the
tape of him saying it - word for word :-). All he had to do was say
"Yes, I said that, but I've since found out I was wrong".

There ya go. The guy clearly has to go! (But he proved that a long time ago).


Once again, truth is too simple for a politician.


Clearly, Clinton should have just said "none of your business". What a
tactical error. But, in extension, if Ken Starr's real motive were to simply
ferret out actual legal violations and such, he shouldn't have asked the
question in the first place, because it, indeed, was none of his business.
But, then, uncovering wrongdoing was never the agenda.