I find it amusing in a warped sort of pathetic way how the left would
spend so much time actively demoninzing the whistle blower, than in the
object of the crime itself.

Ok, let's compa

Clinton, (at this point) was guilty of adultery. A "crime," technically, and
one that effected little more than his marriage.
He was also guilty of bad judgment, (having an affiar with an employee), and
some would say poor taste in women.

Tripp was guilty of illegally taping a phone conversation without the other
party's consent. A definite crime. Isn't it a Class C felony? She was also
guilty of betraying a friend's confidence, merely to be able to publicize a
scandal.

If someone alerts the authorities that a
crime or inpropriety has been committed, they should be commended for
shining the light on in.

Do your turn in all your friends and neighbors every time you observe an
"impropriety"? I doubt it.

You dislike Linda Tripp, because it was the final brick that brought
down Clinton.

???????????????

Clinton was "brought down" by the expiration of his second term. His popularity
remained so high that if he had been able to run for a third term, he'd still
be POTUS today. I lost my enthusiam for Clinton when he lied about the nature
of his relationship with Monica, but the majority of the country did not.

Would you be so harsh if Linda Tripp suddenly brought
forth evidence that would bring down GW Bush?

You don't get it at all. Tripp's issue was that she sold out a friend.
She...sold out...a....friend....... Is that OK as long as it damages a
Democratic politcian?

GW Bush in is the midst of self destructing. Nobody needs to "bring him down".
His cabinet may save him. We'll just have to see.

I know, it's trick question. If you answer it no, then you are branded
as a hypocritical partisan. Answer yes, and you become the poster boy
for the growing trend toward rejection of justice by people who think
that some people have a right to "get away" with shady dealings.

If I answer that selling out a friend, merely to reveal a scandalous adultery
by a third party, is a low-life thing to do, what then?

Just like the Mayor's race here in Philly, the fact that the mayor was a
subject of a federal investigation, made people want to vote for him.
Instead of questioning his ethincs, the people instead viewed the
investigation as a "smear tactic".

Could have been. I don't know the particulars. Wouldn't have been the first
time such a technique was used if it was a smear.



Some people would rather have a crook
in office, than support the agencies who prosecute those indiscretions.



How is he a crook? What has he been convicted of? Why is "supporting the
agencies" autmatically a better choice than examining the facts and trying to
draw an informed conclusion?

Speaks volumes about the decline in morality that our society has been
going through.

Because "government agencies" are not
accepted without question? Decline away, if so.