Gould 0738 wrote:

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.

What you call "publicizing a scandel" I call providing evidence of an
inpropriety.



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.

I would if it were as serious as to involve the president of the
country.



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.

His popularity was never as high as Bush's. I doubt if he would've won a
third term. People were pretty much disgusted with his philandering and
other shady dealings. Part of the reason that Bush won was that ther
people were sick of Clinton/Gore, and saw Gore as an extention of
Clinton.



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.

Where do you live? Most of the people in my area lost "enthusiasm" for
Clinton the week after his first term started. His record was not all
that stellar. Gay's in the military, a failed attempt at socialized
medical care, and NAFTA, were his biggest achievements. Then there was
the issue of China.....


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?

It's ok as long as she helped to thwart a crime. If I had a fried who
robbed a bank, and I found out about it. Do I keep his secret (And by
doing so become a willing accomplice) or report him to the LEO? What
would you do?


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.

No human should be expected to know all possible outcomes in any
situation. GWB made the right decision. Despite all the mud that power
hungry democrats may be slinging, in their irresponsible attempt to
seize political power at the expense of our military and the people, the
president made the right decision. Some of the reasons may be a little
less than clear cut, but it have to be done. If not now, then eventually
much later, when our military advantage would not be as great.

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?

Then you reveal that confidences are more important to you, than
following the law.



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?

The conclusions were drawn alright. Unfortunately they were not based on
the facts, the evidence, or any logical basis. The conclusiuons were
automatically made that the investigation was a farce, and a smear
tactic, and given the double shot of being both partisan and racist (The
mayor is black). No consideration was given to the fact that the bug
planted by the feds had to be approved by a judge, and that in order for
the judge to approve it, probable cause had to be demonstrated, which
showed that the bug was crucial to the case.
Had the bug not been discovered by a security sweep, the whole case
would not have come to light. Hardly the gamble a "smear" campaign would
want to rely on.

Nonetheless, the conclusions were obvious. The people in Philly would
rather believe that this act was not about law enforcement as much as it
was an attempt to smear a mayor. I would say that this demonstrates a
misplaced sense of priority.




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.

When you question every action of law enforcement as dubious, that says
something.

Dave