"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:JExsk.313361$yE1.286917@attbi_s21...
Next, you simply assume Clinton DID lie under oath. No such thing has
ever been proven despite a monumental effort to do so. So perhaps you
think you can succeed when much more qualified people have failed, but I
don't share your optimism. The legal case against Clinton failed. The
political case against Clinton failed. The popular opinion case against
Clinton failed. Perhaps in your own mind you succeeded, but I doubt you
had a high opinion of Clinton to lose in the first place. Furthermore
the price for those failures was equivalent of wiping your arse with the
US Constitution. Congratulations.

Many things failed during this process, not the least of which was our
legal system. When our president can lie on national television AND in
the courtroom, and not get punished in any way (in fact, in the long run
he profited from the affair) it's safe to say that our legal system has
failed utterly.

It's already been explained to you how Clinton didn't commit perjury. Since
he didn't commit perjury, he should never have been pushished for it, so the
legal system worked just as it should. You would rather see an innocent man
convicted just because you dislike him. As such you have little regard for
our legal system, but hardly for the reasons you claim, and you reinforce
that with each post.

It's apparent that you hold the Presidency in lower regard than many of
us, and that you are happy to game the system so that it's perfectly fine
for lecherous old married men to pound on sweet young employees in the
Oval Office. The halls of power have always been filled with such men,
enabled by folks like you -- but I had hoped that we had moved beyond such
things, driven (not surprisingly) by the women's movement over the past
100 years.

In the end, the greatest irony of this whole thing is the deafening
silence emanating from the descendents of that same women's movement in
the face of Clinton's sexual abuse of a subordinate in the workplace --
precisely what that movement has spent many decades fighting against.
Stranger still how many of these same women would later become supporters
of Clinton's cuckolded wife in her run for the presidency -- this the same
humiliated wife who behaved in precisely the same meek, door-mat style
that the women's movement has advocated against.

I find it rather funny how you regard the chubby intern. First she was
"cute", now it's "sweet". Obviously you view young women as just an object
of your own desire and yet you want to preach women's rights in the same
breath. You've been told numerous times that Lewinsky was no victim, yet
you refuse to believe it despite the overwhelming evidence presented
publically for months. So what's the reason for this? Ignorance can not
explain it anymore. It's either rampant stupidity or perhaps you have one
or two fantasies in which you just can't quite let go. I'm beginning to
suspect the latter. You are more like Clinton than you realize, but you
just don't have the charisma to act on your urges, and perhaps that's what
bothers you the most.