This picture is likely to inspire some virtual vitriol . . . I had the pleasure of attending a reception with former Federal Judge and Special Prosecutor (and current Pepperdine Law school Dean) Ken Starr last evening. From all that I hear (excluding attacks from Democrat Hit men) and all I have observed, Starr is exceedingly talented, conscientious and gracious.
The Starr event, coupled with my recent post about Justice Clarence Thomas and stuff that commenters have been posting about impeaching Bush, gittin' Libby, etc., I've been mulling over the utter immoderation of accusations in America and the ramifications of political "war rooms" or political prosecutions.
I heard this a.m. that some thirty-odd percent of Americans believe(d) that 9/11 was an "inside job." (report here) How is that possible?
But as I contemplated all the wild-eyed references in the context of the Libby trial and the Iraq war and the Plame affair and "the 16 words!" and impeachment rallies, I realized how effectively Bush's opponents have spun their tales. And the impact on our "body politic" is rather predictable.
In my opinion, if it takes a 122-minute movie of flawed syllogisms to make your case that "Bush lied," you're having to try too hard. When I hear them (Bush accusers) out and consider their proof, I repeatedly find there's no "there" there. But I guess there is some truth to the old saw, if you repeat a lie often enough, people will start to believe it. And it is probably inevitable that lazy readers or disengaged people or Liberal conspiracy types (even some Conservative conspiracy types have joined in) will begin to think that a given group of accused persons is capable of anything.
I think Bill Clinton was a lecherous, unprincipled charmer, but I don't think he killed Vince Foster. And I think Judge Starr was just doing his job. But I guess I wish we had never found out that Clinton lied under oath. The impeachment only endeared him to Dem faithful and proved little more than any honest observer had already concluded.
14 comments:
Alright Ned, but that tie is a bit too multicultural. It might be mistaken for support of Jackson's Rainbow coalition :)
It's my moderate tie. (I have a bunch of RED ones).
"I heard this a.m. that some thirty-odd percent of Americans believe(d) that 9/11 was an "inside job." (report here) How is that possible?"
It seems to me, that the 30% of people who think 9/11 was a conspiracy are the same 30% of people who are either eccentric liberals, or those who have abdicated high school.
Some are Libertarians, some are ultra rightwing nuts. There are numerous people who buy into various "conspiracy theories". Sometimes, those people are accepted (people who think Oswald wasn't the lone shooter) and sometimes not (people who think the Jews caused 9/11).
I agree, and I think there is a certain personality which is more inclined to such speculation. Of course, skepticism is healthy--cynicism less so, and they often are terribly biased toward conspiracies that support their view of the world.
Do you think there was a second shooter of JFK?
I don't know for sure, I've seen about 50 shows on The History Channel, all of which contradict each other. I suppose it is plausible for a former Marine rifleman to execute the assasination, but I like to think that G. Gordon Liddy is responsible :)
I can see why that would be appealing (esp. since Oswald was pinko sympathizer, heehee), but I've concluded that--as with how the WTC towers fell almost as if detonated, the fact that something is very difficult to replicate doesn't mean that it didn't happen a single time. The question is whether a given occurrence is impossible (v. implausible). It is too easy for my imagination and biases and limited knowledge to move me to conceive of a conspiracy otherwise.
Ned--Love the rainbow tie! Could be taken as support of gay rights. Yay!
I think Starr was on a major witch hunt with Clinton. It's not like Clinton did anything like Dubya and Cheney! BUT...I won't get into that.
I'll focus on something you'll appreciate.
As you know, politics sometimes make strange bedfellows, and it was liberal first amendment attorney Floyd Abrams who teamed up with Ken Starr to argue against McCain-Feingold on the basis of the first amendment. It was one of the few times I got to watch the arguments in person. (I'm a Floyd Abrams groupie--I think he's the best 1st amendment attorney ever)
Did you get to talk to Starr at all about McCain-Feingold and his role in it?
Sharon, I'd characterize that tie as "multi-colored" (even though FABulous)--I have a reputation to be worried about . . .
And re. that Bush reference, was the point of this post completely lost on you?! I'm willing to look into whatever arguments you make, but so far, it is a PR campaign in my mind. My view is that some people entertain the idea that it is per se criminal to disagree with Liberal Democrats. I don't think that's you, though, and I expect moderate, though Liberal, views from Ms. Cobb.
And no, I didn't get to talk to him very much about anything. Most of my time was spent talking with others, but someone had their camera so . . . I'm curious to hear your opinion about McCain-Feingold, though. Re. Starr, I think any honest commenter would acknowledge that he is very consistent/principled in his legal views and doesn't begin his consideration of an issue with the desired resolution in mind.
Indeed, he took a politically "controversial" position recently on the Gitmo detainee habeas corpus issue.
I thought what he did with Floyd in The Supreme Court was great. It is a first amendment issue.
Re: Clinton. I've gotten a taste of how you dislike any reference to private parts-anatomy. When Ken Starr released his report on Clinton and Monica, it was purely to embarrass Clinton. As you know, it was very sexually explicit, and there it was on the front page of every browser. There was no need for that at all.
Thanks for clarifying (sort of; I'm interested to hear you explain perceived opposition to McCain-Feingold), but you've misinterpreted my problem with sexual references on my blog. I need to look more into what was written in Starr's report (I didn't feel the need to read it at the time, but certainly heard all about it from Left and Right), but it was arguably relevant in a prosecution related to "sex" acts to include facts from one party (the "victim") that have the credibility of detail . (e.g., child rape prosecutions are similar, but not exact).
On the other hand, a sexual reference is "gratuitous," in my opinion, when it is used to illustrate something for which there are less graphic metaphors and ones which aren't intended to shock the audience or the other side in a debate.
I understand why a supporter of Clinton would certainly resent such perceived and arguably over-the-top details. But I also kind of believe some embarrassment was the least the President had coming to him (frankly) and such embarrassment certainly wasn't the basis for Starr's vilification in the run-up to publication of those details, right?
Love that tie! I used to have a car window sticker that looked a lot like it!
"some thirty-odd percent of Americans believe(d) that 9/11 was an "inside job." (report here) How is that possible?"
Read the article. Anger and mistrust. Not only is America angry at this administration for very good reason (apparent to all those not in a state of denial), Americans don't trust this administration. If 1 out of 3 Americans think 9/11 was an inside job, can you imagine the percentage of Muslims that think that? Probably 90%.
All this talk lately about naysayers 'emboldening the enemy'... I think we've not far to look to find who has emboldened the enemy.
Interesting (and illustrative) perspective William.
Post a Comment