Starr Report versus Free Press

As FBI vans delivered the Starr Report, our friends posted messages to newsgroups promoting our website. Posting privileges were suddenly suspended without notice. The symbolism was rather eerie. We firmly believe that the Starr Report would disappear in the light of a free press. Of course, the party line in the media is "don't blame the messenger." In the meantime, the real issue, the failure to take the politics out of the media, is ignored. We stand on the credibility of David Kendall, who said that President Clinton has not committed an impeachable offence. The people overwhelmingly agree. The media stands on the credibility of Starr, who claims the reverse. It is, in the final analysis, up to the people to decide who is more credible. Clinton's enemies and the "megaphone" media are now calling most of the shots, and only time will determine whether the will of the people will continue to be ignored. [posted September 10, 1998]
Starr Report

Is the Starr Report anything more than a further attempt to humiliate the President of the United States? Is anybody surprised? Who is in fact guilty of abusing power? Was it a Cuban cigar? It is very, very difficult to take the Starr Report seriously. At the same time, it has certainly placed members of Congress in an extremely uncomfortable position. On the one hand they do not want to condone inexcusable behaviour and on the other, they do not want to be a party of the plot to destroy the President of the United States -a plot that precedes Monica Lewinsky by far. Impeachment proceedings should not be a stage for partisan warfare, but with Starr leading the assault, is anybody surprised? [posted September 12, 1998]

Back To:



This page has been visited times.

sources  |  Guests  |  The Critics  |  JFK  |  Election  |  Hardball  |  Scandal  |  Starr  |  Satire  |  Media Bias  |  Awards