October 19, 1999
Good Riddance, Ken Starr.

By Sue Morrison

Ken Starr is a disgusting, pathetic tyrant.

George Bush’s former Solicitor General is beyond arrogant, beyond despicable and beyond disgusting. Ken Starr resigns, but not before he passes the baton to another so called Special Prosecutor, and then he turns around and claims that it is time for “more law, less politics”. Is Ken Starr an avid reader of Newsworld Showdown, because that is what nsnews has repeatedly and consistently said for years now? Needless to say, we absolutely agree with the need to take the politics out of the law and if that is what Starr in fact wants, he should be indicted for the murder of Jim McDougal.

By passing the baton of this fraudulent Inquisition, Starr’s calculated scheme to revive a dead investigation proves beyond all doubt that he wants to do to both Clintons, what he successfully did to Jim McDougal. To be sure, Starr calls what he did to McDougal a successful prosecution, but if that’s what it is called when a “vegetable” is prosecuted, we beg to differ. Starr may have successfully used fraudulent documents to match the testimony of fraud artist David Hale, but he convicted Jim McDougal when Jim McDougal looked like he was a shock therapy victim, Ken Starr did not indict a criminal. As a matter of fact, Jim McDougal was so ‘punch drunk’ by the time that Starr ‘got him’ that Jim McDougal simply laughed his so called prosecution off, without demonstrating the slightest concern. Who knows what was in fact promised, to get Jim McDougal to cooperate with Ken Starr? We may not have explicit details, but the course of this Inquisition is crystal clear. We do not need the testimony of a “vegetable” like Jim McDougal, to figure it out. And we say this with all due respect for a man who was obviously brain damaged, at the time that Ken Starr exploited his weakness. When Jim McDougal was normal, every single career prosecutor in the United States of America had failed to convict him. Where is capital punishment when it is most needed? Where is the rule of law? Ken Starr talks about it, but he is obviously seeking alternate vindication. Ken Starr is hitting the 'talk show' circuit, but If he thinks that he can use the media to rehabilitate his reputation the way mass murderer Richard Nixon did, he is even more deluded than previously thought.

But it is certainly a cute trick isn't it? Ken Starr may think that he can preach the benefits of taking the politics out of the law while the failed impeachment wreck seeks to impale the political candidacy of Hillary Clinton, but is anybody in the mood to buy this scam? Time will certainly tell.

At the very least, Ken Starr should have closed this investigation down, before he cowardly jumped ship without resolution. By prolonging this national nightmare, Ken Starr proves that he will forever be despised and condemned by every single reasonable human being. Moreover, the fact that his appointed successor praised Ken Starr is more than enough to make the skin of all ordinary people crawl with absolute disgust. Good riddance Ken Starr. Your legacy is the fact that you make decent people feel like puking every single time you open your stupid mouth. "Stupid" is a stupid pejorative, but it is the kindest thing that we can possibly say, about a tyrant like Ken Starr. [October 19, 1999]

What is the Starr Report all about? Is the Starr Report anything beyond 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]

Does the Starr Report reflects anything beyond an inane, illegal, malevolent, conniving campaign to overthrow the Clinton government? If the public does not think that President Clinton's private sex life is a matter for public concern, then what gives anybody the right to use public resources, to expose private, legal conduct?

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]
sources  |  Steve Kangas  |  Murder or Suicide?  |  Hemingway  |  Assassins  |  Hardball


Copyright © 2001
Thank You