Not to defend Ken Starr's politics, but he's a fine attorney with an admirable record. Clinton most certainly bailed him out, which is why I find the current President's refusal to allow Rove and Myer's to be deposed under oath, so pathetic and reprehensible.
The current President has given significant evidence that he thinks he is above the law, or atleast his office is. It most certainly is not!
Moreover, this President was originally (though arguably) elected based on the lack of honesty of the former President.
It strikes me that the issues upon which we question this President, have ZERO to do with his personal conduct, but EVERYTHING to do with his apparent lack of competence and/or ability, and his lack of integrity; the lack of which has been forced upon this nation in the form of pork barrel spending, a GROSS lack of Presidential Vetos, and an intentional defamation of a CIA operative in order to serve a strictly political position.
I'm okay with a President who is forced to lie for national security, which history will find completely obvious, but this is a President who signed an EO limiting access to Presidential libraries. (Luckily Congress has figured out that they are the ACTUAL LEGISLATORS in this nation, and have over ruled G.W. Mussolini, but this clearly could have gone unnoticed for a number of important years.)
Sadly for us all, three Presidents have given us reason to seriously doubt the office since 1940. One was Clinton, one is in office, and if you need me to tell you the name of the other, than my words are already wasted.
Sadly two have given a reason to doubt our governmental process, and though Clinton may have boned an intern, he was not one of them.
The process of liberty is the most sacred aspect of our American existence. The individual conduct is so much less important than a governmental process that takes place in the transparency of sun light.
In my opinion, this lack of transparency is the primary reason for the quagmire of the political process we are dealing with today.
BOTH partes are able to accuse the other of purgerious conduct, though no one can prove it. The very nature of meetings, held behind closed doors, is in and of itself, open to the very essence of ethical questioning.

But, to me what I find the most amusing/disgusting, is that we go out of our way, as a society, to question...nay interrogate and ridicule, those that DARE to question the status quo, when the status quo, and our comfort within, is the very agent that most quickly leads us to our own home made demise.

I might ad, though it seems we're straying a bit, that Mier and the AG are being allowed to discuss the firings but not under oath and not in public. Now, not long ago Senator Stevens insisted that the oil executives not testify under oath and I have a problem with that too. It seems to me that this Nation under God should mean something or mean nothing. I hope for the former but it seems today the latter is becoming the new moral standard.

Actually, Starr found plenty and got around 20 convictions or plea bargains in the investigation. You might recall the governor of AR and Jim McDougal going to jail over the matter. And Starr didn't start the investigation either. Johnny Reno ordered it and RObert Fiske was the first prosecutor in the case, but quit after a while. Starr picked up where he left off and the only reason the whole thing cost so much is because Starr had to litigate every single thing because no one cooperated.

there are some historians that argue that Jezus probably did indeed consume MaryJane... and it makes sense to me, it was a known plant in those days, and he did have long hair, and talked of strange things.... and had lots of other long haired followers who believed what he said...

Ignorant cracks about Jesus (Stijn's post and the boy subject of this thread for example) do nothing for anyone.

Sure they do! They divert attention from the fact that Ken Starr has a pretty good track record.

it's not a crack, i'm dead serious
some historians DO argue that there are signs that maryjane was consumed by the folks of those days and that region
and that it's likely that Jezus would have been consuming MaryJane , in forms of tea or brews or what not...

get over the social stigma that pot has in the US , if you look past that, and realize that psychedelics ave been around and used at for thousands years longer then "western civilisation" has been around, then it might not be such a strange possibility

Plato and Aristotle , widely accepted , great minds, are also linked to the use of alkaloids and psychdelic happenings....

it's not a crack i was making... you simply dismiss it as a crack because you're hung up on a stereotype belief, handed over and refined by the western civilisation as it evolved...

Do you really think that Jezus if real, looked like he does in a painting of the 14th or 15th century renaissance???

do you really think they had a war on drugs like the one invented by old Dutch??? you think they were anti drugs and anti everything in Jezus's days???

I couldn't care less who smoked what 2000 yrs. ago. Start another thread about it.

well it is relevant to this thread

this kid get's sued because he uses Jezus and Bong in one sentence
which is quite frankly , pathetic
some fanatics burn embassy's over cartoons
some sue minors over a combination of words

words, that connect one person to a drug
which as i just said, is not so far fetched as it may seem.

The republican conservative base is actually on the side of the kid on this one. Like I said earlier, if the banner read bong hits for saddam we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. Having said this I don't think they would agree that Jesus was a pothead but he did have a pretty strong interest in wine. Come to think of it maybe Jesus used wine in his bong?