Blog powered by Typepad

« JUKE BOX - CACHAO & BEBO VALDES | Main | CHANGING ROOM TALES »

Monday, April 16, 2007

Comments

Gabriel

Clinton's activities first and foremost showed that he was sufficiently lacking in respect for the office he was elected to not to keep his flies closed in the Oval Office, let alone for the eight years of his presidency.
The question was 'have his action brought his office into sufficient disrepute to merit impeachment', but there was also another one, namely 'did his actions violate any laws or regulations contravening sexual harassment in the workplace.'

Only the second question is a relevant analogy to the Wolfowitz embroglio and these sort of questions are inherently apolitical.

The first question was obviously a political one, clearly revolving around one's attitudes towards sex, marriage and propriety and it was thefore entirely natural that conservatives and liberals should have aligned themselves respectively on the issue. For them to do so now would merely demonstrate that they are partisan buffoons.

dearieme

Allusions to "professionalism" are usually a sign of a rotten argument. It was propriety that was lacking. It is therefore a reminder not so much of Clinton (perjury, rape, theft, graft and so on are not merely improper, but illegal) but of the Blairs. And for reminding us of the Blairs, Wolfowitz should be sacked.

rich

Would this article in Opinion Journal change any opinions?

The Wolfowitz Files
The anatomy of a World Bank smear.

https://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009948

Quite a different story.

The comments to this entry are closed.