Enough! Let's move on

Report's focus on affair reveals purpose of witch-hunt

As Kenneth Starr's report with lurid descriptions of Clinton's affair hits the internet, some of the president's staunchest critics are starting to regret their votes that publicized the material.

Yet while rumors fly concerning impeachment or congressional censure, the greatest question in my mind remains this: Why bother?

Sure, Clinton made some mistakes -- some BIG mistakes -- but he admitted them. So why did Starr feel he had to write more about the affair than about either the Whitewater scandal or the allegedly altered FBI files?

Obviously more concerned with embarrassing Clinton than he is exposing what the original object of the inquirity, Starr's report contained far more sexual descriptions than matters dealing with either the Whitewater or FBI files.

Of the eleven alleged causes for impeachment given by Starr, six have to do with lying about the affair four are concerned with his efforts to keep other people from exposing it, and the last one -- the affair itself -- describes it as "inconsistent with the president's constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws."

None have anything to do with previous allegations, be it connections to either the Whitewater scandal or the FBI.

Although true that his extramarital affair was inconsistent with the president's job description, the only thing impeding Clinton's ability to "execute the laws of the nation" is the public's fixation on his cover-up of an illicit relationship.

As an inquiry into potential misdeeds concerning the Whitewater scandal, we've already come so far from the issues I wonder if we're not already in the next millennium's electoral race.

Local news has followed a similar course of deviance from the issues. Kumu halau [name withheld] was recently convicted of child molestation and sentenced to five years probation.

Instead of focusing on what we should do to prevent things like this from happening again, every commentary I see says he should serve at least one year of jail time for his actions.

Again, why bother? He's already been rehabilitated, as determined by Circuit Judge Wilfred Watanabe. As an uninvolved party, having heard both sides of the story, he had the best perspective on what would serve society, not me or anyone else.

It appalls me, though, that people will quickly pass judgment on a man without so much as a thought as to what it would accomplish. A year in jail would not help [him] become a more useful member of society, nor would it appease those who've been hurt by his actions.

Starr just wants to see a conviction. That's why there are so few references to the Whitewater case, for which Starr started out as an independent counsel.

The U.S. Representative for Honolulu, Neil Abercrombie, said that Starr's report was only one side of the story -- that there was a purpose behind the bias.

The legal equivalent of a serial stalker, he's jumped on any trace of evidence, following it even though it's led far from the original case.

Out for blood with no regard for the consequences, both Starr and [name withheld]'s critics voice their solutions without reflecting on what they would result.

Clinton's policies as president lead me to believe the country would benefit by allowing him to keep his job. And considering recent world news, the whole globe would be better with him in office to provide stability.

I can't say Clinton deserves either impeachment or censure, and I can't advocate a different sentence that what Watanabe decided on. I can only look at my own life and say I'm lucky I haven't been put on trial for the mistakes I myself have made.

Have the critics considered their own failings before denouncing the president's actions? I think not.

Let him who is blameless cast the first stone.