When to Hunt for Witches

I never liked Kenneth Starr; I always thought he was a pinhead.

As the youngest of four brothers who, in our youth, functioned in a manner that involved way too much testosterone, that may not come as much of a surprise. Not all would agree, but I still feel that, even today, if choosing sides in a friendly touch football game, Mr. Starr would be selected somewhere toward the end of the process.

Thank goodness that variety is the spice of life.

Respectfully, at no time in my future do I believe I will be chosen to lead a special council to investigate a sitting President. I can still remember every time I saw Mr. Starr on TV thinking, "Look at this weasel. You can just tell there is nothing more he would love than to bring down Bill Clinton -- a man of such great talent, success, and charisma, not to mention the President of the United States."

As the days went on, and more truth came out, my perspective slowly changed. The shock of what had really transpired, and the incredibly surreal media circus that unfolded would become an example of blind arrogance, pride and stupidity that no amount of lessons from even P.T. Barnum could have assisted Mr. Clinton in avoiding.

As it turned out, thank goodness for the pinhead!

For me, the life lesson learned was that Mr. Starr's focus on truth, and his relentless patience for the pursuit thereof would demonstrate that perhaps all true things come to those who wait. The result and magnitude of his persistence and discoveries still haunt me to this day. The fact that one man could be so dishonest and immoral and still rise to what is considered the highest position of power on the planet still causes me to be shamed by my own naivety.

As the media continues to impact our culture, and our nation's own self-respect and morality erodes faster than we can figure out what "is" is, I am left only with the hope that in my own small way I can make some bit of difference. Looking back from then until now, I must say the battle of political power and the so-called culture war has obviously gotten worse with no sign of peace in the near future.

Enter stage left, Eric Holder; a man who, like most, we would hope began with the best intentions. This new sheriff in town, whose track record might be considered questionable by most of his own constituents, has something in his sights. The question at hand is, "What?"

Is it true justice or something else?

Why, after his boss, President Obama, has publicly expressed a position to the contrary, would he continue on a rogue course of "seeking truth," at a time when such a course will, in fact, undermine the performance of the agency he has targeted.

Could it be some odd agenda in hopes of a revelation that could lead to some higher understanding of truth, and expose information that now is unknown?

My Dad always used to say, "Actions speak louder than words."

Anyone with access to the Internet and plain old common sense could learn rather quickly the difference in circumstances between the actions of Mr. Starr and the motives of Mr. Holder. Political karma has a funny way of playing itself out. I've heard it said that the best way to overcome evil is with good.

Perhaps Mr. Holder's crystal ball will reveal the origin of that truth, before it is politically too late for us all, if it isn't already. Personally, I do not concern myself with the actions of those who I'm sure I can have no influence on.

But I am still left to wonder if it is some kind of cosmic oxymoron to continue in an effort that will only test whether or not certain individuals, who were simply following orders approved by all involved are to be found guilty.

Will they have excuses that float or sink in this test of truth?

Or perhaps another individual in a position of judgment said it best: "What is truth?"

 

 

Comments

[pinkibus]

Mr Balwin; You seem to find the "truth" about Bill Clinton being involved with women other than his wife and then lying about it to be a heinous crime - worse than telling the American people they had to go to war because they were being threatened by a country which had weapons of mass destruction. The lie Bill Clinton told was in response to an investigation of his private sex life and the only people he hurt were the women involved and his wife. The lies G.W. Bush told involved the country in a war for no reason other than his own aggrandizement. It cost trillions of dollars, made the world despise America, increased the power of Al Q'aida and reduced the country to that of a dictatorship by violating basic rights of Americans and those values for which America stood. America is now so deeply in debt it may never recover. It will take decades for any American or citizen of another country to believe in an American. To not pursue the truth re the crimes which beggared America and cost thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives would be dangerous. Torture and the demolition of a country for political goals is not far from what any dictator thinks and does. Bush and his co conspirators were and are a danger to the world and America. They destroyed all that America stood for and reduced it to a bully in the playground.

[terragazelle60]

Steven Baldwin cares more about the religious right then what is legal. Starr persecuted Clinton. It had nothing to do with morallity and everything to do with politics...The accusations that were made against the Clintons were proven to be hogwash..Starr broke the law to persecute Bill Clinton and his wife...useing Linda Tripp, who broke the law but never paid the price for that...I wonder why? Jonas Goldburg's Mother was in on it...and yet no one paid the price for lieing to congress themselves. Lieing should have a price..and in this society it does... they get on t v and become elder statesmen...Libby lied to congress ands he gets an award with Cheney.Cheney who loves to send others to war...he was deferred five times from Vietnam...and who loves torture, as long as it is someone else doing it.

Starr was a crook and a political stooge being used by the republican party...just like now they are going after Obama. Let a Democrate becaome president and they will go after any dem. Obama is a socialist, facist, communist, anti American born in Kenyan...Christian Muslim. He is weak, except when he is strong.....he is dithering except he wants to rule the world...

No the only think they have against this President is that he is not a Republican..they would be dancing in the streets if he was. Steven... what do you and your brothers talk about?

[MORRISONTHECAT]

Morality encompasses more than just sexual morality.

[tpfahler]

I too see a clear difference...one is a conservative and the other is a liberal.

[Maezeppa]

Sorry, Stephen, but your argument fails. Eric Holder's job is to follow the law and prosecute criminals and in this the law is his boss, not President Obama.

[BamBam2012]

Your words:

"Personally, I do not concern myself with the actions of those who I'm sure I can have no influence on."

Well, that certainly leaves a staggering number of evil monsters committing all manner of horrendous atrocities that are of no concern to you--how convenient. Or should I say "Isn't that special?".

You say you were shamed by your naivety...fair enough, but might I say that I am completely put off by your naivete? Torture is wrong. Period. I understand that cruelity is acceptable in Judeo-Christian circles...even encouraged, but my moral compass doesn't point in that direction. Torture is wrong...period.

[davism97]

Investigating war crimes is always the right thing to do.

[clevelandchick]

I read the article in Newsweek about Holder and his investigation into the torture committed by the CIA.
First, he is a stand up guy and an independent AG. Which is what the role of AG
AG Holder has seen evidence in the form of photos and video tapes of torture the American people have not. In the article it is stated that is horror and disgust at what he saw was profound. He could not ignore the truth.

Mr. Baldwin, you profess to be a Christian yet you pick and choose which sins are worthy of investigation (adultery, lying) and which are not (

[budanatr]

Because Stephen, in the USA, no one is above the law. Even fundamentalist Christian republicans.

[MerhabaAbi]

That is the core of the issue. We are a nation of laws!

[Balzac]

Hey, Eric Holder is a solid guy. Also, his responsibilities have nothing to do with hunting witches.

From the blog: "As the media continues to impact our culture, and our nation's own self-respect and morality erodes faster than we can figure out what "is" is, I am left only with the hope that in my own small way I can make some bit of difference."

I think the country is cautiously optimistic but not irrationally exuberant. Cheers.

[OverIt]

I understand there may be some confusion following Alberto "Bush's Henchman" Gonzales' tenure as AG but the Department of Justice is actually supposed to be INDEPENDENT of the White House. In fact, the DOJ even has oversight responsibility over the White House in many respects. But after the Cheney/Rove presidency, I can understand why you may have been led to believe otherwise.

[bedfordny]

"The fact that one man could be so dishonest and immoral and still rise to what is considered the highest position of power on the planet still causes me to be shamed by my own naivete."

As horrified as Mr. Baldwin is that a married President might want to keep an extramarital affair quiet, I can only hope he draws the same conclusion when looking at the 'immoral' acts committed by the previous Bush/Co administration. (Fake WMD's, torture re-branded as 'enhanced interrogation' and trampling on citizen's civil rights come immediately to mind).

[Joe Markowitz]

So if I'm understanding this post correctly, Ken Starr's relentless pursuit of Bill Clinton, which led to no criminal charges against Clinton being filed, and his acquittal of the charges that formed the basis of impeachment, was justified, but Eric Holder's investigation of members of the Bush Administration for actions that potentially violate US law and international law, is some kind of rogue operation? I guess that makes sense if you think that mis-statements at a deposition in a civil lawsuit are worse than committing or condoning torture in violation of this country's treaty obligations. And by the way, the Justice Department's investigation is in no way at variance with the president's statements. President Obama said he did not think there would be a basis for prosecution for individuals who followed the Office of Legal Counsel's guidelines, but clearly left open the possibility of prosecution for officials who may have exceeded those guidelines, and perhaps even for the attorneys who drafted the guidelines themselves, guidelines that were repudiated even by the Bush administration itself once they recognized they were so clearly lacking in legal merit.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

"So if I'm understanding this post correctly, ... Eric Holder's investigation of members of the Bush Administration for actions that potentially violate US law and international law, is some kind of rogue operation?"

It is obvious that you are interpreting Stephen Baldwin's words, you perceive that he is saying what you said, and you disagree with it.

I wonder whether he is really saying this.

Baldwin has otherwise said that actions speak louder than words.

It appears from Holder's reported actions, that he is only investigating lower-level personnel who can, as a practical matter, claim that they were just following orders. There is nothing to indicate that Holder has any serious intent to prosecute them. There is certainly nothing to indicate that Holder has any intent to otherwise depart from Obama's policy of giving de facto immunity to Cheney and Bush. Since Obama has already expressed his official approval of the I-was-just­-following­-orders defense, he has led the way for others to also approve of such defense.

You apparently interpret Baldwin's reference to a "rogue course" as indicating that he believes that Holder is investigating the lower-level war criminals because he wants to prosecute them. In contrast, I don't believe that anyone in the Obama Administration wants to prosecute the war criminals of any rank, Holder is not going to prosecute anyone, and Holder is just going through the motions for inside-the­-Administr­ation political reasons.

[bobbybee]

You are of course right about the apparent course of Holder's investigation, but Baldwin refers to Holder as "going rogue" after noting that he is pursuing an investigation despite the president's avowed preference to not do so. That sounds to me like Markowitz' interpretation is correct. Your guess about the ultimate outcome of the investigations, and Baldwin's "deeds, not words" bit makes me wonder what the hell he's got his knickers in a bunch over.

[oldvet]

The American people and not the President are AG Holder's boss.

[jcgrim]

Exactly. The president does not have any veto power over whom or what the AG investigates. Justice is INDEPENDENT from the executive branch.

[TheHandyman]

That's all well and good in theory but one only has to look at the reality of the last 8 years and so far the last one too to see that the actual fact is far from the theory. In fact, during my lifetime, I have only seen a couple of AG's that in fact acted on the People's behalf and they were either fired or resigned.

[SusanStoHelit]

The last 8 years is an aberration, when the Presidency claimed powers that were not it's to claim. To judge based on those 8 years what is right and wrong is crazy - might as well judge what is a healthy diet by looking to a 600 pound man. Figure what is right and wrong by looking at a thief. Decide what a judge should do by picking the most corrupt judge in America and go by what is done in his court.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

"My Dad always used to say, 'Actions speak louder than words.' "

Your dad was, of course, right.