Why isn't Ken Starr being held to account?

[bluestateguy]

If, as the movie claims, Clinton's presidency was paralyzed by Monicagate, then why isn't Ken Starr and the Republican Congress being held to account for wasting the president's time with this whole matter? They distracted and hounded him endlessly with investigations and allegations for 8 years. Clinton made terrorism more of a priority than any president who preceded him. Every time he did something or proposed doing something about terrorism they either ignored him or squawked about "Wag the Dog".

Then again maybe Clinton should have really shown some cojones and fired Ken Starr, and told Starr that he's busy, he's the president, he has things to do, and he just did not have time for his nonsense anymore. For that, Clinton perhaps should be criticized. At a certain point he should have stopped cooperating with Starr.

This will be my last post about Path to 9/11, by the way. Unless it gets canceled.

[tritsofme]

1. Clinton couldn't fire Starr.

The office of the Independent Counsel was created post-Watergate mostly after the Saturday Night Massacre in which Nixon canned the special prosecutor.

The office was created specifically so a president couldn't fire him.

Curiously in 2000 the GOP Congress feeling they would take back the WH did not renew the statute.

[bluestateguy]

2. kick

:kick:

[bluestateguy]

3. kick

:kick:

[bluestateguy]

4. Kick (until this thread gets some takers)

[CTyankee]

5. I HAVE SAID THIS UNTIL I WAS BLUE IN THE FACE!

And I continue to say it. I always bring up the things the Republicans DIDN'T do as well, including supporting Gore's proposal to harden the cockpits of commerican airliners, the recommendations of the Hart-Rudman report, supporting Clinton's efforts at finding and killing Bin Laden, supporting Clinton's smart handling of getting Saddam Hussein disarmed of WPMs.

Any Republican who starts in with me gets it right back only more so! They're pretty stunned as I let 'em have it!

[bluestateguy]

6. I will not let this thread drop

nt

[kskiska]

7. I've been asking the same question.

If terrorism was on all their minds, as they like to pretend these days, why were Tom DeLay and his cohorts trying to bring down a US President? What sort of message did that send the terrorists? Wouldn't that have been playing right into their hands and making the US look weak?

Then there's the Supreme Court. They ruled that a sitting president can be sued without it interfering with his job.

Why wasn't this included in the Path to 9/11 movie?