A Knight's Tale for the 20th Century
It this book objective? For the true believers on either side of the Clinton/Starr debate, the answer is no. But, for everyone else, this book is extremely enlightening. In the end, however, it becomes quite clear that Ken Starr had no business as a prosecutor in a case of this nature, and his reliance upon professional prosecutors only worsened his ability to use judgment. President Clinton, on the other hand, made it too easy for overly aggressive prosecutors to paint a target on his back. And, Judge Susan Webber Wright allowed totally irrelevant testimony (as she later ruled) to help create a political nightmare that really had nothing to do with the country.
I am from Arkansas. So, I had some concerns at the start of the book when I noticed numerous basic errors about the State. These are not errors of interpretation, but factual errors. For example, Mr. Gormley states that Frank White, with the help of Justice Jim Johnson, defeated President Clinton in an early congressional race. It was a gubenatorial battle. So, I asked whether this kind of blatant error could occur again, and if so, how could I tell.
Towards the end of the book, as he juxtaposed comments from Mr. Starr and his staff as to why they were not zealots, he also used "quotes," about how they had the President "in their sights." Even prosecutors are supposed to want fairness and justice, not a target. So, either the prosecutors were zealots, or Mr. Gormley is biased in his account. I choose to believe the former, but many will believe the latter.
These flaws notwithstanding, it is an excellent work of fairly contemporary history for those who wish to place things in order. One of the most difficult aspects of Whitewater, and the various investigations, is how they were linked. How, for example, did a cable television case for Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker relate to claims that Monica Lewinsky had sexual relations with the President in the White House? Mr. Gormley guides these kinds of connections very carefully, and provides good understanding and insight.
A weakness of the work, however, is the failure to pose the question to the various prosecutors, "so, why was it really that important?" While it might offend the perfect person that a married man would be dishonest about his affair, or liaison, with another woman, the law is designed to deal with the reasonable man. Was it really so important to pursue that avenue as a possible ground for impeachment? Further, while Mr. Gormley gives a "stated reason," that the Starr report read like the letters in Hustler's advice column, there is really no challenge to the parties as to why they ever believed that was necessary for an impeachable offense. Or, why did Mr. Gormley not follow up with Henry Hyde on the question of the failure of the House of Representatives to carefully read the Starr report and develop a new set of evidence to provide to the Senate, instead of just relying on the Starr Report as the evidence.
The key, though, is that without a dispassionate presentation of all the twists and turns of this challenging time in American history, the ability to ask these various questions would be impossible. While President Clinton can correctly state that certain things should not have occurred, this is an insufficient explanation for why they occurred. And, without reading this book, one is not able to even ask the right questions. Read it.
2 out of 2 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback.
Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.