I was reading Joseph Kastner's Nov. 10 Viewpoint "Democrats' witch hunt comes up short" and something struck me: The facts that I was reading were completely false and unsubstantiated. I say this because the Nov. 11 Wall Street Journal had a similar story comparing previous special investigations in years prior. The facts they gave were completely different from the "facts" given in Kastner's Viewpoint. I am more prone to believe the Wall Street Journal than a sophomore at Marquette.
His Viewpoint said the Patrick Fitzgerald investigation is costly and has turned up nothing. I say to this guy that yes, the investigation is pricey, ringing up at $724,041 after 22 months; However, that number pales in comparison to previous investigations led by former special prosecutors.
The honorable Kenneth Starr in his investigation of Whitewater, handed the government a bill for $73.5 million dollars after working 49 months, and I ask Kastner, what did that investigation turn up? Did Starr find Clinton guilty on the charges that he initially started the investigation for…no. Starr handed Congress a report on the Lewinsky affair and the rest is history.
Did the Whitewater case deal with matters of national security? The short answer is no. Turning to Patty Fitzgerald's investigation, this case clearly deals with matters of national security, and I thought that you can't put a price tag on securing the nation, as evidenced by defense spending and the Iraq war (I apologize for the often used Iraq reference).
Whether on or off duty, favorable or unfavorable, you cannot leak the name of an undercover CIA agent, which is classified information, to the press. If this was not an important issue it would not be federal law. I think the author of that Viewpoint is clearly mad that this investigation is picking up steam and may tar this administration far worse than infidelity hurt the previous one. In investigations you have to "stay the course" in order to find the truth, especially when you are dealing with senior officials in the White House.
Furthermore, when did Marquette become the Beltway? The time for partisan politics needs to be over; we are college students, and as such, name calling should be beneath us. Alas, such activities from the Beltway to Milwaukee are the standard and not the exception. Don't you see that the more you sling mud, the more ridiculous you seem, because you are not talking about real issues. If you really want to facilitate a debate I suggest that every Sunday, you hold a debate on the issues and the moment that anyone resorts to ad hominem attacks they are out of the debate. Then and only then can we hold a true discourse on American foreign and domestic public policy. I hereby relinquish my soapbox.