Say What? What They’re Saying On Other Editorial Pages
A new Yalta?
The smiles in Paris when the 16 NATO nations and Russia signed a charter Tuesday could not have been brighter … But nothing could be more mistaken than to think that the atmosphere in Paris was that of a harmonious family gathering …
If taken seriously, Boris Yeltsin’s persistent hostility to the expansion of NATO into countries that border on the ex-Soviet Union may presage a “new Yalta,” those countries not included in the enlarged Western political-military system being left within Moscow’s sphere of interest.
From an editorial in Il Messaggero, Rome
She’s no victim
Forget that you’ve heard 1st Lt. Kelly Flinn described as a victim. Flinn knew adultery violated Air Force rules. She had an opportunity to put the situation to rights, refused to do so, disobeyed an order and lied. Men in the military have spent years in prison for less. If the Air Force can be accused of arrogance, so can Flinn. …
She’s an Air Force Academy graduate … Her performance review praised her as an aviator “head and shoulders above her peers.” She’s no dummy. And though she is young, she knew better.
It’s a waste that she allowed a secret relationship to nose dive her career. But Flinn will land softly, even with a general discharge. … It’s sad to see her dreams crash and burn, but she was responsible for it. …
From an editorial in the Fayetteville (N.C.) Observer-Times
High court whistles Clinton
No doubt many of our readers passed part of the Memorial Day weekend watching the playoffs for the Stanley Cup or National Basketball Association. They play rough all right, but it’s not the law of the jungle; every now and then a referee blows the whistle to restore civilization. Yesterday a referee finally intervened in our increasingly free-for-all domestic politics: The Supreme Court blew the whistle on the Clinton Presidency.
In a unanimous 9-0 slam dunk, the Court ruled that Paula Jones’s sexual-harassment suit may proceed against Bill Clinton while he is still in office. Writing for the Court, Justice John Paul Stevens said: “The high respect that is owned to the office of the chief executive, though not justifying a rule of categorical immunity, is a matter that should inform the conduct of the whole proceeding.”
We’re grateful to the Court for that useful phrase - categorical immunity. It has been our impression these past four years that “categorial immunity” was the Clinton Administration’s philosophy of life.
From an editorial in The Wall Street Journal
xxxx