Bob, I couldn't agree with you more that these children and their families lives are disrupted through no doing of their own. If Chelsea needs protection for the next few years because their is some threat to her, she should have protection (although the parents could certainly afford private security, no?). It's a first to procure this for adult children of presidents who have left office. Maybe if he had at least run it by Congress or at least some kind of oversight first, it would sit better with me. So much of what they have done seems extra-legal, frankly, but that's just me. It doesn't make me an evil Clinton hater (my emotion toward them is alarm, not hate) or heartless, it just baffles me on many levels why people ignore their actions and then try to turn it around on people who object to them. I have worked on Justice Dept. cases and have personally seen people prosecuted and indicted for much, much, much less. I'm really not trying to make some kind of statement for my "side." I just truly don't get it. I think that I am just very unhip and unsavvy politically, but I worry about the downward slope of questionable precedents regardless of who is making them. I don't think those we elect to public office should be exempt from and above the law, they are not supposed to have unilateral powers and they shouldn't get too fat on their perks, in general. Sure, I'm "naive" and they "all do it" but that explanation will never sit well with me. > Remember when lots of people were outraged by how much money the government > spent looking for JFK, Jr.'s plane? I couldn't share their anger because I > think that, as public figures, the children of presidents are a unique breed > who deserve a few concessions from the American public they have been thrust > upon and -- too often -- devoured by. I was outraged by their anger - as if that family (and JFK, Jr. himself) had not already given enough to their country. It was appalling for anyone to question the search. All just MHO Kakki
