|
Starr: A Reassessment | 
| Author: Benjamin Wittes
Publisher: Yale University Press
Category: Book
Buy New: $37.00
New (11) Used (18) from $0.55
Rating:  6 reviews
Media: Hardcover
Pages: 256
Number Of Items: 1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1.1
Dimensions (in): 8.6 x 5.5 x 1
ISBN: 0300092520
Dewey Decimal Number: 345.7301
EAN: 9780300092523
ASIN: 0300092520
Publication Date: May 1, 2002
Shipping: Eligible for Super Saver Shipping
Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours
| |
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
How is Kenneth Starr's extraordinary term as independent counsel to be understood? Was he a partisan warrior out to get the Clintons, or a saviour of the Republic? An unstoppable menace, an unethical lawyer, or a sex-obsessed Puritan striving to enforce a right-wing social morality? This volume is designed to offer an evaluation and critique of Starr's tenure as independent counsel. Relying on lengthy, revealing interviews with Starr and many other players in Clinton-era Washington, "Washington Post" journalist Benjamin Wittes arrives at an understanding of Starr and the part he played in one of American history's most enthralling public sagas. Wittes offers a portrait of a decent man who fundamentally misconstrued his function under the independent counsel law. Starr took his task to be ferreting out and reporting the truth about official misconduct, a well-intentioned but nevertheless misguided distortion of the law, Wittes argues. At key moments throughout Starr's probe - from the decision to reinvestigate the death of Vincent Foster, to the repeated prosecutions of Susan McDougal and Webster Hubbell to the failure to secure Monica Lewinsky's testimony quickly - the prosecutor avoided the most sensible prosecutorial course, fearing that it would compromise the larger search for truth. This approach not only delayed investigations enormously, but it gave Starr the appearance of partisan zealotry and an almost maniacal determination to prosecute the president. Wittes provides in this account of Starr's term a reinterpretation of the man, his performance, and the controversial events that surrounded the impeachment of President Clinton.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 1 more reviews...
 Intelligent, thorough analysis transcends politics. November 19, 2002
1 out of 7 found this review helpful
Benjamin Wittes' contribution to current writing about political figures is that he neither demonizes nor ionizes Mr. Starr. Instead, the author strives to put this important episode in the post-Watergate history into a non-partisan perspective. In this reader's opinion, the author succeeds in reaching the author's self-proclaimed objective. This reader, however, disagrees with the author's conclusion that Mr. Starr simply holds to a strict constructionist view of the independent counsel law and Mr. Starr was not, in part or chiefly, led by his political orientation to orchestrate and lead the aggressive, comprehensive, publicity-seeking investigation that he and his staff doggedly and conscientiously pursued. Even thought his reader in the end disagreed with the author's fundamental conclusion, this reader applauds the objective viewpoint adopted by the author and hopes more authors will attempt to assume this dispassionate viewpoint in future writings about political discourse. More writings like Mr. Wittes may shift current political rhetoric to a higher plane of true political discourse. Kudos, Mr. Wittes!
 Useful and Illuminating May 24, 2002
10 out of 12 found this review helpful
"Starr: A Reassessment" is an extraordinary illumination of a complex personality. Wittes' thesis that Starr saw his investigation as a "truth commission" rather than as pursuit of prosecutorial justice paints a portrait of the man which is far more consistent with his pre-appointment reputation than the caricatures, both pro and con, which emerged during the course of his investigation. While Wittes' account may redeem Starr, the person, Wittes leaves little doubt that Starr was "simply the wrong man for the job" and that his management of the Independent Counsel's office was deficient and detrimental to the country. Despite the superb analysis and sourcing, however, Wittes' conclusions ultimately rest on his judgement of Starr's credibility during his extensive interviews with Starr. As much as I respect, and would like to accept, Wittes' judgment, I have trouble doing so for many of the same reasons I had trouble accepting Clinton's original denials. They are logical on the surface and you want to believe them, but they do not seem plausible. Starr's rationale, like Clinton's, suggests either fabrication, extreme spinning or incompetence. The key to Wittes' thesis is in the first chapter where he analyzes the Independent Counsel statue and Starr's interpretation of it. Wittes convincingly demonstrates that the statute on its face, even without reference to the legislative history, does not support Starr's interpretation. The legislative history strips any and all doubt. Finally, no other independent prosecutor or student of the act shared anything close to Starr's interpretation. Starr may be an intellect who is certain of his views, even if no one else shares them, but I do not believe he is so stubborn or dense as to have honestly and intellectually concluded that - and then acted upon - his construction of the Act was correct, and everybody else's wrong. After reading Wittes' book, I conclude that Starr knew exactly what he was doing. He despised the Clintons and he despised the Independent Counsel Statute. He was in the unique position to destroy both and he set about to do so with considerable success.
|
|
|
| |
