Customer Reviews

Starr: A Reassessment

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

"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.

The fundamental flaw of this book is verdict first, facts later approach of Benjamin Wittes. He starts with conclusions and then tries to fit the facts to support his conclusions.

Wittes conclusion #1) Starr was a non partisan prosecutor. Wittes disregards a mountain of evidence showing blatant partisanship on the part of Starr and his prosecutors. He omits any/all evidence of partisanship in order to advance his favored narrative.

Wittes conclusion #2) Starr cared about the truth. Again Benjamin Wittes ignores evidence that contradicts his thesis. Starr lied under oath to the House Judiciary Committee about the leaks. Starr's office lied to the Justice Department when they said they had no prior contacts with the Jones lawyers even though they had met with them and other 3rd party figures to set up an entrapment. Starr lied to the American people when he issued a statement saying Monica Lewinsky had gone on a "sojourn" at the Ritz Carlton. The list of lies is endless and Wittes chooses to ignore them.

Wittes conclusion #3) Starr misinterpreted the Independent Counsel statute. Benjamin Wittes wants us to believe that Starr would have used the same tactics against a conservative republican president.

Someday, someone will write a good, honest book about the Starr investigation. This is not that book. ...

Like so much writing about Washington these days, this book dwells far too much on individual personalities and exhibits little understanding of the larger political currents that drive the personalities' actions. It is naive to argue that Starr's investigations were anything other than yet another chapter in the 30-year-old trend of abuse of official investigation as a weapon of political combat. Starr did not operate in vacuum. He was encouraged, politically supported, and funded (directly and indirectly) by Republicans who wanted to depress the approval rating and therefore power of a popular president. No wonder this book has garnered most of its favorable reviews from conservatives.

I also disagree with Wittes's contention that Congressional hearings would not have delved into the lurid details that Starr's investigation probed. During the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, Sen. Orrin Hatch filled the air with his questions about a Coke can allegedly seasoned with public hair. Would the Senate Public Hair Police have really overlooked that cigar?

All you need to know about this book is that the dust jacket has a plug from Stuart Taylor Jr. The title is pretty misleading since it offers exactly the same assessment of Starr that Wittes and the Post editorial page cranked out regularly during the impeachment mess. To find Wittes' argument plausible you would have to believe that Starr is a complete idiot. This book can takes its place alongside Schmidt and Weisskopf's "Truth at Any Cost" as a disgrace to the once proud Washington Post.

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!

This book not only clearly describes many of the key activities of Ken Starr, but also provides a coherent theory for what motivated him. I learned a tremendous amount about his behavior, and (even more important) gained a sense of closure in the process.