Excerpts from internet.cypherpunks: 15-Jun-96 [Noise] Re: Clinton Backs I.. by Joseph M. R. Jr.@MIT.EDU Rich Graves wrote: RG>This is also at odds with what Clinton said. The full text of the RG>statement is available on whitehouse.gov, among other places.
I don't see how necessarily. (1) He supports the bill, and (2) he thinks the bill is within the realm of constitutionality, his statement is rather weak, but I think if you take the two points above, their summation is obvious and _is_ contrary to the bravado of Gore's MIT commencement speech. This is not to say he could very well back off to save face, which is what he is starting to do, and I hope he continues to do...
It is in fact not at odds with what Clinton said. In fact, Clinton did not have to go out and defend the law's constitutionality in an official statement. He could have just said "my attorneys in the DoJ are reviewing the opinion and will make a decision to appeal or not within the time given by law." -Declan