Sources on the Judiciary Committee express dismay at this taciturnity, and some members of the committee, like Rep. James Rogan (R., Calif.), have been more outspoken about the gravity and credibility of the charges in Starr's report.

At the very least, one would think that Republican leaders could say that Starr's report provides compelling evidence of perjury and that Clinton's legalistic response to the report is hard to square with his ostentatious contrition. Republican women could point out that but for the existence of a stained blue dress Clinton would be trashing Monica Lewinsky as a liar and a stalker even as we speak.

Even Barney Frank (D., Mass.) says he should stop behaving like a 14-year-old boy trying to pull one over on the principal. Maybe Republicans should quote him.

Footnote 451
The Starr report released Friday isn't the final version, a source tells NR.

The Office of Independent Counsel mistakenly sent an unfinished version to Congress last week when the House requested an electronic copy to expedite public distribution of the document. One clue: look at Footnote 451 in the "Grounds" section of the report: "Blumenthal GJ 6/4/98 at 48-49. [we should question Morris abt this]." Those brackets are in the original--suggesting that the report is still in draft form. There appears to be a corrected version on "Thomas" and Government Printing Office web sites, but major media sources did not have the final version on their sites as of late Monday afternoon (9/14.)

Starr's final report, which may already be on the Hill, may or may not be more compelling than the one everybody has been reading since Friday.

Paper burns at Fahrenheit 451, science fiction writer Ray Bradbury reminds us. Footnote 451 may inspire a lot of burning Starr reports over the next few days.

Pity the Democrats
For the first time since Aug. 17, the White House is getting some traction with one of its counter-punches: the idea that Starr's report is unnecessarily detailed (oh well, not everyday can be sunshine). Starr indeed may have gone a little too far with his precise and detailed reporting. And the report has other disappointments: Where's everything else (filegate, Web Hubbell, etc.)? Why is it so argumentative-because Starr just so desperately wants to nail Clinton or because the facts don't always firmly support Starr's conclusions? But the report does prove beyond a doubt that Clinton committed perjury and it is the inability of the Clinton White House to admit this that is now it's major vulnerability. After all this, after all the apologies and confessions, the president still can't admit that he had sex with Monica Lewinsky. It makes all his weepy "I sinned" statements look as contrived and insincere as they really are. Meanwhile, Democrats are left to argue that perjury is not an impeachable offense. This report may actually be more damaging to congressional Democrats than a real bombshell. A bombshell would have made it possible for them to cut Clinton loose-the nice and easy solution. Now they have to rebuke him, say he's a liar and a reprobate, while at the same time stipulating that he still deserves to be president and the leader of the Democratic party. Republicans should be quietly pleased. GOP congressional leaders were plotting strategy over the weekend (we'll have details to you as soon as they are available). But it is hard to see how they possibly could deal themselves a losing hand in this particular game.