Anonymous,

I know this site is not really one for political debate, however it does, in a somewhat perverse way, center around discussions pertaining to truth and deceit; so I guess the topic of Bill Clinton does, in a way, fit right in.

I guess I can only ask that if a person is willing to accept the supposed good that occurred under Clinton's watch (economic growth, which in reality was a result of initiatives implemented years before) along with his utter contempt for the truth, then why would that same person be so against polygraph?  Even though it has its weaknesses, some good is derived from its use.  The "take the good with the bad" principle applies in both cases.  

Clinton lived his lies on a daily basis; they were and are in fact a matter of public record.  He betrayed the trust of the American Public, humiliated those closest to him, and displayed an utter disrespect for the very office he strove so hard to hold.

On the other hand, Ed Gelb's academic credentials are still open to debate.  I don't believe anyone has actually said, definitively, that his academic degrees are phony.

I guess, even if Mr. Gelb's degrees were phony, and if he has other failings, what does it matter, as long as it doesn't impact his job performance.  I suppose we can refer to this as "The Clinton Standard".  One can be a first class liar, cheat, and thief, but as long as the job gets done, well so be it.  Maybe it's OK to be these things, and still receive acceptance, if it's done on a more grand scale or larger stage.  

Let's kick the Ed Gelbs' around, but give a pass to the Bill Clintons'.  

Batman