Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.

Re: Criminal Sexuality

Author:Jon Bodner
Posted:12/15/1998; 10:54:47 AM
Topic:DaveNet comments
Msg #:1241 (In response to 1213)
Prev/Next:1240 / 1242

See, I just can't take Clinton's lies as seriously as you are, Dave. There are a couple reasons.

First of all, the House is going to impeach Clinton for perjury, not for sexual harassment. The testimony which led to the perjury charge was simply fishing by Jones' lawyers. I still don't see how a consentual relationship with an employee (where the employee was the instigator of the relationship, by all accounts) has anything to do with whether or not Clinton dropped his pants in front of Jones, umpteen years ago. There's no pattern here. You might as well say that if someone accused Bill Gates of sexual harassment, it could be proven because he married an employee. Obviously, that's silly. Clinton was having an affair, it had nothing to do with what he was being sued over, so he lied about it. Eventually, the judge agreed and threw out Jones' case.

(As an aside, I've never believed the Paula Jones story, because it doesn't make much sense. American Spectator says that a state trooper told them that Clinton had sex with a woman named Paula, and then Paula Jones sues Clinton for ruining her good name. Eh? Why didn't she sue American Spectator? That's just the tip of the iceberg of oddities in this case.)

The Kathleen Wiley story, if true, would be grounds for ditching Clinton, IMHO. But the House ignores it and Ken Starr ignores it. Why?

Now there's some evidence that Starr knew about the affair ahead of time and that Clinton would lie about it, and didn't step in (like he would have to, since as an officer of the court he has to stop a crime he knows about from being committed) until after the fact. Once again, why? More and more, this looks like a weak man (and yes, America has long known that when it comes to women, Clinton is weak) being set up to commit a crime.

The country has certainly been faced with worse lies from the White House, and no one was impeaching anyone over them. Heck, Henry Hyde thinks it's OK that Regan and Co. lied about Iran-Contra. I guess it's better to lie about nun-killing terrorists than it is about getting illicit nookie. Go figure.

I think the majority of Americans know that this impeachment (like Andrew Johnson's impeachment) is about politics and getting the upper hand, more than it is about rule of law. That's the problem with it. I agree that Clinton should have resigned to spare us this embarassment (and he could have possibly given the Democrats back the House by resigning before the election and blaming it on the Republicans, but Clinton's not a Party guy), but it's still not impeachable.

If the Republicans had real issues, they'd be bringing them up right now (or would have at least campaigned on them). Since they don't, they're torturing the president, under the belief that if they do it long enough, the public will support them. I'm not falling for it. Balancing their cynicism against Clinton's, I'd rather deal with Clinton's pettiness than the Republican's faux high morals and self-righteousness.

-jon



This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:46:35 PM.

© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.