|
In an amazing address to the American people Monday evening [August 17], President Clinton claimed to have "mislead" us about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Perhaps he should be charged with perjury for making that statement. (Are you listening, Mr. Starr?) The President may have attempted to mislead us, but even that is doubtful. We have known all along that he had some sort of sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, and that he was using "weasel words" to avoid discussing graphic details of his private life in public. Shortly after the original Lewinsky story "broke," Saturday Night Live aired a hilarious and telling sketch in which John Goodman played Moses returning from the Mount of Olives with the tablets containing the Ten Commandments. When he read the one about adultery, a Clinton look-alike stepped forward from the gathered crowd to complain that the commandment was vague. It went something like this: Clinton: I'm confused. Moses: Why? The commandment is very clear. "Thou shalt NOT commit adultery." Clinton: I'm still confused. Moses: Though shalt not "know" any woman other than thy wife. Clinton: Yes, but how about if a man doesn't "know" another woman, but the other woman "knows" him? The conversation continues to the point of absurdity as Clinton searches for a loophole. The point is, we all knew that some sort of relationship existed, and I believe that he knew we knew. Quite naturally, he was trying to avoid both perjury charges from the Starr Inquisition and the humiliation of having to discuss graphic details of his personal life in public. I also doubt seriously that the First Lady was unaware of this. More likely, she helped orchestrate the public opinion campaign to allow her husband to continue in office. If you or I were faced with such a situation, we would probably reply that it's none of anyone's business except our family's. Because of the political situation, that was not an option for Mr. Clinton at the time. The Starr Inquisition had spent four years and millions of dollars trying without success to pin something, anything, on the President. Starr was desperate to justify his waste of resources and the nation's attention. His rich political benefactors were beginning to wonder if their "investment" in Starr had been worth it. Under these circumstances, Mr. Clinton's actions are certainly understandable on a personal level. Whether they end up being politically acceptable remains to be seen. One thing is clear, however. We must not let the tabloid media dictate an answer to us. |