No, no, Dwight-
You are missing the point. How could you be so obtuse? It's obvious that the whole misunderstanding revolves about the meaning of the word "what"! One wonders if foreign leaders worry about Sleazebag Bill's vocabulary when they talk with him! Seriously, I also thought noteworthy Jimmy Carter's statement that he thought SB was "untruthful" in his deposition. I wonder if the idiot on this thread who claimed Clinton was victim of a "conspiracy" will now add President Carter to the list of co-conspirators?? (was it jg cordes who said that?- nah, he'd be too sophisticated for such transparent bilge).
In any case, today's WSJ goes where the Starr report dared not tread (apologies to those fascinated by pornography- but you can't get no satisfaction here!) The venerable rag printed a commentary by one George L. Priest in which he had the effrontery to speculate on Sleazebag Bill's motives (Ann Corrigan- phone home). They note the widely different job possibilities offered to two of the Sleazebag's former female employees- one who said "Yes" (Monica), and one who just said "No" (Paula). It's amazing how much better were the former's prospects, despite poor job performance ratings!
I for one find it quite disgusting that many of the cretins defending the Sleazebag would call for the head, or some part of the anatomy, of a corporate CEO who behaved in a manner similar to the current occupant of the Oval Office.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Jones case, Mr. Clinton was sued for inviting a young government subordinate whom he hardly knew to meet him in a private room, where he encouraged her to perform oral sex on him, and asked her to keep quiet about it as she was leaving. The only real difference is that Ms. Lewinsky accepted the proposition; Ms. Jones refused.
Ms. Lewinsky is not simply another woman with whom Mr. Clinton had consensual sex--and thus irrelevant to Ms. Jones's sex harassment charge, as Mr. Clinton contends. Instead she is the perfect witness for Ms. Jones. Her testimony not only confirms the pattern and practice of Mr. Clinton's behavior, but also demonstrates unequivocally the contrasting employment prospects of complying with rather than rejecting his sexual requests.
According to the Starr report, Mr. Clinton's efforts to find Ms. Lewinsky a job intensified as discovery in the Jones case accelerated. During the summer of 1997, the president inquired about government jobs for her, leading to an offer at the United Nations that she declined. |
