Letter To The Editor
THE PRESIDENT SETS THE 'PRECEDENCE'?
I am at a verbal loss over the degenerative state of morals in the
White House. Not to be misunderstood, I am not shocked at Bill Clinton's
sexual behavior because his lack of morals and family values has been
well chronicled for more than thirty years. The sad commentary is that
an individual who swore to uphold the Constitution , vowed to keep
himself unto his spouse alone, and felt capable of rearing a child would
conduct himself with such a flagrant disregard for his solemn oaths.
The issue is not that Bill can't keep it in his pants... that, I
agree, is between him, his wife and whichever God he happens to bow to.
The issues (and I make that plural) range from misconduct of a federal
employee (i.e. sexual misconduct) to possible perjury and obstruction
Federal law provides for protection of subordinates from supervisory
personnel under harassment regulations - an "underling" cannot be
verbally, physically, mentally, or emotionally abused by their
"superior" without retribution. Clinton broke the law by having physical
contact with Lewinsky .l.. consensual or not ... anyone holding a job
regulated by federal guidelines would have already been dismissed (i.e.
college professor/student; federal marshal/deputy; judge/clerk,
With full knowledge of what took place physically between himself
and Lewinsky, Clinton swore under oath that there had been no
hanky-panky. He did this after being provided stringent criteria for
SEX... now most people have a vague idea of what SEX entails ... not
Bill ... he is so weasly that he must be specifically told that it
includes touching ya-da, ya-da, ya-da and unless he is given the
particular bodily-part in the list of no-nos, he figures that he did not
have sex! Get real Bill. Clinton has also said that "oral contact" is
not "sexual contact" ... if this is the case, then I would have to say
that many a prostitute has been busted and jailed "unfairly" . Think of
the precedent for lawsuits here. Apparently "Slick Willy" believes that
"oral sex" is when you just "talk about it"! isn't even debatable.
For nine and a half months, Clinton LIED ... not MISLED, but LIED
saying that he never had sexual relations with "that woman", Monica
Lewinsky. He lied to you, Congress, the press, the Nation, his family
and me. Maybe even to himself, based upon his distorted view of what
actually comprises a sexual relationship. If he had fessed up in the
beginning saying, "I'm a horny s.o.b.; yes I did it" , I believe this
would have been long-since buried. But he didn't.
Hillary? She's big enough to handle herself. She's knows Bill is a
cheat and a liar; she's been there, done that and got the T-shirt to
boot. She's a 50-year-old woman who has apparently decided that position
and power is more important than fidelity. It's her bed and she has
decided to sleep in it.
Chelsea? She's an unfortunate teenager who has been publicly
embarrassed by her father, sadly enough. Hopefully, she won't have too
difficult a time facing classmates this fall.
Bud? Well all I can say is that pitiful ol` Buddy is stuck with
this dysfunctional family, but loyal he is and loyal he'll remain. Good
Finally, Monica? No sympathy whatsoever other than the fact that
Bill put the burden on her ... "she had sex with me, I didn't have sex
with her". Must have been a real eye-opener for her. Remember a few
months ago, Monica gave the FBI handwriting samples and was "stupid"
enough to write "Monica Clinton" "Mrs. Bill Clinton" (duh)! She knew
that she was "philandering" with someone else's husband. She wanted to
"replace" Hillary as Bill's spouse. She was a sneak and a liar in her
own right. She accepted gifts and purchased gifts from and for someone
else's husband. She made a public spectacle of herself as she ogled Bell
before the camera and was obviously "gaga" over him. (Money/Power...go
Bottom line is that children of America have witnessed an
incredible spectacle of an adulterous relationship, denied vehemently by
the President giving the impression that it is okay to lie, cheat, and
break the law if your wrongful deeds of misconduct aren't precisely
Impeachment? Not for sex. If Clinton did indeed perjure himself -
yes. If Clinton obstructed justice - yes. If Clinton is found guilty of
other unlawful acts - yes. If he "only" had a hummer on the side, well
sorry as it is he should walk away with a censure.
History will take care of Mr. Clinton. While Reagan is remembered
as "The Great Communicator", Clinton will be noted as "The Great
Faker/Fornicator/Fabricator" ... or one of those "F" words.
Cory James -
Return to The Putnam Pit