From: Ian Goddard (igoddard@erols.com)
Date: Wed Feb 18 1998 - 10:56:17 MST
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin (warrl@mail.blarg.net) wrote:
>> Ian Goddard <igoddard@erols.com> wrote:
>
>> > Why are Bill and/or Hillary obligated to tell us the truth
>> > about their private sexual lives?
>>
>> IAN: I agree that they are not so obliged. It seems
>> to me that lies about private and consensual sexual
>> activity do not fall into the category of unethical,
>> since private means "off limits" by definition, and
>> therefore this whole affair should be off limits to
>> both the press and Starr. People going into public
>> life have to sacrifice many areas of their private
>> lives, but their sexual activity, so long as it is
>> consensual, is and should not be one of those areas.
>
>There is the question of whether all the sexual activity is
>consensual, or whether some of it constitutes abuse of authority --
>with the proviso that if one of these ladies *wanted* to have sex
>with the President, that wasn't Clinton's fault; what I am concerned
>about is the potential for suggestions (ranging from extremely vague
>hints to blatant declarations), coming directly or indirectly from
>Clinton, that sex would be rewarded or refusal punished.
IAN: That's a valid argument. Also, as I understand,
military code states that adultery is grounds for
dishonorable discharge. That would mean that such
activity is by law a proper area of concern for
military personnel -- wether it should or should
not be. Since Clinton is the Commander in Chief,
the supreme leader of the military....
>I would point out that exactly the same concerns arise in regard to
>lying about sex, though. And it is moderately well established that
>Clinton himself *did* instruct, in an employer-to-subordinate mode,
>one of his staffers to lie about certain meetings with one of his
>alleged mistresses. That is enough in my mind to establish abuse of
>authority.
IAN: Right, but it's a complex extension of what
might not properly be proper grounds of inquiry.
>And for that matter, "None of your business" would have won Clinton
>a *lot* of sympathy *without* being a lie. Clinton chose an
>unconvincing lie over a convincing truth. On his head be the
>consequences.
>
>Unfortunately, in spite of all that, I find myself compelled to
>support him and hope he survives the scandal -- for as long as Gore
>is next in line.
IAN: Of course being the conspiracy type, I think
this is all a calculated diversion from the real
issues, being the real crimes of the Clinton
administration, such as mass murder in Waco, as
evidenced/proven by FLIR video, links to the OKC
bombing, to the TWA 800 coverup, and to the deaths
of many people. The theory would have it that the
"real planners" are getting Clinton out before
other far more devastating news comes to light.
But of course the Establishment (GovtMedia) has
done a pretty good job of preventing justice so
far, I also can't see why they cannot continue
to do so. So the current affair is strange. But
suffice it to say there is far more serious mis-
conduct connected to Clinton than telling a staff
intern to deny that she sucked on his penis. Ulti-
mately everyone knows everyone else does something
sexual, but to know that leaders willfully engage
is murder and mayhem is detrimental to the con-
tinuation of the current state of leadership.
So he get's nailed for the "acceptable."
****************************************************************
VISIT Ian Williams Goddard ----> http://www.erols.com/igoddard
________________________________________________________________
GODDARD'S METAPHYSICS --> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/meta.htm
________________________________________________________________
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:48:37 MST