RE: Clinton's fake apologies

["Blanc" <blancw@cnw.com>]

>From Bill Clinton, via  WASHINGTON (Reuters):

: 	First, I want to say to all of you that, as you might imagine, I
: have been on quite a journey these last few weeks to get to the end
: of this, to the rock bottom truth of where I am and where we all are.


But we are not the ones whose direction (moral compass?) is in question, as we're not all
in this together.  We only found out about it in Jan/February.


: I agree with those who have said that in my first statement after I
: testified I was not contrite enough.  I don't think there is a fancy
: way to say that I have sinned.


i.e.:   Now that there was unavoidable evidence of a DNA match, and in view of 23 boxes of
a report distributed to everyone in Congress and everyone else in the whole world, it's
time to look more seriously repentant, in an off-hand sort of way.   (memory:  "I hope
things go well for her."  For HER ! )


: 	It is important to me that everybody who has been hurt know that
: the sorrow I feel is genuine: first and most important, my family;
: also my friends, my staff, my Cabinet, Monica Lewinsky and her
: family, and the American people.  I have asked all for their
: forgiveness.

He wasn't hurting in January.  Nor in February, March, April, May, June, July . . .


: 	But I believe that to be forgiven, more than sorrow is required
: -- at least two more things.  First, genuine repentance -- a
: determination to change and to repair breaches of my own making.  I
: have repented.


Since his sex life is personal, and nobody really cares as long as it doesn't affect his
Presidential duties, why would anybody care that he's repentant?  (don't tell me, I know.
. .)


:Second, what my bible calls a "broken spirit"; an
: understanding that I must have God's help to be the person that I
: want to be; a willingness to give the very forgiveness I seek; a
: renunciation of the pride and the anger which cloud judgment, lead
: people to excuse and compare and to blame and complain.


To excuse and compare and to blame who?  What makes him think anyone will be blaming him
for doing anything wrong?  He didn't think it was wrong for 3 or so years with Monica.
Nor for 10 or so years with Jennifer.  What would make it wrong now, at this "particular
moment in time. . . ."


: 	Now, what does all this mean for me and for us?  First, I will
: instruct my lawyers to mount a vigorous defense, using all available
: appropriate arguments.  But legal language must not obscure the fact
: that I have done wrong.

Legally defensible; morally indefensible.  Any relation?


:Second, I will continue on the path of
: repentance, seeking pastoral support and that of other caring people
: so that they can hold me accountable for my own commitment.


Because of his proven "pattern" of straying from the "path of righteousness".


: 	Third, I will intensify my efforts to lead our country and the
: world toward peace and freedom, prosperity and harmony, in the hope
: that with a broken spirit and a still strong heart I can be used for
: greater good, for we have many blessings and many challenges and so
: much work to do.
: 	In this, I ask for your prayers and for your help in healing our
: nation.


But it is not we need healing, being it not we, are sick.


:And though I cannot move beyond or forget this -- indeed, I
: must always keep it as a caution light in my life -- it is very
: important that our nation move forward.

He and his counsel keep saying this ("put it behind us", "move on", "move forward"), as
though trying to erase it from view - to obfuscate what has become apparent and continue
as though there was not something going on; something which seems to need "healing".  Yet
Starr keeps pressing on; on and onward.

It is ironic, in these times of absurd laws being created by both sides in government,
legislation advanced and supported by all manner of political interest groups, that lately
these creations of theirs come back to bite them.   Had there been no laws regarding
"sexual harrassment in the workplace", the Jones case would not have come up, Monica would
not have been brought into the picture, and Clinton would not have had to ever worry about
being revealed for his "not-illegal" behavior.

Contradictions abound in this situation:

.  everyone should have a private life -  but you're not supposed to do it in the
Whitehouse (that holy place of morally superior governing operations); in particular,
while you're discussing "matters of greater importance to the nation" on the phone

.  having sex is not illegal, when it's between consenting parties  -  but you're not
supposed to cheat on your spouse, in particular if you're a Christian (Baptist?) who goes
to Church every Sunday and worships the source of the 10 Commandments

.  people are saying that the sex acts were "horrible" and "nasty" and "disgusting"  -
like they themselves would *never* think of doing equally lascivious things to each other
(like, who are they kidding)

.  whose fault is it that Ken Starr was assigned to hound down Clinton, and that it took
so long to get to this point?  Who was stalling, who needed to tell the truth, why was
Clinton unavoidably *obligated* to tell the truth?   How paradoxical that an inveterate
liar (according to his reputation) would have put himself in a position where legally,
according to the law, the law of this Nation which he supports and leads into the Future,
he is required  to reveal the truth, even when decency would say that one should not be
coerced into self-incrimination over a personal, private matter, and should not have to
confess such things.

Deep irony, for times like these . . .

    ..
Blanc