|
Jewish World Review/ September 23, 1998/3 Tishrei, 5759
Linda Chavez
Believable and truthful are two different things
FOR A MOMENT, as I watched President Clinton's videotaped testimony on Monday, I
thought he might actually be telling the truth when he said he didn't lie in his original
deposition in the Paula Jones case and didn't encourage anyone else to lie either. He
seemed so darned earnest.
Maybe he believed everything he was saying. Oral sex isn't sex. He couldn't remember
being alone with Monica Lewinsky. He was only trying to refresh his memory when he
told Betty Currie that Monica and he "were never really alone, right? Monica came on
to me, and I never touched her, right?" Everything in the president's demeanor,
captured on the videotape, suggested candor. He wasn't sullen or particularly evasive.
He gave long-winded answers, with far more detail than you'd expect from a witness
who has something to hide. In sum, the president was believable --- which may be all
that matters to the American public.
But being believable and being truthful are two different things. Bill Clinton has
mastered the art of believability, which is what makes him such a dangerous liar. Those
to whom he's lied most frequently and directly -- the press, Democrats in Congress, his
own staff and Cabinet -- have become expert at trying to read between Bill Clinton's
lines to discern the nuance in his answers to simple questions. They've learned through
bitter experience that the president can never be trusted to tell the plain truth, so they
must maintain constant vigilance to his every word. With Bill Clinton, it's not only what is
said that is important but what is unsaid.
Most people, however, have neither the time nor the inclination to spend analyzing Bill
Clinton's every phrase and gesture. They're looking only for the general meaning and
broad message. When Bill Clinton says he had an "inappropriate" relationship with
Monica Lewinsky, they hear an admission that he had sex with her. As far as they're
concerned, that settles the issue of whether Bill Clinton committed perjury in his grand
jury testimony on Aug. 17. In their minds, he didn't -- which is why they oppose
impeachment. Nothing President Clinton said in the videotape released Monday is likely
to change that popular opinion.
So, what next? Democrats will point to opinion polls to argue that it's time to move on.
But it's unlikely Republicans will heed their advice because they believe -- with good
cause -- that the president not only perjured himself both in the Jones' deposition and in
his grand jury testimony but encouraged others to lie as well. No matter how much the
Democrats want this matter to go away, it won't. The House Judiciary Committee will
conduct hearings and report articles of impeachment, and the Republican-controlled
House will vote for impeachment. But unless public opinion polls begin to shift quickly
and dramatically, the Senate will not muster the two-thirds vote necessary to remove
the president.
In a narrow sense, Bill Clinton seems to have won his battle to remain president, but
neither he nor the Democrats should take much solace in this victory. The president has
destroyed his own image and lost any hope of accomplishing his legislative agenda in
the remainder of his presidency. And the Democratic Party will lose even more for
having won the fight to keep their president in office. Bill Clinton will be the Democrats'
albatross not only in congressional elections this November but in the next presidential
election, too.
And the Republicans could well win for losing their fight to oust Bill Clinton. So long as
they conduct themselves judiciously during an impeachment inquiry, Republicans will
benefit by having a disgraced Bill Clinton in the Oval Office. He will be a constant
reminder to voters that Democrats can't be fully trusted. Come 2000, Republicans will
be far better poised to retake the presidency and expand their majority in
9/16/98: Time for a new Amendment!
9/08/98: When silence is truly golden
8/25/98: Bears and blunders
8/25/98: Only consistency about Prez's anti-terrorism policy: its inconsistency
8/18/98: Is our 'broken-compass' beyond fixing?
8/11/98: Reno's risk
8/04/98: When Truth is of the highest odor
7/28/98: No way to protect ourselvesagainst a nut's wrath
7/22/98: These 'choice' advocates are being demonzied ... by the Left.
7/15/98: Will 'neonaticide' become the new buzzword?
7/07/98: Urge to mega-merge, stopped in time
6/30/98: Why take responsibility if
somebody else will pay?
6/23/98: Blinded by the red, or is it the green?
6/17/98: Flotsam in the wake of romance
6/10/98: We have a ways to go in the bilingual war
6/3/98: Tyson's triumph over tragedy
5/28/98: Why Univision's Perenchio is out to hurt his fellow Hispanics
5/20/98: Sometimes Buba actually tells the truth ... as he sees it
5/12/98: Chill-out on the chihuahua and ... Seinfeld
5/8/98: The revolution is just about over
4/28/98: Let's face it: both parties are full of hypocrites
4/21/98: Legislating equality
4/14/98: One down, many to go
4/7/98: Mexican mayhem?
3/31/98: Of death and details
3/25/98: Americans are unaware of NATO expansion
3/18/98: Intellectual-ghettoes in the name of diversity
3/11/98: Be careful what you wish for ...
3/4/98: The Press' Learning-disability
2/25/98: 50 States Are Enough!
2/18/98: Casey at the Mat
2/11/98: The legal profession's Final Solution
2/4/98: Faith and the movies
1/28/98: Clinton, Lewinsky, and Politics Vs. Principle
1/21/98: Movement on the Abortion Front
1/14/98: Clones, Courts, and Contradictions
1/7/98: Child custody or child endangerment?
12/31/97: Jerry Seinfeld, All-American
12/24/97: Affirmative alternatives: New initiatives for equal opportunity are out there
12/17/97: Opening a window of opportunity (a way out of bilingual education for California's Hispanic kids)