|
Jewish World Review /March 1, 1999 / 12 Adar, 5759
Tony Snow
Open season on women
(JWR) --- (http://www.jewishworldreview.com) JUANITA BROADDRICK SAYS BILL CLINTON RAPED HER 21 years ago.
The president, speaking through lawyer David Kendall, replies "Any
allegation that the president assaulted Ms. Broaddrick more than 20 years
ago is absolutely false."
The response cloys because it teems with what Paul Greenberg of Jewish World Review and the
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette has dubbed "Clinton clauses" -- artful, misleading
phrases that do not address the allegation under consideration. Let us parse
the passage, "that the president assaulted Ms. Broaddrick 20 years ago." She
alleges rape, not assault. She was known at that time not as Ms. Broaddrick,
but Mrs. Hickey.
Thanks to Lawyer Kendall, we have learned to read all Bill Clinton's
utterances with exegetical exactitude. We know the chief executive and his
attorneys choose their words with supernatural care. It would be sensible to
assume they knew precisely how the statement misleads.
If someone accused you of rape, how would you reply? When a woman claimed
two years ago that Michael Irvin of the Dallas Cowboys raped her, Irvin held
a press conference, declared he would not settle the case and demanded his
day in court. He was exonerated at trial and police threw the book at his
accuser.
A malicious charge against the president would give Clinton the thing he
relishes most -- the upper hand. The world is rife these days with people
who file baseless charges of sexual harassment. So if the allegations are
false, the president can deliver a simple, devastating riposte:
"I nearly destroyed my life by having an inappropriate relationship with
Monica Lewinsky. I made a fool of myself. I hurt my family. I threw Monica's
life into turmoil. I have apologized to everybody for it, and I'll tell you
again: I'm sorry.
"But this story is beyond the pale. I'm sick of the ridiculous politics of
personal destruction. I didn't rape her. I'm furious that anybody would
insinuate that I did, and I simply won't allow people to take cheap shots at
me and hurt my family just because they think they can get away with it.
Mrs. Broaddrick knows the charges aren't true. I know they're not true. And
if she doesn't correct the record, I'll instruct my lawyers to sue until she
corrects the record."
Instead, he has turned the matter over to a lawyer who knows nothing about
it. This gives the impression that the president's guilty of one of the most
bestial crimes imaginable -- and everybody recognizes it.
Consider a statement issued by the National Organization for Women after
Broaddrick's appearance on NBC's "Dateline." It begins: "We will likely
never know the truth about Juanita Broaddrick's accusation against Bill
Clinton. It's virtually impossible to prove or defend against a 21-year-old
rape charge. Perhaps the best way to respond is to call on President Clinton
and his supporters not to launch a broadside against his accuser. ..."
The release, which bore the headline "NOW calls on Clinton to Foreswear
(sic) 'Nuts or Sluts Defense,'" hints at the most disturbing fact of all,
which is that the rape charge fits into a pattern. This president treats
women like throw-away pleasure vessels and beats up on them, physically or
psychologically, after the fact. The Broaddrick story has chilling echoes in
the tale of Kathleen Willey -- who discovered that the only thing worse than
giving in to Bill Clinton is talking about it.
We have reached the sorry state in which millions of Americans now suspect
a rapist runs our country -- and that he is able (that old rascal!) to evade
justice simply by refusing to acknowledge that the concepts of right and
wrong apply to his private behavior.
But this inaction has consequences. Barbara Ledeen of the Independent Women
's Forum says a dozen or more women called her office in tears the day after
the Broaddrick interview ran on TV. They worried the president had declared
open season on women and effectively granted a pardon to every rapist who
can frighten his victims into keeping quiet.
Members of Congress report similar calls, in larger numbers. As a result,
expect in coming days a chorus of cries -- reminiscent of the ones that
followed his early comments about Mizz Lewinsky -- for the president to come
clean. Don't expect him to do so.
The president finds himself in the unlovely position of having to refute an
accusation backed by a compelling witness (who earlier and without
compulsion denied the charges) but no evidence. If he says the two enjoyed a
consensual relationship, critics will point out that Mike Tyson made the
same argument, before spending nearly four years in prison. If he says she
never objected, prosecutors will point to dozens of molesters who made
identical claims before heading off to prison. And if he denies, networks
will replay last year's famous finger-wag.
The president's history is his enemy. To appreciate why Washingtonians
suffer a sickening fear that Juanita Broaddrick is telling the truth, take
this test:
Name any woman who has gotten intimately involved with the president and
hasn't been hurt.
His victims stack up like cordwood: Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones,
Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey -- and, most
poignantly, Chelsea Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton. There may be more.
The law can do nothing to the president if he is guilty. The statute of
limitations has lapsed. It can do plenty to Ms. Broaddrick if she's lying.
But no matter how dainty or dismissive the press and politicians will be of
this charge, it will linger. And it's not obvious anybody can do anything to
make us feel better about
But set aside the reply for a moment and ponder the president's behavior.
Broaddrick during Dateline interview
02/25/99: The birth of political wisdom
02/22/99: Children of optimism
02/18/99: Wake up, Republicans!
02/16/99: Why we feel so good
02/11/99: What exactly does George W. stand for?
02/08/99: Run, GOPers, run?
02/04/99: The languid sigh of waves lapping ashore
02/01/99: Verbal vortex
01/28/99: To be a ‘sell-out’ or an unelectable pol --- that is the question
01/25/99: The apogee of a trend
01/21/99:What my 3-year-old taught me
01/17/99:Don't be fooled, folks
01/14/99: Must a pol be ‘baaaad’ in order to get elected?
01/12/99: Jumpin’ Jack (Kemp)
01/08/99 : Hot air in the Windy City