So, William Jefferson Clinton admitted to having "inappropriate sexual relations" — in other words, sex — with "that woman," Monica Lewinsky.
Was it really a shock to the nation? Did anyone believe that he wasn't lying through his teeth when he emphatically stated that he didn't have sex with her? I highly doubt it.
In fact, if there is a reader out there who sincerely did believe that Bill Clinton was telling the truth in this matter, then please get in touch with me immediately.
I have some land in Florida about 10 miles east of Miami that I want to sell you for a low price. It has a huge swimming pool in the backyard. How is that sounding?
The point here is that Bill was lying, but he couldn't hide in deceit anymore, so he had to face the music and tell the truth (as much as he hated to do so). This is all fine and dandy, but I think what most people would like to know is — what next?
Being the ever-so-mindful columnist that I am, I decided to watch some of the commentary on the fate of Bill Clinton that immediately followed his address to the nation.
Although there were several opinions floating around about the future of "Slick Willy," I was most astonished to discover that a common opinion was as follows: The president admitted to his wrong-doing, so let's forgive, forget and move onward.
I don't know if this is a common nationwide consensus, but one would think so after hearing so many opinions like the ones being voiced by people interviewed on television.
However, I'm here to tell you that this ideology simply isn't going to cut it.
First, let me begin by stating that I'm all for forgiveness.
Bill Clinton finally owned up to his irresponsibility and, like a man, he admitted his guilt. For once, his courage should be lauded, and forgiveness is in order.
However, simply admitting his guilt isn't enough. Let me make this clear. Along with this kind of action come consequences that our illustrious president must accept.
If, indeed, he did lie while under oath, he is subject to pay the penalty for perjury, which is a felony.
To have him simply say, "I did it, and I'm sorry," is not going to alleviate the situation. Instead, it will only teach the people of the United States that they can get away with anything if they merely own up to their deeds. Do you understand what this means?
Basically, it means that you can go out and kill someone, or rob someone, or commit some other heinous crime, but if you get caught, then you just have to say, "Hey, I did it and I'm sorry." Then, everything will be fine. The authorities will just pat you on the back and say, "Thanks for owning up to your guilt. We're going to put this behind us, so you're free to go."
Clearly, this is not how things really work, but this is the lesson the nation will learn if its impeccable leader gets such treatment.
Do we want our children to learn this kind of message? No.
We must teach our children that for every misdeed there is a consequence to suffer. To teach them otherwise is to teach them irresponsibility and rebellion. Truly, the intelligent reader would agree.
Of course, there are people who may adhere to the following philosophy: "We've already spent enough of the taxpayers money in this whole ordeal. Let's move on and stop wasting time and money." In other words, Kenneth Starr is an evil, money-wasting man. True, the investigation did cost roughly $40 million, but whose fault was it?
Now, pay attention carefully. Had Clinton owned up to his misdeeds a long time ago, the investigation would have been neither lengthy nor costly. Let's face the cold reality.
Bill Clinton is to blame for the waste of taxpayers' money. He should have come clean a long time ago. Tell me why Ken Starr, who is just doing his job, gets accused of wasting money, while Bill Clinton, who is dodging the truth and lying through his teeth, suffers no bad press?
Again, what lesson do we want to teach our children? It seems that this particular lesson generally teaches us that police are wasting taxpayers' money by pursuing suspects in a crime.
It seems ludicrous, but that is the lesson to be learned if Ken Starr takes heat for pursuing the president while Clinton, who is at fault, gets public sympathy and takes no heat.
I don't know what is to come of this issue, but I do know that already there should be major questions in the minds of all Americans.
If Bill Clinton lied about this affair (pardon the pun), then what else has he lied about? If the president had a "critical lapse in judgment" in this matter, is it likely to assume that he may very well have "lapses in judgment" in other issues of national importance?
These are things that should weigh heavy on Americans' minds. Do not be further deceived. Clinton made the first step in admitting guilt.
He must carry through and accept the consequences of his actions. Otherwise, the American justice system is a double standard.