Letter: Picking the wrong synonym for sex isn't against law

Maybe he thought "sexual intercourse" was a bit crude and used a euphemism. Clinton should have said in January: "I did not have sexual intercourse with that woman." This would not have been a lie, but his use of a more general term allowed Republicans and the media to brand Clinton as a liar.

And in his deposition for that frivolous lawsuit pursued by the Republicans to smear the president, he should have stated unequivocally: I did not have sexual intercourse with that woman." Using a loose term instead of a precise one allowed Starr to expand his inquisition and trash our most precious right -- the right to privacy.

Monica Lewinsky wanted to protect the man she lusted after, so in her deposition she denied having sexual relations with him. If Monica had stated the simple truth in plain language -- we did not have sexual intercourse -- Starr would not have been able to browbeat her into revealing all of the lewd details of her endeavors to seduce the president.

So all of this talk of impeaching the president is for his poor choice of synonyms. I strongly believe that what we say or write should be simple, clear and unmistakable, and that using loose language is a crime, but it is not illegal.

The Republican revolution has reduced the grounds for impeachment from high crimes as stated in the Constitution to any conduct that the oh-so-righteous Republican Congress deems improper, and it doesn't even have to be illegal.

Vernon Bostick

archive