LETTERS: SCANDAL RAISES MANY QUESTIONS

To the editor:

The Clinton intern scandal raises a host of questions about the president's state of mind, his relationship with his wife and the continued Democratic and Independent support for the man, as well as Clinton's ability to continue to run the country, if that's what he is doing.

Just when I'm wondering what kind of physical relationship the president has with his wife, considering the number of affairs he's alleged to have had, along comes Dick Morris, the former adviser who knows something about sex scandals himself, saying Hillary may indeed have some problems with sex. His exact words, as recorded by a Los Angeles radio station: "Let's assume, OK, that he sexual relationship with Hillary is not all it's supposed to be. Let's assume that some of the allegations about Hillary sometimes -- not necessarily being into regular sex with men -- might be true."

He goes on to speculate that Hillary's predilections may be a factor in Bill's philandering, though a new Clinton biography says the guy was cheating even when they were engaged (ushering girlfriends out a side door as fiancee Hillary arrived via the front).

Interesting choice of words, though. "regular sex with men," since her husband doesn't seem to have much interest in what most people probably would consider "regular sex with women," if his ex-lovers and current litigant can be believed. They seem to be saying he acted as if he thought they should feel privileged to be allowed to fellate him. Paula Jones says he even asked her to perform fellatio during their famous hotel encounter (as if she should jump at the opportunity). And a state trooper aide suggests Clinton when governor was obsessed with oral sex and had it twisted around his Bible instruction, claiming the Bible doesn't specifically cite the act as adultery even when a married man is involved. The self-serving conclusion, of course: Therefore it's OK. (Maybe it simply wasn't common when the Bible was written.)

Gennifer Flowers, with whom Clinton now reportedly has admitted under oath that he was unfaithful, says he also liked to lick whipped cream off her body (clever, mixing another of his voracious appetites -- eating -- with sex) and to engage in sado-masochistic acts (suggesting a feeling of guilt? Is that possible?).

A psychiatrist who's writing a book about the Clinton presidency is quoted on the Internet assaying Clinton appears to be a sex addict whose recent activities resemble those of an alcoholic who has hit rock bottom. Scary, isn't it, a military-hating liberal who's hit rock bottom standing toe-to-toe with a Mideast despot busily manufacturing and hiding his anthrax stores? Meanwhile, a Clinton aide blusters about the possibility of using nuclear weapons. Who knows what these folks are capable of?

More questions about Clinton's reckless sexual compulsions: What physical pleasures do Clinton's lovers receive if, in fact, he does disdain regular sex (Lewinsky says on tape he told her he was, at 50, too old for sexual intercourse) and presumably performs no reciprocal service for them? And why do they keep coming back for more? Former White House intern Monica Lewinsky at least reported on the infamous tape to have become tired and disgusted with the arrangement.

Also, what does Hillary get out of this extremely strange partnership? Power, prestige, a national forum for her leftist views? Is that enough to be chronically humiliated by a chronic womanizer and liar whom she must publicly defend again and again? Can it be that Hillary isn't the smartest woman in the land after all?

Moreover, how long can the modern professional woman stand by this character whose popularity appears to have dipped only momentarily? Isn't he everything women are supposed to abhor in males these days? Suppose he were the 50-year-old president of a major corporation who used the power of his office to seduce vulnerable 21-year-old women, and not one but three or four, or perhaps dozens as some news accounts suggest. Where is the outrage over the plight of financially strapped Kathleen Willey, who is now widely reported to have admitted under oath that the president accosted her when she applied for a job at the White House? (She got the job, by the way, a do-nothing, good-paying position, according to recent news magazine accounts. Anybody curious about how much tax money is being wasted creating jobs for Clinton's down-on-their-luck friends?) Doesn't Clinton personify everything that's supposed to be awful about white, middle-aged American males? What, it's terrible for a black Army sergeant to take advantage of a naive, vulnerable recruit but OK for Clinton to regularly, historically conduct himself in the same repugnant manner? How is Clinton different, except that he has the power to make his most far-out fantasies come true?

And why is it our president seems to have little to do but hang out in the East Wing with cute little White House interns? Maybe we should make this a part-time job.

Republicans, of course, are not anxious to try to impeach a popular president, and with the notable exception of U.S. Sen. John Ashcroft, most are keeping their lips zipped, for better or worse. Of course, one theory is it's better to let the revelations dribble out, the disgust to mount, the man's support to decay perhaps, at last, at least through the fall congressional elections.

Eventually, most likely, we'll end up with Clinton disgraced and out of office, though probably not in prison, the lives of a dozen other cohorts crushed and Al Gore as president. We know Gore lies and takes illegal campaign donations. We know he'll pontificate about global warming (been nice this winter, hasn't it?) and otherwise bore us to tears.

But at least we'll have a president who doesn't have the morals of an alley cat.

BILL ZELLMER

Cape Girardeau