Letter: Clinton saga not about adultery; it’s question of lying under oath

Tuesday, Aug. 11, 1998 | 10:10 a.m.

Thomas Friedman's column (Aug. 5) about the President Clinton soap opera brought home to me the fact that the view of the world must be focused on the wrong issue, as seems to be the case for a lot of people here at home.

It seems that all the hoopla and statements being made come down to "Did he or did he not have an affair with this young woman?" I, among many, say, "Who cares, and whose business is it but his?" (Although I think we should be able to expect a higher standing of morality from the leader of our country.)

Why is it that the real issue here - perhaps having not told the truth after swearing to do so -- is being swept under the rug? How sad that the people of this nation, and of the world for that matter, are looking at this whole story as an issue about adultery. It is not.

Do people not understand what it is to give a sworn statement in our court system? Are not enough bad jokes being made at the expense of what we have for a legal system? Are these not laws, which we live by, that is supposed to set our country apart from the rest? If the person holding the highest office in the land did lie in sworn testimony, what message does that send?

What repercussions would this cause for anyone in the future putting their hand on the Bible and being sworn in. Should not the issue of where this could lead, if our president thought he were above the law, be of utmost importance? It would have been better to have stood on the Fifth like so many others have done, rather than make a mockery of what many of us hold high.

Carroll A. De-Friend