AC : “This is again same Presidential pattern of deceit, half truths and plain lies. The President may not have promised anything explicitly – but he sure did implicitly, otherwise why would Miss Lewinsky have availed herself sexually ? Even if we adopt your more benevolent version of events and assume that Miss Lewinsky approached this avowed and professional womanizer with intention of taking advantage of him – clearly, a deal must have been struck. “

DC : “Yes, but we don't know its nature and its parameters. It is therefore useless to talk about this empty, hypothetical entity. You also said that he committed these acts of lust in a building belonging to American public and put at his disposal solely for performance of his duties. This is half-true, of course. This is also home of President, his castle. He has to endure a lot in order to occupy this mansion and separation between private and public life is only on paper. Presidents have no private lives but only public ones. Why should we reproach them for mixing public with private ? This is a double standard : when it suits our predatory instincts, our hypocrisy and our search for a scapegoat – we disallow private life of a President. When these same low drives can be satisfied by making this distinction – we trumpet it. We must make up our minds : either Presidents are not allowed to have private lives and then they should be perfectly allowed to engage in all manner of normally private behaviour in public and on public property (and even at public's expense). Or distinction is relevant – in which case we should adopt “European model” and not pry into lives of our Presidents, not expose them, and not demand their public flagellation for very private sins.”

AC : “This is a gross misrepresentation of process that led to current sorry state of affairs. The President got himself embroiled in numerous other legal difficulties long before Monika Lewinsky story erupted. The special prosecutor was appointed to investigate Whitewater and other matters long before President's sexual shenanigans hit courts. The President lied under oath in connection with a private, civil lawsuit brought against him by Paula Jones. It is all President's doing. Decapitating messenger – special prosecutor – is an old and defunct Roman habit.”

DC : “Then you proceeded to accuse President of adultery. Technically, there can be no disagreement. The President's actions – however sexual acts are defined – constitute unequivocal adultery. But legal and operational definitions of adultery are divorced from emotional and moral discourse of same phenomenon. We must not forget that you stated that adulterous acts committed by President have adversely affected dignity of his office and this is what seems to have bothered you…”

AC : “Absolutely misrepresented. I do have a problem with adultery in general and I wholeheartedly disagree with it …”

DC : “I apologize. So, let us accord these two rather different questions – separate treatment that they deserve. First, surely you agree with me that there can be no dignity where there is no truth, for you said so yourself. A marital relationship that fails abysmally to provide parties with sexual or emotional gratification and is maintained in teeth of such failure – is a lie. It is a lie because it gives observers false information regarding state of things. What is better – to continue a marriage of appearances and mutual hell – or to find emotional and sexual fulfilment elsewhere? When pursuit of happiness is coupled with refusal to pretend, to pose, in other words, to lie, isn't this commendable ? President Clinton admitted to marital problems and there seems to be an incompatibility, which reaches to roots of this bond between himself and his wife. Sometimes marriages start as one thing – passion, perhaps or self delusion – and end up as another : mutual acceptance, a warm habit, companionship. Many marriages withstand marital infidelity precisely because they are not conventional, or ideal marriages. By forgoing sex, a partnership is sometimes strengthened and a true, disinterested friendship is formed. I say that by insisting on being true to himself, by refusing to accept social norms of hypocrisy, conventions of make-belief and camouflage, by exposing lacunas in his marriage, by, thus, redefining it and by pursuing his own sexual and emotional happiness – President has acted honestly. He did not compromise dignity of his office.”

(continued)

Sam Vaknin is the author of Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited and After the Rain - How the West Lost the East. He is a columnist for Central Europe Review, United Press International (UPI) and eBookWeb and the editor of mental health and Central East Europe categories in The Open Directory, Suite101 and searcheurope.com.

Visit Sam's Web site at http://samvak.tripod.com

Again, there has never been a Palestinian state. Not under reign of Israel, of Babylon, Romans, nor Crusaders, Turks nor English, and not under rule of Arab Kingdom of Jordan. Evidence shows that it was never even brought up until after Israel again was established in its homeland.

Michael Kelly made several points in his May 8, 2002 Washington Post article “Israel’s Phony Partner” which look at Yasser Arafat’s role in “ peace process”. On second day of 1967’s Six Day War, Foreign Minister Abba Eban met with U.N. Security Council to make Israel’s case for preemptive strikes in a war forced by Arab nations. Looking at each ambassador he faced, Eban said, “Look around this table and imagine a foreign power forcibly closing New York or Montreal, Boston or Marseille, Toulon or Copenhagen, Rio or Tokyo or Bombay Harbor. How would your government react? What would you do? How long would you wait? The questions remain, and how - or whether - to recognize Arafat as a “partner for peace” becomes current quandary. Officially, U.S. still holds position that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon ought to “recognize who Palestinian people look to as their leader,” no matter “how disappointed we’ve been with him over time.”

Disappointed? Let’s recap. He was given Nobel Peace Prize. Awarded much of land he demanded, plus a $90 million monthly(!) budget, allowed to build an armed force on Israeli territory. Finally, (as America’s former top negotiator, Dennis Ross, revealed recently on Fox News), he got both President Bush and Prime Minister Sharon to promise him all of Gaza and most of West Bank as an independent and joined Palestinian state, including a right of Palestinian return to that state, plus a multibillion-dollar reparations fund - and what does he do? Goes to war, and proveably orchestrates terrorist attacks against Israel. Yes, disappointed.

Some U.S. media, and even Secretary of State Colin Powell, may still believe Arafat is a peace partner, though Powell noted “we all may disagree with what Mr. Arafat had done over time.” We sure may. Take murder of 6 people and wounding of 30 more at an Israeli girl’s Jan. 17 bat mitzvah in Hadera, just one of many terrorist acts directly linked to Arafat’s control in documents found by Israeli forces in Palestinian Authority offices. These documents were revealed in a 103-page report released by Israel’s government in support of Sharon’s position that they cannot pursue peace with Arafat as a “partner”.

Mr. Kelly’s article states, “The New York Times buried its coverage of report on A10 and sniffed that evidence did ‘not appear to show definitively that Palestinian leader ordered terror attacks.’ The Post gave it front-page play but was even more dismissive, treating Israeli evidence with open disdain. The first ‘objective’ characterization of material, third paragraph, does not address documentary evidence at all but in a contrary slant notes that report contains ‘a great many assertions and allegations for which no documentary proof is offered.’ In paragraph 12, after three paragraphs of Palestinian officials and lawyers dismissing evidence as propaganda, The Post's reporter offers first and only judgment supporting Israeli side: ‘Nevertheless, some of material in report appears potentially damaging to Palestinians, and could hurt their standing in international public opinion.’”

In light of spurious claims of Palestinian sovereignty to begin with, and growing evidence of Arafat’s ongoing commitment to destruction of Israel and her people through any and all means, this cannot be viewed as balanced reporting.

If U.S. had credible evidence to believe that a certain rogue Islamic leader was responsible for a terrorist campaign of murder and destruction against America and her people, what would we do? How long would we wait? We’ve already begun to live this. And we did exactly right thing. Without delay. We mounted an army, with support from many free world governments, against that leader and his followers. We bombed them, shot them, chased and arrested them and shipped them to Guantanamo Bay. And if we had their leader trapped in his compound, we would not even consider letting him out and setting him up as a “partner for peace”.

One of life’s strangest ironies is that people of two of world’s three major monotheistic religions, sharing teachings of Abraham, continue this history of bloodshed. They are brother tribes, both Semites, descendants of Shem. (Despite consistent misuse of term, “anti-semitic” refers to hatred of Arab and Jew alike.) Brothers and sisters, whose bickering has gone obscenely far beyond sibling rivalry.