Monday, April 30, 2007

Sex, Lies, and Money

So what is worse? Sleeping with a moderately pudgy, clingy, twenty-something in the Oval Office? Or getting your groove on with an moderately pudgy, graying, forty-something at the World Bank? Two seats of power. Two very different men, and two very different mistresses. Which is worse? Aesthetically neither couple seems particularly pleasing - Bill and Monica. The blue dress? Yuck! Wolfie and Shaha - I think I vomited in my mouth. I also think according to Bill's technical definition, they may actually have had "s-e-x".

I am not sure what Bush means when he says Wolfie acted in "good faith" regarding his companion. Is that "good faith" like the "good faith" Bush had in WMD in Iraq? or the "good faith" when he at Putin gazed lovingly into each other's eyes? And since when does someone's mistress get to be called a companion? Monica was never spared the ignominy. Why should Shaha be?

Random aside: I wonder if Shaha if of two minds about this though. Remember how Jennifer got mad when Angelina called her Brad's best friend in her Vanity Fair interview. As if Brad somehow viewed Jen as, I guess, asexual. Well talk about choosing a sanitized word. Companion brings up images of old women, spinsters, and chaperons. While they have all but admitted to gettin' it on, the word companion helps us forget.

Anyway, back to the 50% salary bump for his consort? Not even Monica got that and she let the leader of the free world score. All expenses paid trips to Iraq? Now I for one would have preferred Bora Bora, but you know those neo-con types, they'd probably prefer Tora Bora. While I don't begrudge Wolfie and Shaha their little sexcapades could they not do it on the tax payer dime?

And finally, if Wolfie is, and he clearly is, guilty of sleeping with a subordinate, lying about it, covering it up, and giving her huge amounts of money that is not his - then should he not be punished? Clinton did all the same, except unlike Wolfie he does not need to pay people to sleep with him, and he nearly got impeached. It seems only fitting that Mr. Wolfowitz should have to suffer the same.

Just in terms of full disclosure, I almost felt sort of bad writing this, because I just finished reading the article on Wolfowitz in the New Yorker and he really doesn't seem that bad...

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

On why Wolfie had to pay and Clinton did not: Have you compared the two pictures of them?