Unqualified for Office

While comments from readers of the New York Times on the Dominque Strauss-Kahn affair stress, with justification, that the D.A. did not have a winning case and that the numerous lies of Nafissatou Diallo made it impossible for prosecutors to feel they could convince a jury that DSK had raped her, the French reactions that I have read stress the fact that he "got away with it." It's a question of emphasis. It is clear that not only did the prosecutors feel they didn't have a strong case, but they had begun to question the worthiness of Diallo herself as a witness and as a victim. It is clear as well that Dominique Strauss-Kahn got away with something, and that he is (so far) a very lucky man.

Bruno Gollnisch, a member of the EU Parliament and of the Front National speaks of the hypocrisy of the Socialists:

It is not because he was accused that Dominique Strauss-Kahn was guilty. But it is not because Madame Diallo lied to get into the United States that he is innocent! Really, are we to believe then that nothing happened?

Even assuming that the "innocence" of Strauss-Kahn can be reduced to a "paid sexual encounter" as his partisans say, that would mean at best that this married man satisfied his instincts by turning to prostitution, placing himself and his position at the mercy of scandal and blackmail, as subsequent events proved.

Note: He speaks of "blackmail", but he does not elaborate.

This type of behavior - and many other things as well - completely disqualify this erotomaniac both as president of the IMF and as a candidate to the Presidency of the Republic.

The majority of Socialists pretend to condemn prostitution. Their friendliness toward Strauss-Kahn today attests to the degree of their hypocrisy.

Most of the twenty-three comments applaud Gollnisch's remarks.