Clinton vs. Wittgenstein

I was just now reading a short synopsis of Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations, and when the topic of meanings of words came up, I thought of Clinton's fabricated distinction of meanings of the word "is", since the valid distinction would not have helped his case. From the author:

"Knowing the meaning of a word can involve knowing many things: to what objects the word refers (if any), whether it is slang or not, what part of speech it is, whether it carries overtones, and if so what kind they are, and so on. To know all this, or to know enough to get by, is to know the use. And generally knowing the use means knowing the meaning. Philosophical questions about consciousness, for example, then, should be responded to by looking at the various uses we make of the word "consciousness." Scientific investigations into the brain are not directly relevant to this inquiry (although they might be indirectly relevant if scientific discoveries led us to change our use of such words). The meaning of any word is a matter of what we do with our language, not something hidden inside anyone's mind or brain. This is not an attack on neuroscience. It is merely distinguishing philosophy (which is properly concerned with linguistic or conceptual analysis) from science (which is concerned with discovering facts).

"One exception to the meaning-is-use rule of thumb is given in Sect.561, where Wittgenstein says that "the word "is" is used with two different meanings (as the copula and as the sign of equality)" but that its meaning is not its use. That is to say, "is" has not one complex use (including both "Water is clear" and "Water is H2O") and therefore one complex meaning, but two quite distinct uses and meanings. It is an accident that the same word has these two uses. It is not an accident that we use the word "car" to refer to both Fords and Hondas. But what is accidental and what is essential to a concept depends on us, on how we use it."

From Clinton's 1998 grand jury testimony:

QUESTION: "Your—that statement is a completely false statement. Whether or not Mr. Bennett knew of your relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, the statement that there was no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form with President Clinton was an utterly false statement. Is that correct?"

CLINTON: "It depends upon what the meaning of the word is means. If is means is, and never has been, that's one thing. If it means, there is none, that was a completely true statement."

Where Clinton is parsing tenses (completed past event(s) versus ongoing condition) he is inventing ambiguity to a word whose meaning is defined by its immediate understanding and usage. Because the current question referred to previous exchanges with another party, his charge of ambiguity with the word "is" almost works, but in a sleight of hand way. He is essentially saying, Because that question was posed in the past by other people, you and I cannot know with any certainty what the intended meaning of "is" was in the minds of the questioners, and whether that meaning corresponded to my then understanding of the word's assumed meaning. Slick Willie, indeed.