Your point is almost too silly to warrant a reply, but here goes.
The quoted statement was the President's lecture to the IC that his attorney's statement was literally correct, because President Clinton was not having sex at the time the attorney's statement was made.
So, the IC asks how it is possible to square two opposing facts: (1) Lewinsky's semen-stained dress with (2) his laywer's statement that there is not sex going on between him and Lewinsky. And his reply is to engage in an utterly ridiculous "lecture" to the IC that his lawyer was speaking truthfully because he was not engaged in sex at the time the statement was made. And it's the IC who is splitting hairs? Pullleeezzzzze!
This is a man who testified that he was never alone with Ms. Lewinsky because, after all, there's always someone, somewhere, lurking in the White House grounds. Your hero is man-child who lives in an alternative universe unfamiliar to adults who have more than two brain cells to rub together.
Nice try, but your statement has no relation to the context in which President Clinton lectured the IC.
The correct context was that the IC asked President Clinton why he did not object when David Kendall said "There is no sex." The exchange about "is" only related to literal truthfulness of Mr. Kendall's statement, and had nothing to do with semem-stained blue dresses.
Actual qoute from his grand jury testimony: "[I]t depends on how you define "alone" ... there were a lot of times when we were alone, but I never really thought we were."