Lost Cause, on Mar 6 2007, 12:37 PM, said:
Cait, on Mar 6 2007, 10:59 AM, said:
Lost Cause, on Feb 14 2007, 01:47 PM, said:
Cait, on Feb 14 2007, 03:30 PM, said:
Not all lies are equal, and to make the claim that they are is nonsense. Lying about a blow job and lying to go to war are two different things. I'll still take the moral high road on that one. No one died because Clinton lied about a blow job. Bush cannot say the same thing.
And you can all split the hair that Clinton was under oath and Bush never was, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the POTUS shouldn't be lying to us under any circumstances, especialy when young men and women's lives are at stake.
But you've just nullified your own argument Cait. Clinton was the Pres. and he lied, not only to a grand jury, but to the face of the American people. While you may not believe that all lies are equal, lying under oath, no matter the circumstances, is still perjury. It doesn't matter if it regards an intern "servicing" her boss or if it's me testifying that I saw John Doe kill Jane Ditz when he didn't. Perjury is perjury. "A liar by any other name is still a skunk," to maul Shakespeare.
Oops I just saw this. I agree. A lie is a lie. I never said Clinton didn't lie under oath. What I said is that what Clinton did didn't get anyone killed. I'm sorry, a lie to protect your own ass, while reprehensible morally, isn't the same kind of outrage as a lie that takes citizens to war to die and be maimed. And more to the point, if Clinton was impeached for his lie, why should Bush be allowed to serve in office when his lie has killed people?
If concrete evidence (that'll stand up to scrutiny in court or an impeachment) can be presented that Bush fabricated the proof for going to war in Iraq, then it's plenty enough for impeachment.
However, to say that because Clinton's lie didn't get anyone killed completely demeans the office of President, the top-most person charged with law enforcement in the U.S. What died when Clinton perjured himself was the law, something just as vastly important as one human life, IMHO. He violated the very system he was inaugurated to protect and in doing so demeaned the office and the law.
Outrage is one thing--and at times it can be a good thing. But, sometimes we have to check our emotions at the door and examine things equally. A lie is a lie is a lie is a lie.
I disagree. All lies are not created equal. They are not equal because they don't all have the same consequences. I'm concerned with the consequences of a lie. That isn't saying that a lie isn't a lie, because all lies are in fact lies. On that we do not disagree.
I'm making a distinction on the severity of the consequences of one lie compared to another.. and I'm not saying that the lesser wasn't just as offensive in its own right.
I think you are mistaking my position with the run of the mill "Democratic" position on the Clinton impeachment. I have no problem with the fact that he was impeached. He, after all, lied under oath. That's an impeachable offense, and Congress did its duty. I support the Constitution and in that case I think it worked.
However, as far as the consequences of a lie, one that gets people killed as opposed to one that is covering one's political ass can't be compared IMHO. It's the consequences that I'm looking at, not the one lie is not as bad as another.
This is a subtle distinction, but one I think has to be made. Clinton should have been held responsible for his perjury. I have no problem with that, so please don't misunderstand what I'm saying here.
That said, others that lie under oath should be held to the same standard, and if the consequences of their lies were *even worse* that Clinton's lie, then it is just as prosecutable.
In law, the concept of 'severity' of a crime, is used all the time in determining legal consequences. If a lie [perjury] that didn't get anyone killed is offensive to the office of the President, then I should imagine one that got people killed would be too.
And that is my point.