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.
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?
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.
Nice clarification; no argument.
However, I will re-iterate: I want sold proof of the conspiracy to get us embroiled in Iraq based on fabricated evidence. The problem with some of the evidence (especially intelligence data) is the issue of interpretation. I recall a Langley analyst years ago referring to his job as part science-part art.
But, what's really needed is some paper trail, or a string of co-conspirators ready to roll over, in order to get the process started. Instead, neither of those exist and all I hear (granted, I live in a bubble most of the time) are Democratic bomb-throwers and conspiracy theorists from the extreme left-wing raising all this san. Just because some folks minds may be swayed by a small amount of evidence doesn't mean all folks minds will--mine included. I am more interested in making sure that if there is something criminal/impeachable, there needs to be evidence of the sort that will hold up scrutiny in court. When I see that, I'll believe it. Until then, the sort that talked impeachment will always seem revengeful to me.
ETA: My references above were not aimed at anyone on this board; I am speaking generally of those Democrats in high positions who have talked impeachment.
Edited by Lost Cause, 07 March 2007 - 09:27 AM.