He also didn't want to scare the hel1 out of the kids by running out of the room. Clearly the administration should have presented the case against Iraq in much clearer/broader terms and not focused so intently on WMD. Now the administration is backed into a defensive position where they must find a way to prove they weren't lying in order to invade Iraq. This plays right into the hands of any opposition to the war effort and seems to be a major blunder. To top this off now the administration is discussing various punishments for the French, should we not be punished if indeed we lied?
I agree. And we would have been a lot more prepared for a long rebuilding effort in Iraq if Bush had focused on the democratizing aspect of the war. Although it won't really be considered a lie if WMD are found. It's kind of strange that administration officials are leaking out this information. It's not coming from Democrats. I wonder why?
Lemme help you out, Max. What Max wants to say is that lying under oath, to cover what might be regarded as sexual harassment, is a higher crime than misleading people as to the primary reason for going to war, especially since the war had good results. And possibly also that he doesn't feel that even happened. This is win-win for me. If I'm right I get that kind of satisfaction. If I'm wrong I will have successfully drawn Max into a political thread which I wouldn't mind at all.
MadMax sez: For roughly the 1,000,000th time: HE WAS NOT IMPEACHED FOR ORAL SEX! HE WAS NO IMPEACHED FOR ORAL SEX! HE WAS NOT IMPEACHED FOR ORAL SEX! He was a defendant in a sexual harassment suit. Within that suit, certain questions were asked of him about his sexual relations with other employees/underlings. He was asked about specific individuals. He lied under oath and said he had never had sexual relations with his White House intern, Monica Lewinsky. This is the kind of information that would be crucial for the plaintiff to prove that this was a regular course of action for Bill. But he lied...knowingly...to keep them from that information. Where I'm from, that's called perjury. It's not the best of ideas...particularly if you're the chief of the executive office of the United States of America. Everyday i'm on the BBS my learn gets a little more on...
Agreed, I don't think the label of liar would ever stick, but certainly we overstated the dangers of their arsenal. In the end I doubt any of our actions leading up to the war will make a great deal of difference either way. We will be in knee deep dealing with N. Korea by then and world attention will no longer be on Iraq.
actually i wasn't comparing the two at all....he said, "clinton only lied about getting a blow job." that's not true...he didn't just lie...he perjured himself...and he didn't just lie about a blow job...he lied about a repeated affair with a subordinate on the job, the very situation he was being sued for! sorry for the confusion... but that darth vader imagery was perfect! with batman playing the role of the emperor..."yessss...i can feel the hatred within you..." the thing that really kills me about bill...that really speaks to his character...is he knew he was going to be asked this question. he knew, the night before as he was getting ready to go to sleep, that he would be asked these questions...they were so material and so relevant to the case. he knew it. and he knew he would lie. and he knew, while he looked himself in the mirror brushing his teeth that night, that he would lie. it wasn't just a spur of the moment, deer in headlights kind of thing. that really disappointed me about bill. i think he ultimately is a kind person who just makes some bad choices. but when his character was on the line, he failed miserably. i would hate to have to live with that.
About the perjury thing, isn't one side lying in almost every civil suit? Why is this not prosecuted? What's the difference?
i don't understand your point at all....no....you can have disagreements without lying. i'm a civil litigator. if i found out a client lied under oath, i'd fire him/her immediately. no...perjury is not the norm. is that really what you think???
How does one fire a client? My only experience with civil court is watching part of the OJ civil case. I think one side was lying. Was he not prosecuted because he was found innocent of murder, ie double jeopardy?
yes...that's what we call it...they can fire us...we can fire them, subject to certain rules (particularly ones that keep them from being stuck the day before trial with no attorney)
1. you simply say, "i don't want to represent you any longer" then you file a motion in court asking to withdraw...usually it's with the client's permission. the court will usually grant the motion, depending on what stage the case is in. 2. was who not prosecuted because he was found innocent of murder? the same fact circumstances were presented to a civil court and to a criminal court. in the civil court, the standard is different...it's a preponderance of the evidence standard, which means essentially means, "which is more likely?" even a feather's weight of more evidence on one side is enough to render a judgment for that side. in a criminal court, a jury can't find someone guilty unless they find so beyond a reasonable doubt...it's a much higher burden. for obvious reasons...if you're gonna imprison someone or take away some liberties, the government should have a higher burden than for merely a civil suit. 3. double jeopardy only applies to criminal courts. you can't be tried for the same crime twice, essentially. it can be more complicated than that, but that's it in a nutshell.
i didn't realize he did lie about it...i'm not sure why not. i don't know enough about it, quite frankly, Woofer. sorry.
