Here's the way I see what both sides are saying. Some people like OBL will be terrorists no matter what. In that respect it isn't the hatred of smaller countries that is behind 9/11. However, if the smaller countries didn't have some beef with oppressors, and being treated harshly by the west, there wouldn't be as many people willing to join terrorist organizations and carry out these missions. When people see hope of attaining goals other ways, or don't see as much injustice to begin with then the support for those terrorist organizations both financially and in manpower will decrease. In that way hatred of smaller countries is in part to blame. They see our assertion and influence in the region as meddling, and it does play a role in the bigger picture of what's wrong. If we only look at person A did this let's get person A, and not look at those who support person A, and why they support person A... And actually do something to dissuade that support we can't win the war on terrorism.
Clinton, lied under oath. Unless you give him the benefit of the doubt on defining "is" or whatever. However, you have to be naive or deceitful to keep thinking anyone in cynical Wahsington gave a damn about this except for using it for the political advancement of conservative politics. One of my favorite moments was when I saw the head of the Republican Party stare into a tv camera on a talk show and state: "I have been a lawyer for 30 plus years and I can tell you that it is extremely rare for someone to lie under oath in a legal proceeding!" I'm not saying lying is good, but comeon, Max, join me in laughing about that one. Hardly any criminal matter or civil matter arises, where someone doesn't lie under oath. Don't forget about traffic court, too.
How many terrorist attacks were we victims of before 1991 and after 1991? You can get angry people in any country to do anything when you lie to them and brainwash them. America is just their target of choice at the moment. As soon as we leave the Middle East it will be the Royal Saudis and then it will be Jordan and on down the line.
Refman said: Do you actually believe this? Any practicing lawyers, paralegals or anyone who has been involved in a paternity, child custody or othr family matter out there?
At the lawfirm I was working at during the whole debacle, I got even the most hard nosed Republican (served for Bush, Sr. in some way, can't remember what...some sort of Energy dude) to admit that he wouldn't bring this case to court. I couldn't get one of the 25 or so attorneys I asked at that law firm, from all sides of the political spectrum, to admit that they would pursue that against a normal person. I'm guessing Refman and MadMax's political ideologies are getting the best of them in this situation...just like it did with Ken Starr. glynch, my ex-brother in law lied under oath and directly to the judge when he said he had made all the credit card payments <B>on time</B> after he and my sister split up. When my sister and her attorney showed that no bills had been paid on the credit cards, he wasn't tried for perjury.
wait, wait, wait....entirely different, rm...this was a grand jury proceeding! this wasn't a little proceeding in a divorce court...this lie was quite material...quite a big deal to this case. and he was an officer of the court as a member of the bar in arkansas. there were and there have been lesser persons prosecuted for this. remember the parade of people who testified to congress about serving jail time for lying under oath??? and remember how all the dems in congress said we shouldn't impeach him because he should face criminal charges when he got out of office on the issue instead?? perjury is a big deal...particularly in a grand jury proceeding. in fact, our glorious police chief has just been indicted for lying under oath in an administrative hearing!
So, is there really a difference in who you lie in front of? The lower the court, the lower the penalty? Does that mean that lying under oath is OK in a piddly situation like a divorce? My sister was trying to get her name off the credit cards because he was trying to ruin her credit...that was very material to that hearing. How do you explain a Bush supporter and successful attorney admitting he wouldn't go ahead with anything against someone who did what Clinton did?
20% of the popular vote doesn't matter???? True he split the conservative vote, but the moderate "swing" end of that vote. Without that 20% going to Perot, many have theorized that Clinton would have lost the election. 20% of the popular vote certainly was big enough to change the outcome of the election. Get real.
1. how do you explain a bush supporter and successful attorney saying he would go ahead with the case?? other than mere bias?? the practice of law is just that...a practice...it's not a science...we all have different opinions. 2. technically there should not be a difference...but a grand jury proceeding is treated with a great deal of reverence. it has rules that are very different than any other proceeding. and it forms the basis of whether or not there is enough evidence to move the case forth to trial. there clearly was enough evidence to do so in clinton's case...and he did lie under oath. again, i remember one woman in particular who was serving in the military...she was in front of some hearing and she lied about a sexual affair she was having...she was court-martialed and spent time in prison for perjury. would you be as forgiving of the ken lay/enron crowd if they lied under oath?? i doubt it.
If you are referring to MadMax...he NEVER said HE wouldn't prosecute. He merely pointed to instances where prosecution is rare. He made a factual statement...not one based on his opinions. There ARE instances where normal, everyday citizens have sat behind bars for lying under oath about sex. Does it happen all the time? Nope. But it is often hard to prove perjury. Clinton had CLEARLY perjured himself. He should have faced the same fate. Period. If Bush lied under oath and I could PROVE it...I'd lock him up too.
Refman makes an excellent point...it is extremely hard to prove perjury!!! Clinton's was straight-forward...unless you're willing to buy into the idea that "is" means something different than they way it has been used in the English language for roughly two to three centuries now at least!
Refman, read my post before. I was referring to someone who served under Bush, Sr. and still a very ardent Republican who said he wouldn't have pursued purjury charges against someone if they did the same thing Bush did. You graduated law school right, follow the thread. Gore had more money in his budget for the military, we may be better off with someone who actually went to Vietnam rather than getting his daddy and his daddy's friends to help him stay stateside. ugh, I should've just stayed away...I'd been doing so good for a couple of days. Back to the hole.
The Saudis permitted us to build those bases in the shadows of the mosques. Will Ossama turn his venom on the Saudis eventually? Why or why not? I know he is-- or was-- Saudi...
Knowing that he would get blamed either way, Perot did an exit poll survey of the people who voted for him. That study showed that 51% (or some number close to it) would have voted for Clinton instead and 49% would have voted for Bush instead. After the fact, Republican hacks blamed Perot for their loss, without any supporting survey to back them up. Cynically, I just know that the Republicans had to do the same survey as Perot; they just did not want to admit the result in public to save face. Refman, you are the one having problem with reality, not I. Just because reality does not fit your partisan perspective does not mean you have the right to rewrite history to suit your purposes.
I have heard dozens of legal commentators on this issue of whether this would be omonly prosecuted. Only die hard Republicans take that position. Of course the Republicans were able with diligent reaearch able to find a few examples which don't disprove the general rule. Fortunately the senate and the majority of the population always were able to judge the relative importance of the issue.
Fair enough RM...sorry for the misunderstanding. But we can talk all day about Bush's military record, but it seems a bit odd to do so when Clinton simply fled the draft. The fact is that since we never lived through the Vietnam era we don't know what ANY of us would have done. I assure you that I would have tried anything I could LEGALLY to keep from dying over there.
Good to know that you think the President shouldn't be held to a higher standard than the general populace. We can prove perjury...but hell let him slide. After all...glynch agrees with his ideology. That's all that really matters, right?
Can you provide info on this poll? If not I have severe doubts as to its validity. How large was the margin of error on the poll? Where were people polled? I voted for Perot in 1992 and nobody asked me. You can call people who support the Republican agends hacks and talk about rewriting history all you'd like if it makes you feel somehow superior. The fact remains...if you're going to quote scientific polls then you need to provide all the relevant info (sample size, locations of polling, breakdown of responses in key states, margin of error, etc).
