I'm not saying you are right or wrong with these 4 statements, but could you show us something to back up this information up-- from a credible source?
I respectfully disagree. The latest controversy, in my opinion, has to do with whether we can trust and believe what our leaders tell us.
Exactly. If I have to (*ahem*) swallow that it wasn't about blowjobs but it was about lying under oath, then the same logic will apply here.
so far... And I love how people keep throwing out this figure of 50,000 killed a year like it's some kind of justification for US killing. And where the hell did this figure come from? Actually, it makes me sick
... only when and if that certain special someone has to testify under oath before a Grand Jury. So outside of a courtroom, do you think its perfectly OK for a President to lie or fudge information to the people?
That's a net gain for the Iraqi people now and a brighter future as well. 200 dead Americans chose their life's work and so knew and accepted the risks associated.
I didn't come anywhere near saying that. These are only assertions. It will be difficult to prove a lie because all is predicated on intelligence procured through various sources. This is not a cookbook situation.
I think you are being too literal. I am not making an exact comparison of two wildly different scandals. I'm just saying if the Clinton thing wasn't about sex, but about honestly, then it's fair to say the same thing about our elective war in Iraq. It's about honesty.
#1 and #2 are the ones that could be problematic to Bush. (I guess that's why the author listed them first). #5 also looks like it may have been a lie. The others seem more due to intelligence failures, or not lies at all. When Dick Cheney spoke about the reconsitution of the nuclear program on Meet the Press, he actually misspoke. Tim Russert didn't even follow-up because he knew Cheney really didn't mean that. 4- not sure why that's a lie 6,7,8,9- They used intelligence. 10- They actually haven't figured out what the labs are used for yet.
The Clinton issue was not just about simple honesty. It's more complex than that: the Chief Executive of the Land lied before a Grand Jury. He could have/should have/was (?) dis-barred. Since he presides over the Justice Department, this is a no-no bigtime.
Hey SM, my suggestion is that your logic is erroneous. All sorts of ifs can be parlayed into cause to make some decision or another... but the premises themself have to be true. You might want to look up the difference between a sound and a valid argument. It will clarify my point.
Things look worse and worse for this administration every day. When Clinton was in office, his lie cost the country millions of dollars and the Republicans made it out to be the worst scandal in the history of Presidents. The man got impeached over this lie. Now it is starting to become evident that Bush has lied to the American people on several occasions and it will cost this country 100s of lives and billions of dollars. Don't give me no Grand Jury bull****. Bush's fabrications, exaggerations, and outright lies is far worse than anything you can ever come up with on Clinton. This whole situation makes me sick. That's ok, though. The truth will reveal itself and the people will rise and make their voices heard. Maybe next time this country will get a President that they actually voted for.
giddyup, it's my impression that saying something untrue isn't automatically perjury. It has to be relevant to the case at hand. Clinton's defenders would argue that a consensual affair is immaterial to a question of sexual harrassment. All of that bores me anyway, I was far more annoyed w/ Clinton for looking into the tele and declaring that he didn't have sex w/ her than I was to find out that he may or may not have committed perjury. He lied to me. And that pissed me off. In the same manner, Bush lied to me.
They signed a contract, so their deaths are justified. Nice. And Saddam Hussein didn't kill 50,000 Iraqis every year. American-backed U.N. sanctions did that for him. Look, Saddam Hussein isn't Gandhi. He's a sick b*stard. But to deny America's culpability in this mess shows just how blinding patriotism is to compassion and reason. Just because you were born in America doesn't make it right all the time.
I don't think this is true. We are much better off having Saddam Hussein out of the picture. We were able to move our troops out of Saudi Arabia. Strategically, and for military defense, this war has positive aspects, despite the lies.
It's a tragedy but one that they signed on for and, so , should have known the risks. You can neither deny or change that.
I didn't come anywhere near saying that. These are only assertions. It will be difficult to prove a lie because all is predicated on intelligence procured through various sources. This is not a cookbook situation. I'm not asking if you did say that. I am asking if you think that it would be OK for a President to lie to the people? To extend that, if the answer is yes, do you think would be OK for a President to lie to the people in order to generate support for a controversial action?
