SEX IS IMPEACHABLE ~ LIES ARE NOT
gr...@internet.charitydays.co.uk
________________________________________________________________________
Everybody was up in arms when Bill Clinton lied about sex.
Bush lied about something much more important.
He told falsehoods to make it more palatable to get America into an unprecedented,
aggressive military campaign.
He knowingly lied when trying to convince the nation that war was justified.
________________________________________________________________________
Gerard Oberle
I have a friend (a dyed in the wool Republican), with whom I've joked
that I could cause his world to disintegrate by merely getting Bill
Clinton to assert that two plus two equals four, since his "political"
position is pretty much "If Bill Clinton said it, it is per se wrong."
Without the truisms of basic mathematics, his ability to function
would vanish.
I had reluctantly conceded that lying under oath was a real problem
with Clinton. Nevertheless, I believe that the real reason --- as
opposed to the rationale --- was politics. The Republicans would have
done anything to get rid of a Democrat. Indeed, they had it out for
Jimmy Carter, too, but, as history has shown, Carter was too good to
give them anything to hang him on. In essence, the Republicans are
still trying to get revenge for Watergate.
So where are we left now? If Clinton's sin was truly lying under
oath, then the apparent conclusion must be that lying under oath is
bad; but lying in a State of the Union address and/or using a lie to
justify military action is permissible.
So perhaps sex with interns is still okay, as long as a.) one doesn't
lie about it under oath (but lying to one's wife, for instance, is
okay); and b.) one does not use this to justify military action
(although this hasn't happened since the days of Helen of Troy, unless
I've slept through a history lesson).
Vote Libertarian!
- Jerry Oberle
maureen
wrote:
Just for interest, George Bush and Tom Delay both lied under oath.
Read the following excerpt of an interview between Paul Begala and
Buzzflash, or go to the end and check out the full interview:
Paul Begala is talking about Clinton's Impeachment:
PAUL BEGALA: . It was not about sex. I think I was wrong at the time
when I said it was all about sex. It was all about power. I think if
it was about sex, it would have removed all of their own leaders as
well. If it was about lying under oath, we would impeach George W.
Bush. I mean, I'm sure you're well aware that he lied under oath in a
lawsuit.
BUZZFLASH: You're talking about Funeralgate?
PAUL BEGALA: Right. To me, that was a clear case of perjury. He swore
under oath that he had never discussed an investigation of a funeral
home company -- a really scummy funeral home company -- with either
the funeral home company or its lobbyist for his state agency that
regulates the industry. As the lawsuit went on, the funeral home
company's CEO, the lobbyist for the funeral home company, and the Bush
appointee to the state agency all testified under oath that Bush was
lying -- that, in fact, he talked to all of them about it. Tom Delay
lied under oath in a civil lawsuit in Houston.
BUZZFLASH: Relating to a business partnership.
PAUL BEGALA: Related to pest control.
BUZZFLASH: Pest control.
PAUL BEGALA: And that is well documented. So if it was about the sex,
then there would be no Republicans or Democrats, since everybody's a
sinner. So it wasn't that. If it was about lying under oath -- we
actually know that Clinton certainly was deceptive, as most people
would be about their sex lives -- but, in fact, he did not lie. But,
it's absolutely clear that Bush committed perjury in a civil lawsuit,
and that DeLay did as well. So we know what it's really about. It's
really about power.
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/2002/03/29_Paul_Begala.html
-------------------------
maureen
Troy
> So where are we left now? If Clinton's sin was truly lying under
> oath, then the apparent conclusion must be that lying under oath is
> bad;
True.
> but lying in a State of the Union address and/or using a lie to
> justify military action is permissible.
It's been proven, by a Democrat no less, that President Bush didn't lie in the State of the Union address.